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

[Deleted User]

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

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.

I know what you mean but in all seriousness, I had the reversed the car literally 3 feet. The front of the car as I swung it around clipped the passenger door.

To be honest, you'd have had a bigger bump if someone had slammed the boot of the car hard....

Jacobblue

Hi, Im not sure if this is the right forum or not but I have a question about an insurance claim. My friend recently had a car accident and the other person was claiming it was my friends fault. The other woman wanted £2k in compensation for the damage to her car (she was kicking the front of her car whilst at the scene of the accident) and this also included person injury damage. The insurance company offered her £1,500 which she accepted. Her husband has now written to my friend demanding £400 or they will take her to court. My question is apart from the fact where did they get my friends address from is can they take her to small claims even though they accepted the money from the insurance company?

Crazy_Jamie

JacobBlue wrote: »

Hi, Im not sure if this is the right forum or not but I have a question about an insurance claim. My friend recently had a car accident and the other person was claiming it was my friends fault. The other woman wanted £2k in compensation for the damage to her car (she was kicking the front of her car whilst at the scene of the accident) and this also included person injury damage. The insurance company offered her £1,500 which she accepted. Her husband has now written to my friend demanding £400 or they will take her to court. My question is apart from the fact where did they get my friends address from is can they take her to small claims even though they accepted the money from the insurance company?

A highly suspect story all round. Still, on the off chance that it is genuine, if the offer from the insurance company included damages for personal injury and damage to the vehicle (which is probably did), then the third party cannot make any further claims arising out of that accident. If they attempted to take your friend to court wanting more money for injuries or repairs, their claim would be struck out as an abuse of process.

Jacobblue

Thanks Jamie, but sadly it is a true case. My friend had a letter 3 weeks ago stating that the insurance company had settled on £1,500 and that was meant to be the end of the matter. Then today she got another letter only this time from the husband of this woman who was involved in the accident demanding £400 or they would be going to the small claims court. This is not the only instance of the insurance company not bothering with these sorts of claims as I know someone who is an insurance assessor and she said the insurance companies are cutting so many corners that these claims are getting through and are becoming more and more common.

I think the concern here is not the money so much but more the fact that this guy has her home address. I was on the understanding that insurance companies deal with each other and then with their clients and at no point do the clients ever get any personal details of each other such as home addresses.

I would like to know if this woman has done this before as I would suspect she has as she seemed very professional in how she approached the situation.

Anyway thanks again for the advice.
Again thanks for your help

Quentin

JacobBlue wrote: »

Thanks Jamie, but sadly it is a true case. My friend had a letter 3 weeks ago stating that the insurance company had settled on £1,500 and that was meant to be the end of the matter. Then today she got another letter only this time from the husband of this woman who was involved in the accident demanding £400 or they would be going to the small claims court.

Just pass the letter on unanswered to your insurer to deal with.

(These days people have all sorts of ways and means to trace you.)

Parking_Trouble

@CrazyJamie

Thank-you for your rational responses.

I repeat that I have no issue with legitimate claims. Examples given by victims on this thread are pretty much clear cut.

It is very difficult to prove or disprove whiplash so it is easy pickings for PI lawyers and sympathetic medics. It is a gravy train paid for by the motorist.

Whilst no win no fee lawyers and referral fees exist there will be a significant number of false claims. It is recognised by the industry as a problem.

The insurers pretty much operate as a cartel and all of them go for a quick settlement without too much challenge. It keeps costs down and as we know whiplash cannot be proved or disproved. Ideal scam territory.

My insurer told me they will make pre-medical offers to whiplash victims to keep costs down.

I don't see how admin people in the insurance company are equipped to challenge. It is a tick box process.

I read that in Germany all PI claims go before a judge. They do not entertain any claims where the accident occurred at less than 10 kph.

You mention quite rightly about negligence of the driver but I would also suggest that people going on a car journey have to accept that there is a risk of being involved in an accident which could result in an injury.

If you don't accept the risk then choose an alternative, statistically safer method of transport.

In my view it is morally wrong to take two grand for a stiff neck for a few days. Most people don't see the £2k lawyer fee and £500 medical fee. It is not free money. Someone has to pay.

Crazy_Jamie

Parking_Trouble wrote:

I repeat that I have no issue with legitimate claims. Examples given by victims on this thread are pretty much clear cut.

