Rta not my fualt. other party not claiming liability

wearethep5

Basically i was out a drive yesterday. sun was pretty bright. i was on a b road 60 limit and approaching a side road on the right that i was going to turn into about 150 yrds before the junction i checked my mirrors and noticed a car about 300 yrds behind me so i indicate and start to brake just before i turn i have a quick glance in my wing mirror and dont see the car that was behind and as i begin to turn (travelling around 10-15mph) the car that was behind me hits the side of my car and comes to a stop about 25 metres up the road (both cars only had minor damage and nobody was seriously injured). the police came and took seperate statements from me and my girlfriend who were in my car and the driver of the other car who was the only person in his. there were no witnesses and the police charged the other driver with careless driving. i now have to pay a 650 excess as im only 19 to get my mums car fixed and i dont have that kind of money. my mums husband is blind so my mum needs the car. the other driver didnt contact his insurance and it was my insurer who informed his insurers who then contacted him. he has now said it was my fualt and he has a witness who says i didnt indicate therefore it was safe to overtake me. there was nobody else at or anywhere near the incident at the time but he did phone a friend to come pick him up and i presume that is who has said is the witness although he used my phone to call his friend as he didnt have one so would that prove there was no witness ? i now have to come up with the excess to get the car fixed which i wont get back until the police reports get to the insurers and the 2 insurers fight it out which could take a long time.
im pretty angry at the fact im paying almost 2k premium and even though the other driver is clearly at fualt i am being penilised.
really just looking for some advice also it would be less expensive for me to pay to fix the car than it would to pay the excess but if i do that will i lose the legal benefits that my insurance provides ? my girlfriend has got pretty serious pain in her back neck shoulders and her left arm keeps getting numb and tingly so i need the legal benefits to put through a personal injury/loss of earnings claim.
sorry for the poor grammer and such as im on my mobile and its a nouscence to type with.

claret_mike

You were travelling down the road and wanted to turn right.

You started to turn right and collided with a car that was overtaking you.

You state that you were indicating, the other party state you were not.

There is a witness but you are confident that there was not as no one presented themselves to the police who attended the scene.

If I have understood correctly. It is likely to go 50/50 and you will both be held at fault.

1 - Without independent witnesses, it is one word versus another.

However, I would point out the following from the highway code...

167

DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example

approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

It will take time to sort out unfortunately. Who are the insurance companies involved?

Re - your personal injury of your passenger - if they look to make a claim, there is potential that it could go in against your own policy. You do not need legal expenses protection to get legal advice but you probably do need to speak to someone who can advise you correctly on the situation

wearethep5

I dont understand how it can go 50/50 when the police have charged the other driver with careless driving.

The other man was also in his 60s and walked with cruches and drove a mobility car and as we spoke to him he said something interesting. I said look im not going to argue with you to which he replied ive been in a lot of crashes i know the drill. Obviously with this being my first accident i didnt really know how to go about things other than to exchange details and phone the police.

Does the fact he didnt let his insurer know he was in an accident not show addmission of guilt as i presume as it was minor damage he thought i would just go off and fix it and not get insurance involved.

He was along way behind when i indicated and began braking so he knew well before the incident that it was unsafe to overtake yet i suppose he thought he would get past before i turned. When we spoke he said the reason he overtook me was becuase he thought i was STOPING TO BIRDWATCH. Really!

Am i better off paying the excess or just paying for my car to get fixed. My dad said if i get the car fixed it will look like im guilty. Is this the case ?

wearethep5

Sorry insurers involed were aviva for me and royal sun and alliance for the third party

paddedjohn

Just tell your side of the story to your insurers and let them deal with it, and calm own.

maninthestreet

The other driver has been charged with careless driving, but has he been to court yet and foiund guilty?

EDIT - sorry, just read the opening post again - accident only happened two days ago.

InsideInsurance

Either way it is a split liability decision..... its been a while since I did liability decisions so cant quote the case law but my memory is that it is ~70/30 in your favour if you were indicating. Both parties are performing a manover requiring higher duties of care and so neither are absolved of blame

On the plus point, you'll get ~70% of excess etc back, down side is that it is still a fault claim

rpc

You need to pay the excess to get the car fixed. Then the insurers argue the toss about liability.

You knew there was a car there, you didn't check to make sure the car was somewhere safe at the time of the maneuver. There may be some liability on your part, particularly if the witness stands up.

On the other hand, the police account will carry a lot of weight and they will be able to clarify whether there was a witness.

wearethep5

there was definetly no witness. if he is saying his friend who picked him up is the witness i have prove that he used my mobile to call him after the incident.

also i just found out that it will cost around 500 to fix the car and it is an old car and valued at 650 so if my insurance decide to write off my car do i need to continue paying 200 a month for the insurance to fight for the claim or if i cancel it will they just not fight the case? im pretty angry that the man who hits me has hardly any excess to pay and also doesnt even have to pay insurance becuase hes on mobility so the crash has hardly effected him. yet me being a young driver have a huge excess to pay for the car to be written off and i might never see it again and my premiums will at best stay the same price next year.

wearethep5

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Either way it is a split liability decision..... its been a while since I did liability decisions so cant quote the case law but my memory is that it is ~70/30 in your favour if you were indicating. Both parties are performing a manover requiring higher duties of care and so neither are absolved of blame

On the plus point, you'll get ~70% of excess etc back, down side is that it is still a fault claim

when i told my insurance compamy what happened they told me they were treating it as a non fualt claim? insurance is nothing but one massive rip off in my opinion

InsideInsurance

If it is a write off then normally the policy is suspended. If you buy another car you can then transfer the policy onto the new car and the policy continues.

If you dont restart the policy within a specified time limit then the policy is cancelled and the remainder of the premium becomes payable due to you having a fault claim.

There are some insurers however that dont allow this and simply the total loss stops the policy and the remaining payments are deducted from any settlement.

If you cancel the claim then typically your insurers wont continue to pursue the TP as they have nothing to pursue them for but they will continue to defend any claims they receive

wearethep5 wrote: »

when i told my insurance compamy what happened they told me they were treating it as a non fualt claim? insurance is nothing but one massive rip off in my opinion

Insurers dont make the laws on liability, they simply try to predict what the courts would do (in the same way solicitors do)

The person that told you it was to be treated as non-fault, was that the person that registered the claim? Liability is a complex area of law and so not everyone is fully trained in it at insurers simply as a cost consideration.

When I dealt with disputed liability cases, before moving on to Personal Injury, I would say probably 20% of our cases came from the "non fault" team where the first response guys had miss allocated it and that was with all roundabout and narrow lane collisions automatically coming to us (in theory)