2mph accident - insurance have paid out £5K to other party!!!

Parking_Trouble

lisyloo wrote: »

Not for an 84 year old person with alzheimers ready to go into a nursing home it's not.
Just because YOU can do it, don't assume that every other person can (it's called empathy).
Children for example should be entitled to be adequately represented even if their parents were deceased.

If people want claims cost to go down, then they should be more careful about having shunts however minor.

It was only a matter of time before some self righteous WUM came along to tell us not to have accidents.

By their very nature these incidents are ACCIDENTAL, i.e not deliberate.

Where is your empathy? Oh yeah you don't have any because you don't have accidents.

No one on here is saying you MIL doesn't deserve some compensation. An 84 year old with Alzheimers is hardly going to be in a position to fake a claim is she?

This thread is a rant against fake claims, keep up!

marywooyeah

lisyloo wrote: »

Agreed.
Which means whilst you might disbelieve them, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that it's not genuine and therefore can do nothing about it.

I settled on a claim for whiplash recently (some KH drove into the side of my car whilst I was taking my driving test). I used to think people made it up but I was suprised at how painful it was and how much it affected day to day tasks and my uni work.

I had to go to a medical examiner chosen by the third party and he asked me a lot of questions, quite personal and borderline intrusive too before getting me to do a series of exercises (eg can you touch your toes, move your head at this angle etc), I think if I had been making it up it would have been quite easy for the examiner to disprove my story and quite rightly so.

[Deleted User]

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't consider myself an expert, that why I try improve.
It appears that you think you don't need to.

It's a legal requirement.
But certainly if you had my qualifications you'd get a discount in recognition for making yourself 70% less risky.

Where on earth did I say that I think I dont need to !!!!!!?

It was my fault for the accident - so what? My complaint is that the other person is getting paid out for a dodgy claim.

And your qualifications are???

[Deleted User]

ILW wrote: »

Not driving into stationary objects would save a lot of problems.

let him without sin cast the first stone...

[Deleted User]

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

It was only a matter of time before some self righteous WUM came along to tell us not to have accidents.

By their very nature these incidents are ACCIDENTAL, i.e not deliberate.

Where is your empathy? Oh yeah you don't have any because you don't have accidents.

No one on here is saying you MIL doesn't deserve some compensation. An 84 year old with Alzheimers is hardly going to be in a position to fake a claim is she?

This thread is a rant against fake claims, keep up!

Thank you PT. This poster seems to think they are so perfect that it would never happen to them.

I never doubted the accident was my fault and I was happy for my insurance company to pay for the damage. This poster seems to think the way of the 3rd party I encountered - it was my fault therefore they deserve a payday out of it...

[Deleted User]

marywooyeah wrote: »

I settled on a claim for whiplash recently (some KH drove into the side of my car whilst I was taking my driving test). I used to think people made it up but I was suprised at how painful it was and how much it affected day to day tasks and my uni work.

I had to go to a medical examiner chosen by the third party and he asked me a lot of questions, quite personal and borderline intrusive too before getting me to do a series of exercises (eg can you touch your toes, move your head at this angle etc), I think if I had been making it up it would have been quite easy for the examiner to disprove my story and quite rightly so.

Mary - its genuine people like you who get the rough end of it by having to go through this.

However, I think you were unlucky - I'm sure most people are able to scam it easily...

Crazy_Jamie

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

By their very nature these incidents are ACCIDENTAL, i.e not deliberate.

Indeed; if the accident was deliberate then this would likely be a criminal offence. But it should also be remembered that just because something is accidental it doesn't mean that it is no one's fault. In this situation the accident was, as the name would suggest, accidental. But the accident was caused by the OP's negligence, and that quite rightly gives rise to liability.

The statement that 'accidents happen' is quite true on the face of it. But using such a statement as an implication that accidents are not preventable would be wrong. Accidents based on negligence are preventable; if they were not, one party would not have liability for it. Equally, whilst the OP should not unduly beat themselves up over what was simply a momentary lapse in judgment, the tone of recent posts is edging towards self exoneration of blame because 'accidents happen', which pushes matters too far in the other direction.

Which, in fairness, is a common theme in threads such as this. As the conversation progresses you see the general theme solidify into criticising those who are 'opportunistic' or 'fraudulent', and the negligence that caused the accident is almost entirely forgotten. It's not a surprising trend by any means, especially given the way that the media cover this issue, but just because people are so willing to jump on that particular bandwagon, it doesn't lessen the ignorance on which the view is built on.

The truth of the matter is that in terms of percentages, fraud as regards personal injury claims is in a small minority. Cases such as this, where injury is alleged to have occurred at low speed, are called 'Low Velocity Impact' or LVI cases, and are subject to their own separate strand of procedure and precedent. Insurers can be hesitant to allege fraud because it is serious accusation that must be supported by evidence, but LVI cases make it a lot easier to go down that route due to their very nature. Consequently insurers will more readily defend an LVI case, relatively speaking, than they will an average personal injury case simply because fraud is suspected.

