Rta not my fualt. other party not claiming liability

wearethep5

yes it was the person who registered the claim that told me this.
how is it possible for insurers to get away with half the stuff the get away with its a disgrace. my family needs a car due to my mothers husband being blind. if the car is written off what options do i have and if we manage to get a new car inside the time limit do i need to pay the insurance premium for the tine it was suspended ? i only work 16 hours a week at minimum wage and my mum and her husband are on benefits due to my stepfather being blind so it is difficult to get together the cash for the excess and try to buy a new car while still paying 180 a month for inurance. why are insurers allowed to charge so much for young drivers when age discrimination is not allowed for employers and other suh things why do insurers get away with it. in my opinion the government need to review how insurers calculate there premiums. in theory my insurer expects me to write off my car 4 times a year as the premium is 4 times more than the car is worth.

can the liability still be split even when the other driver has been charged by the police?

sorry for ranting but the fact somebody has made a mistake and hit me and now my family will be without a car and a lot of money out of pocket is really hard to take. also the fact the man who hit me has lied to save his skin when a claim againt him will make little to no difference to his life. and now if the decision is split liability i doubt i will be able to afford or even get insurance for the next few years is extremly upseting after the amount of time money and hard work it took to be able to afford to drive in the first place.

also if the car is written off and i cancel my insurance will my legal cover still be there for my pi becuase my girlfriend has slight nerve damage which is making her arm constanly shake and she loses feeling in it along with a bruised abdomen and pain in her neck and shoulders ? i just hope it settles down over the next few weeks and theres no lasting damage.

Oli.s

Doubtful that he has been charged with anything in only two days, especially at the roadside!

He will have been interviewed and told that the facts of the incident are being reported for consideration of summons. The paperwork will be sent to the cps who will decide to summons him for the offence or not.

Being told the matter is being reported for summons is a procedural matter, it's a pre cursor to being prosecuted, but just because he's been reported doesn't mean he will be prosecuted, though it sounds like he should in this case!

InsideInsurance

If your insurers are the type that allow a policy suspension then no, premiums arent payable during that period. So if you suspend it with 4 months left and then reinstate it on a new vehicle it will be reinstated with 4 months left to run (so it moves out the end date).

Insurers do vary a lot on these things though so it is worth talking to them about their policies and procedures.

The police and liability are two totally different things and just because someone commits a criminal offence it doesnt automatically make them liable. The classic example is a drunk driver is stopped at traffic lights and falls asleep/ passes out at the wheel. The car behind sees the lights change and so moves off driving into the rear of the drunk drivers car.

Whilst the driver in front is found guilty of drink driving the driver at the back is found responsible for the accident due to hitting a static vehicle.

Plus police make mistakes, being charged is not relevant generally, being found guilt is.

The legal expenses policy will stand even if the policy is cancelled as it was inforce at the time of the incident. Plus if there is nerve damage (amazed thats been diagnosed within 48 hours) the amount of comp that she will be suing you and the other driver for will certainly push it into the fast track level so the sols get paid in full and could work on no win no fee if necessary

Unless the courts have changed their minds recently, they would not agree that you were without fault in the accident as certainly ~8 years ago they would be attributing ~30% of the blame to you for failing to make full observations immediately prior to the incident.

wearethep5

she was in a&e last night and the doctor told her that he suspects its becuase of the crash and it could either be minor nerve problem or purely be associated with the whiplash and it should stop when the whiplash goes away.

i did check my mirrors before begining the manouvre but i didnt see him until he hit me. does the fact the highway code say that you should not overtake coming to a junction on either side of the road not make him liable ?

claret_mike

Aviva are a shocking company to deal with. Expect a drawn out process. RSA are pretty awful too.

It can take 3 mths to get a police report too so its not going to be quick either here.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Oli.s wrote: »

Doubtful that he has been charged with anything in only two days, especially at the roadside!

He will have been interviewed and told that the facts of the incident are being reported for consideration of summons. The paperwork will be sent to the cps who will decide to summons him for the offence or not.

Being told the matter is being reported for summons is a procedural matter, it's a pre cursor to being prosecuted, but just because he's been reported doesn't mean he will be prosecuted, though it sounds like he should in this case!

I doubt he was interviewed at the roadside and if he has been reported he now can't be interviewed.

And no need for a nip following a collision the driver is aware of.

chanz4

he wont of been charged that quick, more like reported for the ofence of driving without due care and attention. its upto the cps, and they wont decide that quicl

amiehall

wearethep5 wrote: »

she was in a&e last night and the doctor told her that he suspects its becuase of the crash and it could either be minor nerve problem or purely be associated with the whiplash and it should stop when the whiplash goes away.

i did check my mirrors before begining the manouvre but i didnt see him until he hit me. does the fact the highway code say that you should not overtake coming to a junction on either side of the road not make him liable ?

From your account, this incident doesn't seem as clear cut as you think it is. I understand your emotions are running high, however, just as much as I agree the TP should have waited until it was safe to overtake you, you were responsible for checking it was safe before you completed your maneuver.

tripled

Was your indicator bulb working and visible? He might be lying, he might not have noticed you indicate, or maybe there was nothing for him to see?

Assuming your version is correct, sounds like he was in the wrong, but you should have kept an eye open for him. Easy mistake to make, but particularly on rural roads, often there aren't many places to overtake and people will overtake when there are minor roads coming off. I do it on an almost daily basis, but I do watch for cars turning!

I don't understand why you're claiming the insurance companies are a rip off. It appears you have fully comprehensive insurance, so they will pay for your car to be repaired (up to it's value), or write it off and give you its value (minus the excess). If it is agreed you are not at fault, once they get the money off the other party they will also refund the excess and you may be able to claim costs as well. If you are not cleared of blame, you will get a proportion (or none) of your excess back.

It sounds like you think your insurer should pay out the excess as well based on your say so. That's not the way the world works. Fair, maybe not, but that's the way it is. It would be equally unfair on the pensioners whose funds have investments in the insurance co if they paid out and then facts came to light it was actually your fault, and you'd spent the money.