It's interesting that you assume that people posting in the thread are not fraudulently claiming for injuries, yet seem to have no problem assuming that those who are referred to in the thread without posting in it (e.g. the third party in the OP's case) are fraudulent. Fundamentally there is little separating the two in terms of the evidence we have available. For all we know the person who caused mary's injuries had their time complaining on another forum about how the third party in their case was brazenly claiming for injuries. Like I said, it is much easier to criticise faceless individuals.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

It is very difficult to prove or disprove whiplash so it is easy pickings for PI lawyers and sympathetic medics. It is a gravy train paid for by the motorist.

The thing is, you need to stop looking at the injury and start looking at the people. The average person that is injured has no real prior knowledge of whiplash or personal injury litigation, and therefore would never dream of putting in a fraudulent claim. The majority of 'knowledge' about civil litigation and whiplash that is banded about on forums like this one is little more than a mixture of 'pub knowledge' and Daily Mail articles. The reality is so very different to the theory.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

Whilst no win no fee lawyers and referral fees exist there will be a significant number of false claims. It is recognised by the industry as a problem.

A debate over Conditional Fee Agreements can wait for another time. The fact that reform of CFAs seems increasingly inevitable thanks to the Jackson Report will likely make such a debate moot in any event.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

The insurers pretty much operate as a cartel and all of them go for a quick settlement without too much challenge. It keeps costs down and as we know whiplash cannot be proved or disproved. Ideal scam territory.

Remember that 'pub knowledge' I mentioned earlier? This seems to be an ideal example. Because considering how straightforward your claims seem to be, there does seem to be an extraordinary number of disputed claims that go before the courts. All major insurers have fraud departments, and the courts are still clogged with disposal hearings where insurers simply haven't made a high enough offer in personal injury claims involving relatively simple injuries. Neither of which seems to tie in with your claims in the above quote. Though if you actually have experience and/or insider knowledge that you're drawing on here, as opposed to the half told whispers of a newspaper or the chinese whispers of an internet forum, please feel free to share.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

I read that in Germany all PI claims go before a judge. They do not entertain any claims where the accident occurred at less than 10 kph.

If that is true (I wouldn't know either way), then I'd consider both points to be poorly conceived. All PI claims going before a Judge is a horrific waste of costs, and injuries can occur in collisions below 10kph. I'd be glad that neither policy is in force in this country.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

You mention quite rightly about negligence of the driver but I would also suggest that people going on a car journey have to accept that there is a risk of being involved in an accident which could result in an injury.

If you don't accept the risk then choose an alternative, statistically safer method of transport.

You see, these are the sorts of comments that will stop people from taking you seriously. Just to clarify, are you honestly suggesting that people should be prepared to take responsibility for injuries that they suffer as a result of the negligent driving of others, when they themselves have been negligent in no way other than choosing to drive a car?

Parking_Trouble wrote:

In my view it is morally wrong to take two grand for a stiff neck for a few days. Most people don't see the £2k lawyer fee and £500 medical fee. It is not free money. Someone has to pay.

Two grand for a stiff neck for a few days is, I hope, pure hyperbole. But the point is worth exploring. Do you seriously think that people should be not entitled to compensation for injuries and damage caused to them by the negligence of others, or that claiming for such compensation is somehow morally wrong?

Parking_Trouble

Come on Jamie. You are being selective in picking out my statements.

Tell me why insurance premiums are rocketing and what can be done to bring costs back down.

How do you prove whether a whiplash claim is genuine or not?

The guy at the insurance company dealing with my son's accident (absolutely his fault) told me that they make pre-medical offers to keep costs down. If that is not an easy path for fraud then I don't know what is.

Please impart your wisdom on why they do that. That's not pub talk that's my first hand experience.

I hear about and see plenty of comments about ambulance chasers hounding people to make a claim on a no-win no-fee basis.

I haven't had a call myself but I suspect it is not a qualified solicitor making the calls but a self employed agent on commission. Someone trying to persuade you to make a claim so they can make a few bob. Must be very tempting to oversell it.

I can hear the words - "Go on mate, it's easy. They usually pay up without even putting you through a medical. It won't cost you a penny"

The solicitor won't care how the custom is drummed up. He can afford to pay a decent commission to get his "injured party" on board.

Admiral pass on details and take referral fees. Morally wrong, a conflict of interest through fuelling the inflated claims which lead to higher premiums. Not a problem for Admiral when then can just pass the cost on to customers.

Whichever way your try to polish it up it still stinks. A rotten business and symptomatic of the state this country is in.

Crazy_Jamie

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Come on Jamie. You are being selective in picking out my statements.

I quoted every statement you posted in exactly the same order that you posted them, with the exception of the one about insurance companies making pre medical offers, which I will address here because you've repeated it. There is no twisting of your words here; I am quoting them unedited.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

Tell me why insurance premiums are rocketing and what can be done to bring costs back down.

