Hastings Car Insurance BEWARE

Williewonthe

Anyone who is insured with Hastings and is unfortunate enough to have a bump, or an alleged bump, do not rely on Hastings knowing what to do to defend the case.

I have just lost in court against someone who fraudulently alleged that I had hit the body of his car (our wing mirrors touched - that's all) and caused the usual "injuries" (whiplash, etc, etc.). If we had got into court I could have proven that he was lying but we weren't even allowed into court because the judge found for the other side before the case had begun, simply because the defence was not on the basis of the Low Vehicle Impact Protocol.

I had an unjustified rant at the solicitors, only to be told that it was Hastings who should have put in that defence. I had provided Hastings with photographs to show that what was alleged could not happen and did not happen!


I now have the first claim against me since September 1975, when I passed my test, and am paying a supplement to my premium because I have a claim against me - all because Hastings did not do what, according to the judge, they should have been done!

Thank you, Hastings

PDAH

Hi I have a complaint with Hastings see the topic 'Hastings Motor Claims 'Scam' . In your case the dynamics of the collision mean that it is quite likely that no injuries would follow when wing mirrors collide. There simply is not enough weight in the mirrors to cause any sort of disturbance with the vehicle occupant(s). Hastings have their fingers in a few pies and as far as I can see when you sign upto be insured with them you give them the green light to rip you off at every opportunity.

rudekid48

A reasonable guess would tell me that the Insurer underwriting your policy with Hastings is Advantage?

If so, then they are actually part of the Hastings Group. So do you honestly believe that Hastings would deliberately allow a fraudulent claim to be awarded against them knowing that the cost of it comes out of their own pot?

There are usually two sides to every story, with claims like this probably 4 or 5 sides. It usually comes down to the Insurer concerned accepting the path that will cost them less money to settle.

sarahg1969

rudekid48 wrote: »

It usually comes down to the Insurer concerned accepting the path that will cost them less money to settle.

This case went as far as court. The judge awarded damages on the basis that no low-speed-impact argument was put forward.

On the basis that the OP was actually in attendance, he must have been in contact with the solicitors, in which case, he would have known what the defence was, and the solicitors would have obtained a statement from him regarding the accident circumstances.

If no argument was put forward on the basis of a low-speed impact, some other defence must have been pleaded; and it looks like the judge didn't accept that defence.

PDAH

This was just incompetence on the part of the insurers solicitors...but that incompetence has cost the customer. The insurers should appeal or otherwise pay the customer for the consequences of loss of NCD etc

sarahg1969

PDAH wrote: »

This was just incompetence on the part of the insurers solicitors...but that incompetence has cost the customer. The insurers should appeal or otherwise pay the customer for the consequences of loss of NCD etc

It may have been incompetence, or it may have been that there was engineering evidence that would not have supported the contention that it was low speed. However, I do wonder what the defence actually was, if the OP had to go to court. There must have been some kind of defence other than the value of the claim (which wouldn't have required his attendance). We obviously don't have the full picture.

pcyam

Im with Hastings and my car was hit but when insurers got involved he disputed it!!!. I was hit September 2010. Either Hastings/Advantage/Drivers Assist, god knows who, because they keep blaming each other, when the statement from the other party was not received they were meant to chase but wasnt done (they actually admitted it to me), they would go to small claims court in May 2010. And that they would send all paperwork so it would go through court, I ring htem in June 2011. and guess what the case handler said to me O, umm for some reason I didnt send the paperwork off!! With work and other stuff involved I completely forgot and rang them September 2011, and they stll not fill in paperwork for it to go to court, October 2011, stll nothing so I ring them, to be told a new case handler and from the pictures I sent them its quite clear that I was hit and not the other way round.

Now its November 2011, they say that they now have a statement from the other party and my pictures are not clear to say he hit me. If you would like to continue to go to court sorry but we cant help. You can employ someone to help you to go to court, best we can do is 50/50!!!!

Annoyed is polite. how I feel is not air able on the forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PDAH

It may have been incompetence, or it may have been that there was engineering evidence that would not have supported the contention that it was low speed.

The engineering evidence regarding 2 wing mirrors colliding would have been very interesting to say the least........but if you dont follow the LVI protocol you are 'whistling' in the wind so to speak.

Hastings owe the policyholder who should complain and insist on an appeal. If they say no...the policyholder should get the file transferred to another firm and consider the merits of an action against the previous solicitors.

Williewonthe

To date I have refrained from responding to the two ridiculous assertions by sarahg1969 that:

A) “If no argument was put forward on the basis of a low-speed impact, some other defence must have been pleaded; and it looks like the judge didn't accept that defence.”

and

“However, I do wonder what the defence actually was, if the OP had to go to court. There must have been some kind of defence other than the value of the claim (which wouldn't have required his attendance). We obviously don't have the full picture.”

Because, at the time, I just felt they were comments from someone who is determined to have an argument and any response from me would just have brought about even more ridiculous statements. After talking to a friend who knows about such things, I now feel that, as she said, the person in question may be a mole employed by Hastings (and possibly other insurers) in an attempt to rubbish the assertions by an aggrieved insured person.

To respond briefly to the above comments:

A) NO OTHER DEFENCE was put forward. In fact, no defence was put forward in court. The judge dismissed the case, WITHOUT any court procedure where both myself and the claimant would have been questioned, because Hastings had not presented the case on the basis of the Low Vehicle Impact Protocol. There was no other defence that the judge "didn't accept". The judge would not hear the case at all, NO DEFENCE WAS PLEADED, simply because of the LVIP!

The defence, if I had actually got into court, would have been that the so-called collision simply did not happen (see next paragraph). The claimant said that I, in an Audi A4, hit the side of his Vauxhall Astra at 20 miles an hour and threw his body around in the car causing the injuries for which he was claiming. In his final submission to the court he confirmed what I already knew, what I had told Hastings, and what I had proven by the photographs that I had sent to Hastings, that his car did not have a mark on it!! Was his car the only one in the world that could defeat the laws of physics. An impact at 20 mph, his body thrown around, but not a mark on the car???

No….. He was quite simply lying. In fact my barrister told me that the claimant's barrister had said to the claimant that if my barrister had got the claimant into the witness box he would have "ripped him apart". ALL sides knew that the claimant was lying but the case was not examined, because there was no court hearing. The judge would not hear the case because Hastings INCOMPETENTLY had not proceeded with the case under the Low Vehicle Impact Protocol.

That is "the full picture". I expect another ridiculous comment from the lady in question which, I feel, will prove that she is a mole to make Hastings appear blameless but the reason they had to pay out is that they didn't follow the correct procedure, something they should have done.

The only good thing to come out of the whole affair is that the claimant's mother was in court with him and she saw that her son had (successfully) defrauded the insurance company and that he was a liar and a general scumbag. A pyrrhic victory for £550!

paddedjohn

No wonder you lost in court if it takes you 7 months to respond.

Williewonthe

What a ridiculous response.

I have already said that I have not replied until now as I though that the two 'responses' in question were from someone who just wanted an argument (without any basis in reality). It was only when talking recently about the 'responses' with a friend did she point out that insurance companies uses moles to try to discredit justified complaints from customers.