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

steve-L

Wootball wrote: »

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.

My mate rear ended someone at traffic lights....
He just admitted liability and 'maintains' his foot slipped. I think he was not paying attention....

I bet if he had tried denying liability he would have ended up paying more than the insurance premiums

When I said argue I didn't mean 'shouting match', I mean her version of the story. I've had a few conversations over the years with people who have said how it was 'not their fault' based on misunderstanding of road markings, priority and traffic laws ... that if I was the police I'd surely want them to attend and pass a course to correct this!

One of these was 'you are on a bike so I have priority' (actually in a similar incident to the one you described!) ... Luckily just bruises but I imagine if they aid that to the police they would be proving their requirement to retake their test!

Another (and the car at fault being on the wrong side of the road) ... I don't remember the excuse but somehow they thought they had priority??? (In fact its hard to imagine what their excuse was .... and a while ago but I remember being absolutely gobsmacked )

and finally.... from a pensioner .... (and I swear this is also true)...
This roundabout wasn't here when I passed my test.... so I am just going to continue treating it like a junction. (I actually stopped to give my details as a witness for this.... and he maintained this after the police arrived. )

Avoriaz

steve-L wrote: »

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. ....

The OP also wrote " and our respective husbands turned up and picked us up".

The OP also has a baby.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that the OP is a man in a civil partnership, but I think the OP is a woman.

Avoriaz

Dukesy, I'm sorry this has happened to you.

I understand you want your No Claims and Excess back but there is a possibility that won't happen.

Hopefully the insurance companies will sort it all out in your favour.

If they don't then you have the very large consolation that you and your precious baby survived more or less intact.

This could all have ended up tragically.

Please try and focus on that rather than any financial loss.

Good luck.

steve-L

Avoriaz wrote: »

The OP also wrote " and our respective husbands turned up and picked us up".

The OP also has a baby.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that the OP is a man in a civil partnership, but I think the OP is a woman.

Thanks, missed that and as I said I don't care either way......
I did get an impression though that for some it seemed to be a point of contention if the OP was a 'poor woman' or a bloke? (Like I say impression).... Noone was trying to BLAME the OP (except the 3rd party and her insurers) just ascertain what the 3rd party might be thinking.... hoping to pull.... or just in denial!



Regardless, the OP is obviously rightly distressed and likely the 3rd party and their insurers are just delaying....

Insurers especially as their whole business is the numbers game!
Make innocent people wait, gain a few weeks of interest.... hope it pressures someone into accepting partial liability.... its all heartless and pure business to them.

Most importantly is obviously the baby is unhurt..... so on the small chance they get partial liability (and I think everyone seems to think its a small chance) in the vast scheme of things its not important.

On insurance but medical.....
Last December my Kid got rushed into St. Thomas's Intensive care.
He's fine now ..... but the medical insurance guys were a pain... (last thing you need in that circumstance) ... and even after agreeing to repay a per diem accom. still dragged stuff out as long as possible... (Sworn statement from Matron.... then not enough need head of the UK's best PICU to sign....) ..... non of this was relevant, it was simply a delaying tactic ... I'll bet they had already made some internal 'we will have to pay but drag it out' decision.

Dukesy

For the record I'm female, although I don't think that matters in any way.

Have finally managed to get some more sense out of my insurance, although 'sense' is a fairly loose term when dealing with insurance!
Apparently the third partys insurers have now gathered all the documentation they need, diagrams etc (although whose diagrams they are I have no idea, and I find this a rather worrying point) but are still 'investigating'.

spacey2012

Nobody has posted it was the OP's fault.
The OP came here for help as the insurance are denning liability.
The possible cause of that liability argument was examined and possible question they may face and points examined .
Are we only allowed to post drivel such as "it will be all right hun"

The most likely arguing point is the OP was parked on the wrong side of the road in the dark with headlights on.
Pointing this out does not mean anyone is blaming them, just alerting them before they get "caught out" with possible tricky questions.
the OP will be far better prepared knowing where they might want to lead.
Or is "you'll be fine" the preferred option.

steve-L

Dukesy wrote: »

For the record I'm female, although I don't think that matters in any way.

It never did for me! Erm, didn't even view the 'we were both pickd up by respective husbands' ... since your gender was immaterial I skipped that....

Have finally managed to get some more sense out of my insurance, although 'sense' is a fairly loose term when dealing with insurance!
Apparently the third partys insurers have now gathered all the documentation they need, diagrams etc (although whose diagrams they are I have no idea, and I find this a rather worrying point) but are still 'investigating'.

I wouldn't let it overly concern you....
It might be interesting as to who your and their insurers actually are.... are they both part of the same company/group....
One thing they MIGHT try (if they are both part of the same overall company) is to try and put a slight bit of liability onto you so they rake in the extra premiums twice!

It doesn't mean they will get away with it! Just something they might try....

Loganfire

At times like this my advise is go pay her a visit.

Dukesy

Loganfire wrote: »

At times like this my advise is go pay her a visit.

I can see that going well...

Dukesy

And it goes on... the third party's insurance have now paid my hire vehicle charges and are apparently going to pay up on the rest of my claim on a 'without prejudice' basis. Whatever that means. Still got to wait to get my excess returned and no claims discount reinstated though! I loathe insurance.