What that means is this. In the current case the OP's insurers would probably have considered going down the LVI route, but decided against it. The possible reasons are numerous. It could be that they didn't believe that the accident happened at 2mph, which is unlikely given the mechanism of the accident, but it is not unusual for Defendant drivers to underestimate the speed at which LVI collisions happen. It could be that the angle of the collision (being side on) made injury more likely. It could be that the medical evidence was particularly compelling due to, for example, some pre existing injury. Or there are a couple of other possibilities. Either way, the insurers here would have had some reason to settle the claim rather than run an LVI argument. But the reality is that we don't know why the decision was taken not to defend this claim; it could have been a combination of reasons. What is clear is that the OP's insurer didn't think that there was sufficient evidence to show fraud, even going down the LVI route. Does that mean that the third party has not been fraudulent? No, but all things considered it makes it unlikely that they were.

Yet the majority of members who have contributed to this thread, and indeed those like it that consistently crop up in this forum, are happy to assume that the third party has been fraudulent. And this is then highlighted as the reason why this industry/country is in such a mess. When in fact the most likely cause for the eventual payout in this case is that the OP has been negligent, due to a momentary lapse admittedly, and injured somebody in doing so. Which is the reality of most injury claims. Then again, I guess it is easier to rant at faceless 'fraudulent' individuals than it is at someone who has made a mistake that fundamentally most other drivers have made at some point.

Mr_Benn

Just to add my penny's worth here as were going thru this .

Our car was written off when a guy went thru a red light and hit it.
Despite 2 independant witnesses saying they saw him cross on red, he is still disputing it :mad:, so any compensation claim were making is being dragged out.

Mrs Benn is still really suffering 2 months on with arm pains, and is very emotional still about it.

We'd rather the whole episode hadnt happened than make any money. But the fact is it did happen. We are understandibly agrieved that he hasnt been prosecuted by the police, that we have recieved a pathetic sum from the insurers for our written off car, and that the whole compensation claim is being dragged out. The other team have 3 months to explain why they are disputing it - what a farce.
Its made us even more determined to try and get every penny were due for this .

I have no idea how much we're due - but the thought we dont get as much as some of those just getting £10k for nothing makes me feel sick . Months of pain and stress, and the real cost its made on us to buy a new car , just sometimes dont get taken into consideration.
Mrs benn is due to see an independant doctor in the next few weeks, so at least the ball is rolling , albeit slowly.

[Deleted User]

YES. But if there is damaged caused then someone is to blame obviously. Accidental or not then its caused by someone.

I've not once said the accident was not my fault. Negligent. Maybe but then so is everyone else who is at fault for an accident.

I have no problem at all that is going on my record as a fault claim. Also, I played fair and admitted to the 3rd party and my insurance that it was my fault. As such, perfectly happy for my insurance to pay for the damage I caused.

Just not so happy for them to cough up and give her a payday for injuries I DID NOT CAUSE. Thats the big difference.

Crazy_Jamie

[quote=[Deleted User];48025569]
I've not once said the accident was not my fault. Negligent. Maybe but then so is everyone else who is at fault for an accident.[/quote]Well, yes. I don't mean to sound harsh labelling the lapse as 'negligent'. That is legally the correct phrase; it is intended as an expression of fact rather than a personal judgment.

paulfoel wrote:

I have no problem at all that is going on my record as a fault claim. Also, I played fair and admitted to the 3rd party and my insurance that it was my fault. As such, perfectly happy for my insurance to pay for the damage I caused.

Indeed, and I should clarify that your view on that particular matter is more accepting than average on these forums. Whilst your comment of 'accidents happen' prompted a response from me in my earlier post, it would be unfair of me to suggest you haven't accepted responsibility for the incident.

paulfoel wrote:

Just not so happy for them to cough up and give her a payday for injuries I DID NOT CAUSE. Thats the big difference.

This is the crux of the matter really. My point (albeit expressed in a much more lengthy manner above) was that chances are you did actually cause them, albeit I understand why it is difficult for you to accept that that is the case.

Mr_Benn wrote:

I have no idea how much we're due - but the thought we dont get as much as some of those just getting £10k for nothing makes me feel sick .

Litigation is often lengthy and stressful even when you have solicitors acting for you. This is especially true when liability is disputed. My advice would be to let go of these thoughts of others who may be 'getting a lot for nothing'. Because, as stated above, such reports are usually misleading either in their content or in the view they provide of the industry. Your experience of the litigation process is not uncommon, and the last thing you need is to think that it is.