Insurance Claim Problem, Other party not informed company

InsideInsurance

I am surprised they arent interested in selling your details to a credit hire company! Its a significant income (or negotiating tool) for many brokers and insurers

Google the credit hire companies in the excel document - if you look on here you will see one or two are possibly best avoided! I cannot recommend any due to knowing a couple of them too well to be unbiased

seven7two2

They have just admited liability, am I better of dealing with their insureres or my own?

Just offered me a like for like car...I drove a MR2 turbo...Offred me a 1.3 Fiesta...and thena 1.6 Astra....then an Insignia!?

Erm... Hah

InsideInsurance

Yes, dealing direct is generally better as it removes any risk to you having to carry a bill at the end of it.

If you do decide to claim for injury then there is more of an argument to not going direct but its still debatable.

storick99

I recently visit your forum really this is more informative to us.

ahxcjb

storick99 wrote: »

I recently visit your forum really this is more informative to us.

Just on that note, there's a matter of fact that needs correcting in this thread. A driver can NOT admit liability - and certainly not at the roadside. It's irrelevant whether they admit it there or not. The _only_ entity who can admit liability is the third parties insurers.

InsideInsurance

ahxcjb wrote: »

A driver can NOT admit liability - and certainly not at the roadside. It's irrelevant whether they admit it there or not. The _only_ entity who can admit liability is the third parties insurers.

Of cause a driver can admit liability, it is them that action is taken against. Contractually the insurer will tell them they must not do it but evidently people can breach their contracts and frequently do.

They can admit at the road side but there is generally the issue of proof that they did, proof that no duress was used to obtain the admission and thirdly a general defence of not being in a fit mind immediately after the highly stressful event of being in a car carsh meaning that an admission at the road side is fairly irrelevant.

ahxcjb

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Of cause a driver can admit liability, it is them that action is taken against.

NO IT IS NOT. The 'action' is taken against the drivers insurers. ONLY THEY can admit liability. Please stop talking total tosh.

System

ahxcjb wrote: »

. The 'action' is taken against the drivers insurers. .

You are perfectly at liberty to bring an action against the other driver personally. If he chooses to he can admit liability and pay up.

ahxcjb

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

You are perfectly at liberty to bring an action against the other driver personally. If he chooses to he can admit liability and pay up.

..and that driver will simply forward the paperwork from the court to his insurer. The insurer indemnifies their client against cases such as this. Why are people unaware of the fundamental basics?!

BertTheRaccoon

ahxcjb wrote: »

NO IT IS NOT. The 'action' is taken against the drivers insurers. ONLY THEY can admit liability. Please stop talking total tosh.

Sorry chap but you're completely wrong.

Any civil "action" is taken against the policyloder/driver. The insurers then have an obligation to satisfy the judgment pursuant to sections 151 & 152 of the Road Traffic Act, as well as other sections.

The policyholder does not have authority to admit liability on behalf of the insurers, but the policyholder can still admit liability.