Knocked over and car hit. 3rd party now denying liability.

paddedjohn

Robin-i'-the-Hood wrote: »

Dukesy...ignore all the garbage from a few of the people on this thread. Why some contributors start with the assumption that you are either lying or haven't got your facts straight is beyond me...(if they think that any reply to your post is utterly pointless) You have lost your car but escaped with your life and your child still has a parent. How people here can witter on about sidelights/facing the wrong way/car the wrong colour (ok, I made the last one up) so making it potentially partially your fault amazes me. Why not go the whole way and say it's your fault for being parked in a layby at all? (although not sure what else a layby is for except to be used...)
Anyway...although you may not consider yourself lucky I'd be grateful if you could PM me your lottery numbers. Thanks.

No where has anyone said the OP was lying, at the end of the day the insurance company will try and find any excuse possible not o pay out and one avenue they may explore is the fact the OP was parked facing the wrong way with their lights on, no ones saying they will win only that they will try to weedle out of paying.

Dukesy

Fivetide & Robin i' the hood, thanks for your comments. It's not something I would wish on anyone - hearing your baby screaming in the car whilst you're lying on the ground is a horrible thing. Just really, really lucky he's fine.

rs65

Dukesy wrote: »

I refused a trip to A&E as all I wanted was to get myself and my 14 month old, who had been in the car at the time of the collision and was absolutely hysterical home.

We were both breathalysed,

A bit harsh breathalysing a 14 month old.

(sorry)

I think all will be fine. A month or so really isn't long for liability to be decided, particularly where injury is involved.

I suspect both insurers will be expecting this to be settled in your favour but the other insurers may need to persuade their driver that she was at fault. It is quite common for people to come up with peculiar reasons why something wasn't their fault - they just need to be shown otherwise.

spacey2012

Out of interest what was the speed limit on the road.

photome

spacey2012 wrote: »

Out of interest what was the speed limit on the road.

Is that so you can post some more points of law and tell the OP she was at fault.

Why do nearly all motoring threads get full of it

OP I wouldnt worry, and hopefully the insurer is trying it on and everything will be sorted in your favour and as has been pointed out, it could have been much worse.

As an aside I wouldnt park facing oncoming traffic unless there were trees or something else providing cover

steve-L

photome wrote: »

Is that so you can post some more points of law and tell the OP she was at fault.

Is the OP male or female? Not that it matters except the only named gender (without going through everything again) is the 3rd party that hit the OP's stationary car. The OP plainly say's SHE several times.

Why do nearly all motoring threads get full of it

??

The only people suggesting the OP is at fault are the 3rd party and HER insurers.

OP I wouldnt worry, and hopefully the insurer is trying it on and everything will be sorted in your favour and as has been pointed out, it could have been much worse.

This is probably a lot of hot air from the 3rd party and HER insurers. However, if the car was illegally parked then it becomes a bit of a possible (but not likely) mess.

The question about speed is actually already answered... the reason it is important is because that makes a difference to parking legally or illegally at night!
If the road is classed as ABOVE 30mph then they must have lights.
We have actually already determined this!

As an aside I wouldnt park facing oncoming traffic unless there were trees or something else providing cover

Why?

Aside.... the 3rd party or her insurers are claiming she denies liability.
What her story is, no-one but her and her insurers know!

In the meantime the OP can double check the location and ensure they are water-tight. It will probably all come to nothing but you can never be sure nor how long the 3rd party and 3rd parties insurers may 'hold out' on a technicality or something cannot easily be proven or disproven.

Like the artic-truck that was on the wrong side of the road approaching the 3rd party sen she swerved into the layby?
The OP knows there wasn't one (presumably) but how does he/she prove it? Equally the 3P can't either.... except in all probability the 3P will still lose 100%... it just adds stress to the OP.

Knowing what might be 'said' by the 3rd party and being able to double check are not bad things. In all probability its a superlong shot denying responsibility for the 3rd party....

Wootball

It's normal to deny liability - if you don't buy a ticket, you don't win the raffle.

I got T-Boned by a car pulling out of a junction intending to turn right onto a main road, drove straight into the side of me as I went past at a normal speed in the left lane. An absolute muppet of a move for the woman driving to attempt. I had 6 witnesses and the police turned up. The police sent myself and the woman a note of intended prosecution against her for driving without due care and attention and stipulating that she needed to attend a course and retake a driving test both at her cost.

Even after this, she denied liability.

Eventually it all went my way as we knew it would, I got a settlement for my car (which was written off) she got a written off car and a £300 charge for a course and driving test.

steve-L

Wootball wrote: »

It's normal to deny liability - if you don't buy a ticket, you don't win the raffle.

I got T-Boned by a car pulling out of a junction intending to turn right onto a main road, drove straight into the side of me as I went past at a normal speed in the left lane. An absolute muppet of a move for the woman driving to attempt. I had 6 witnesses and the police turned up. The police sent myself and the woman a note of intended prosecution against her for driving without due care and attention and stipulating that she needed to attend a course and retake a driving test both at her cost.

Even after this, she denied liability.

Eventually it all went my way as we knew it would, I got a settlement for my car (which was written off) she got a written off car and a £300 charge for a course and driving test.

She would have been better not buying the lottery ticket!
Presumably, she argued with the police about who was at fault and proved her incompetence! Had she admitted liability and said she wasn't paying attention or 'distracted by the kid running along the road' she would have saved the £300 and whatever it took to re-pass the test... which from your description could still be ongoing for many years!

learningaboutinsurance

steve-L wrote: »

In the meantime the OP can double check the location and ensure they are water-tight. It will probably all come to nothing but you can never be sure nor how long the 3rd party and 3rd parties insurers may 'hold out' on a technicality or something cannot easily be proven or disproven. ....

I read this and not move from this thread until i left a comment. the above quoted post is bang on the money :T. evey word of this is so true

they will hold on or find the smallest detail to delay or dispute.

just my 2 pence

Wootball

steve-L wrote: »

She would have been better not buying the lottery ticket!
Presumably, she argued with the police about who was at fault and proved her incompetence! Had she admitted liability and said she wasn't paying attention or 'distracted by the kid running along the road' she would have saved the £300 and whatever it took to re-pass the test... which from your description could still be ongoing for many years!

She didn't argue with the police as far as I'm aware - that was their very first contact with either of us (aside from roadside after the accident). She was going to suffer that punishment whether she admitted it or not.