car insurance accident claim

HP_Source

There is no question of any "official declaration". You are either in the UK or you are not, it's a simple matter of fact.

Even if you do move outside the UK they can still take legal action in your absence. It's just that they would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce that judgement against you while you remain abroad. However, should you return to the UK at any point in the future they would then be in a position to enforce the judgement.

TSx

I would say this debt wouldn't be considered personal injury - it would essentially be a breach of contract claim, and as such would be discharged by bankruptcy. I am not a lawyer though!

[Deleted User]

TSx wrote: »

I would say this debt wouldn't be considered personal injury - it would essentially be a breach of contract claim, and as such would be discharged by bankruptcy. I am not a lawyer though!

That's a good point. The personal injury payment has already been made by the insurance company, their claim is now for breech of contract on the insurance.

Bankruptcy sounds better than moving to Saudi Arabia.

HP_Source

We don't know the detail of what has gone on here so anything we say can only be surmise.

However, if this case has followed the normal course for such matters as a condition of making payment the insurer will have had the victim assign to them the right to make a claim against the OP. Any action they take will be in the name of the victim and will therefore be considered a personal injury claim.

vaio

Nah, I'd have said the victim's rights arise under RTA/tort and insurers can't make conditions on that.

HP_Source

Sorry, Vaio, but I'll have to disagree with you. Your basic premise that an insurer cannot impose conditions is correct but the reality is rather different. (I was trying to keep it simple!)

Under the provisions of the RTA an insurer is required to meet the third party claim and this can be done in one of two ways.

If liability is not in doubt it is usually done in the way I have intimated with the victim assigning their right of action against the uninsured driver to the insurers so that they can then pursue the uninsured driver.

If liability is in doubt or if the victim will not complete the assignment then the matter goes to court, judgement is given against the insurer and this gives the insurer the right to pursue the uninsured driver in what is effectively a subrogated claim for personal injury.

Either way the end result is the same.

As you might imagine the matter of how to make uninsured drivers pay for any injury they cause has been around for as long as compulsory third party insurance has existed. Over the years there have been multiple versions of the MIB agreements, legislation and many court cases the effect of which has been to make it very difficult for an uninsured motorist to avoid the financial consequences of his actions.

The only legal route I know of is to declare bankruptcy and then, on discharge, ask a judge to use his discretion to treat the personal injury damages as having been annulled, in whole or in part, by the discharge. Judges do have such a discretion but the chances of success are low.

Parking_Trouble

DELETED USER wrote:

I'm going to be blunt. You are screwed.

Your income can't cover your existing debts. The only spare money you have is the £12 for your mobile, and they are not going to accept £12/month as it would take more than the rest of your life to pay off. Furthermore the other debts you have, particularly the money you owe to "other people", are not going to count for much. They took you to court, they have priority, and they will push for as much as possible after your essentials like rent, childcare and food.

Again, I'll be blunt. You have over-extended yourself with debt already, and this unexpected increase makes the situation impossible to manage. With only 18k coming in you won't be able to pay off the £34k + fees you now owe.

This is called bankruptcy - when you can no longer realistically service your debts. Read the MSE page about it and seriously consider it. Otherwise things will just keep getting worse, with the debt mounting up. It's not as scary as it sounds, but you do need to work hard at it. I urge you to look into it because you should at least consider all options.

Technically the OP is insolvent. Bankruptcy is a legal status imposed by the court.

Did Bell pay out before they discovered the non-disclosure or after?

The OP should seek help as suggested by others. Citizens Advice is the obvious one.

If you want to avoid bankruptcy it is worth challenging the items that make up the £17k.

Also, if you bought the policy over the phone ask to listen to the original sale recording. that's if they are competent enough to find it.

Bell are unlikely to have challenged PI claims (perhaps even made a pre-medical offer) and they won't have got their own engineer to check the vehicles. Ask them for the medical report which they won't give you because of Data Protection Act. They will claim they haven't challenged the claim because it costs them more money. On that basis I would suggest they haven't done enough to reduce the amount being claimed.

Most companies pursuing debt will take an offer rather then lose the whole lot.

HP_Source

Those are all good practical points Parking Trouble and I agree with your approach although I'm unsure of the CAB's abilities in this area.

My only concern was to stop the OP from going down the bankruptcy route without realising that it would be unlikely to get him out of the pickle.

Parking_Trouble

Just thinking that CAB will advise on the debt management aspect. I doubt they will help negotiate a reduced sum with Bell.

Bell will no doubt threaten taking the OP to court but I have not seen much on t'internet about Admiral Group actually carrying this through.

That is not to say they won't so OP beware.

I suspect a good lawyer might successfully challenge the claim which is all managed by someone who has an interest in bumping up a figure that is probably uncontested by Bell.

vaio

HP_Source wrote: »

Sorry, Vaio, but I'll have to disagree with you. Your basic premise that an insurer cannot impose conditions is correct but the reality is rather different. (I was trying to keep it simple!)

Under the provisions of the RTA an insurer is required to meet the third party claim and this can be done in one of two ways.

If liability is not in doubt it is usually done in the way I have intimated with the victim assigning their right of action against the uninsured driver to the insurers so that they can then pursue the uninsured driver.

If liability is in doubt or if the victim will not complete the assignment then the matter goes to court, judgement is given against the insurer and this gives the insurer the right to pursue the uninsured driver in what is effectively a subrogated claim for personal injury........

Does it? I thought judgement would always be against the negligent driver.

If the insurer cancelled the policy before the pay out then RTA s151 means the insurer has to pay & gives them the right of recovery from the OP.

If the insurer dealt with the claim in the normal way and cancelled the policy later then they would be able to recover from the OP under the terms of the policy.

The end result is the same but as far as I can see neither is a PI claim, one is RTA, the other is contractual