Help... DH just crashed my car.

sarahg1969

Kira000 wrote: »

They CANT have been all in indivdual seats and restrained.. in a dual control learner car being used for personal purposes so pax seat has to be vacant. That leaves driver in front, and 4 in the back. Anyone know a learner driver car with 4 seat belts in the rear?
I accept that they were hit, and its hard to argue they couldnt have whiplash. BUT, the way i see it (and will argue to the insurers), they can either try and claim for all 5, which will prove they werent all strapped in and risk the full claim, or they will have to "lose" a person and go for 4 and claim they were strapped in.

The fact that they can't have been doesn't necessarily mean they'll say they weren't. They will probably say they were all correctly restrained, and the OP can advise her insurers that it was a dual-controlled car, so there could have been no one in the front. Some people will say anything to make the most of their claim.

I've had people argue till they're blue in the face that all 4 of their children were wearing seatbelts in the rear, because their car has 4 seatbelts (no car does that I know of).

Badger_Lady

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I've had people argue till they're blue in the face that all 4 of their children were wearing seatbelts in the rear, because their car has 4 seatbelts (no car does that I know of).

Depends what you call 'rear' - wouldn't an MPV with 5 rear seats count?

Crazy_Jamie

I will admit to not knowing enough about the rules regarding dual controls and who can/cannot sit in the seat to be able to comment on that. However, did you husband actually see four people sitting in the back, or is this an assumption? Just because the car may have been fitted with dual controls it doesn't mean that no one was sitting in that seat, even if they weren't supposed to be.

It will have to be clarified as to what the driver actually meant when he spoke to your husband. There are lots of different explanations for it. He could be referring to a previous injury. He might have been referring to something else and mistakenly called it whiplash. He could certainly have been making a play for fraud, but at the same time if he was that clued up about the claims process he would have either realised that whiplash symptoms don't generally come to the fore immediately, or suggested that everyone in the car has whiplash.

Overall matters relating to the car and what the driver meant will have to be clarified in due course. It is very easy to jump to conclusions about things in situations like this, but it is usually best to try not to do so.

On the off chance that the car was overloaded and they weren't all wearing seatbelts, standard contributory negligence for not wearing a seat belt is 25% in accordance with Froom v Butcher.

thenudeone

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

as he was driving on your insurance it will be your details, and you don't need to report it to the police.

That statement is only true if he produced the certificate of insurance to the other driver at the time (which is not mentioned in the post so presumably he didn't). So he should have reported it to police.

Road Traffic Act 1988

170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.
(1)This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [F2or other public place], an accident occurs by which—
(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(b)damage is caused—
(i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.
(2)The driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
(5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of [F4a motor vehicle] does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—
(a)to a constable, or
(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,
the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage.
(6)To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver—
(a)must do so at a police station or to a constable, and
(b)must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.
(7)A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (5) above is guilty of an offence, but he shall not be convicted by reason only of a failure to produce a certificate or other evidence if, within [F5seven] days after the occurrence of the accident, the certificate or other evidence is produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when the accident was reported.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170

I would get him to go to the nearest Police Station straight away to report the accident. He still gets 7 days to produce the documents but he must report it straight away.

McKneff

Stop mithering yourself about it, he had a crash, some people got injured, yes, your insurance will go up, but that's life.

Let the insurance companies do the work, thats what you pay them for.

sharpy2010

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Even if the person is fraudulently claiming an injury, how does that show that Conditional Fee Agreements are ridiculous?

If they are fraudulently claiming an injury, using the No win/No fee system, then of course that is ridiculous!

No one should be able to fraudulently claim anything at all, and in fact it is just this practise that means our car insurance prices are getting ludicrously high at the moment. Insurers have to recoup that money from somewhere.

Crazy_Jamie

sharpy2010 wrote: »

If they are fraudulently claiming an injury, using the No win/No fee system, then of course that is ridiculous!

Obviously I don't condone people making fraudulent claims, but Conditional Fee Agreements are a separate entity. People bring fraudulent or frivolous litigation all the time. That doesn't inherently make the legal system itself flawed. The problem in that case is the people, not the system. Hence why I question your assertion that CFAs are ridiculous simply because people some people bring fraudulent claims that are funded using them. The vast majority of people who conduct litigation via a CFA are not fraudulent, so I fail to see how you make the leap in logic that CFAs are ridiculous just because a small minority of people who bring fund claims using that system are fraudulent.

Of course this could just be a misunderstanding on your part, as you referred to 'no win, no fee laws', when in fact CFAs are simply a method of funding claims. There is no law to them fundamentally. You could just be talking about personal injury litigation in general, in which case my criticism would still stand of your stance, albeit with a refined slant.

sarahg1969

Badger_Lady wrote: »

Depends what you call 'rear' - wouldn't an MPV with 5 rear seats count?

Obviously, I'm talking about a normal car. I wouldn't be questioning someone if they had a people carrier!

Badger_Lady

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Obviously, I'm talking about a normal car. I wouldn't be questioning someone if they had a people carrier!

LOL then what's 'normal'

Crazy_Jamie

Badger_Lady wrote: »

LOL then what's 'normal'

Presumably the type of car that is fitted with dual controls for the purposes of providing driving lessons. You don't see many driving instructors in seven seater vehicles.