Minor accident - advice needed (insurance)

OnanTheBarbarian

The duress argument is a load of smelly brown stuff. Fair enough if the other party is stood over you threatening to cave your head in and you write a note at the scene promising to pay, but sending a text hours or days later.....

Relying on such an argument would frankly annoy a judge and you would get well and truly potted.

Stoke

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

The duress argument is a load of smelly brown stuff. Fair enough if the other party is stood over you threatening to cave your head in and you write a note at the scene promising to pay, but sending a text hours or days later.....

Relying on such an argument would frankly annoy a judge and you would get well and truly potted.

Why? Maybe days I agree, but hours after an accident you could still feel intimidated.

And besides, they now have an independent witness that says the fault was on the other driver. That would suggest there was some intimidation behind sending the text.

Quentin

Stoke wrote: »

And besides, they now have an independent witness that says the fault was on the other driver......

As previously posted the opinions of the witness are irrelevant and you suggesting they are relevant is a red herring for the OP

OnanTheBarbarian

Witnesses have a habit of not actually seeing what happened, being eager to assist and in-turn play accident reconstruction expert and give an account of what they believe happened, rather than what they actually saw.

I'm guessing the cyclist was probably busy looking in front of him, rather than what was going on behind.

All things considered, on the information offered within this thread by the original poster, I'd probably favour taking the other party as a prospect.

But at the end of the day, without speaking with the OP and the witness and clarifying points in finer detail, the whole thread is speculation.

goomba

http://goo.gl/maps/yCsYb

Looking on this street view the accident happened about half way between the bottom of the image to the 'SLOW' sign on the road. We'd already straightened up, the other car was behind and tried to get ahead of myself and the cyclist but he will obviously say something different and I'm not sure how they can prove it. If my witness can be proved to be independent and that he is lying about his being there then hopefully that will swing things heavily in my favour.

It was the rear passenger door and the panel running across the side which made contact with his car, there was no damage to my car apart from marks which disappeared when I rubbed them off. He had paint marks/light scratches on his driver side front door and a dent on the bottom of that door.

Quentin

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

All things considered, on the information offered within this thread by the original poster, I'd probably favour taking the other party as a prospect......

This gives us an insight!

You would be quite happy fighting for the other party knowing he phoned up his "witness" and asked him to come down to the scene and give false witness?

OnanTheBarbarian

I disregarded the "witness" dear chap.

You seem to like posting with the pretence of "us" Quentin, implying that you are representing the views of the forum.

goomba

Hopefully insurance won't disregard the fact that he lied about having a witness then...

Quentin

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

I disregarded the "witness" dear chap.

You seem to like posting with the pretence of "us" Quentin, implying that you are representing the views of the forum.

When I say that you being happy to represent a client knowing he manufactured a false witness gives us an insight, the "us" refers to the "us" reading your post (as you know)

OnanTheBarbarian

But if I was approached by the other party with his "witness" I would not know the witness was bent would I? As a lawyer you don't get to speak with both parties. You take the information and instructions from your client at face value.

It is only after you have taken instructions and put forward the allegations that you learn what evidence your opponent may or may not have. Occasionally you get the "there were no witnesses " situation when a party has provided a statement from an alleged witness.

Every single case is a "we're right - you're wrong" dispute supported (sometimes) by evidence.

Regardless of your sentiments and purported forum champion persona, I would still rather roll my sleeves up for the other party as they, in my opinion, stand a better overall prospect of success based on what I have seen. If that makes you feel like I have immoral values or enjoy peddling bent claims then that is your view.

The reality of this claim is that it is a £500 AD claim with no own damage and frankly not worth the dispute in the eyes of an insurer.