I'll keep this as short as I can, because this could get too lengthy. There are a number of reasons for the whiplash/PI related increases. Some main ones include;

i) Heightened advertising from PI firms leading to increased awareness of members of the public regarding the fact that they can claim for injuries.
ii) Conditional Fee Agreements, though there are a lots of benefits to these as well given that they provide access to justice. Reform rather than removal is needed.
ii) Poor handling of claims by insurance companies, leading to too many claims running to disposal hearings and huge costs being incurred as a result.
iii) Fraud, though this is not nearly as significant as people think it is.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

How do you prove whether a whiplash claim is genuine or not?

The main question is what 'prove' means. In a civil claim the standard is 'balance of probabilities', not the 'beyond reasonable doubt' that is in criminal proceedings. So a judge only needs to be satisfied that a claim is genuine on a 51/49 basis. That is a significant, because you can have doubt and still find a case proven.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

The guy at the insurance company dealing with my son's accident (absolutely his fault) told me that they make pre-medical offers to keep costs down. If that is not an easy path for fraud then I don't know what is.

It could potentially be, but you need to remember a few things. Specifically, pre medical offers are not made in every case. Far from it. Secondly, most people just do not have the capacity to commit insurance fraud by claiming they have an injury that they didn't suffer. Most people simply could not commit that level of crime. There seems to be this wild assumption that ordinary people in the street suddenly decide to commit fraud when they are involved in a car accident. For the most part that is a senseless assumption to make. The majority of personal injury claims are not fraudulent.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

Please impart your wisdom on why they do that. That's not pub talk that's my first hand experience.

They do that to pre empt claims and keep costs down. Pre medical offers are inevitably very low, and whilst the odd fraudulent claimant may be offered a settlement that they shouldn't get, on the whole that approach saves money. It is certainly not an approach that leads to an increase in premiums.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

I hear about and see plenty of comments about ambulance chasers hounding people to make a claim on a no-win no-fee basis.

Of course you do. It's all over the media. It doesn't make the information accurate. For a start, people consistently fail to make the distinction between solicitors and case management companies. People also don't realise that a lot of the texts and such they get about making claims are actually scams and not 'ambulance chasers' at all.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

I haven't had a call myself but I suspect it is not a qualified solicitor making the calls but a self employed agent on commission. Someone trying to persuade you to make a claim so they can make a few bob. Must be very tempting to oversell it.

I suspect that your suspicions are spot on. That or the person may actually be attempting to scam you.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

I can hear the words - "Go on mate, it's easy. They usually pay up without even putting you through a medical. It won't cost you a penny"

Anyone telling you that they will pay up without you going through a medical is likely to not genuine at all, because for these companies to make money legitimately they need you to go through a medical. It's amazing how little the distinction between solicitors, claims management companies, and scam artists is actually made. People prefer to lump them all together for the sake of staying on the bandwagon.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

The solicitor won't care how the custom is drummed up. He can afford to pay a decent commission to get his "injured party" on board.

Most solicitors do not pay commission to potential claimants. Most solicitors are also entirely ethical and advertise their business legitimately. Again, the commonly held view of solicitors doing anything to get business is wholly inaccurate for the most part.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

Admiral pass on details and take referral fees. Morally wrong, a conflict of interest through fuelling the inflated claims which lead to higher premiums. Not a problem for Admiral when then can just pass the cost on to customers.

This is one part that I agree with. Insurance companies do pass on details and take referral fees, both from claims management companies and solicitors. That is in the process of being stamped out, and rightly so.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

Whichever way your try to polish it up it still stinks. A rotten business and symptomatic of the state this country is in.

Guess it wouldn't be a rant without you ending your post with something like this, which you might as well have pulled straight from the Daily Mail.

vaio

Whilst I agree with the general thrust of your comments I'll take issue with.....

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

......Pre medical offers are inevitably very low, and whilst the odd fraudulent claimant may be offered a settlement that they shouldn't get, on the whole that approach saves money. It is certainly not an approach that leads to an increase in premiums.........

It seems to me that these either reward fraudsters who don't fancy their chances at a medical or pressurise genuine claimants into accepting "very low" compensation, neither of which are desirable outcomes.

Also, I suspect the fine distinction between.....

....Most solicitors do not pay commission to potential claimants....

and

........Insurance companies do pass on details and take referral fees, .... from .... solicitors......

is a bit too subtle for Joe Punter, in both cases solicitors are paying for cases and if anything it seems better to me that the injured party should get the "bung" rather than an insurance company/claims handling firm