car insurance accident claim

HP_Source

Vaio, I must confess that it's some time since I had the dubious pleasure of dealing with these sort of claims and so your comments made me dig out my notes and re-read them carefully.

On the subject of the initial legal action by the victim it depends whether the insurance company is acting as Section 151 insurer or Article 75 insurer. If the former you are correct, the initial action is against the uninsured driver. The insurer only becomes involved from a legal standpoint when it has to meet the unsatisfied judgement.

If the insurance company is acting as Article 75 insurer the action commences against the uninsured driver but the insurance company will often seek to be joined as an additional defendant under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Either way the insurer ends up paying out. It then has the choice of whether or not to try to recover from the uninsured person. If it does seek recovery this is not under contract (which often doesn't exist as it has been voided ab initio) or the RTA but is done as a subrogated claim for personal injury in the name of the victim against the uninsured driver.

The whole area is a legal minefield where even specialist solicitors, barristers and judges get it wrong from time to time. As I am none of those please treat my remarks as being only my understanding, albeit one based on experience of handling this type of claim.

HP_Source

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

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.

I agree although I fear the OP is intent on not engaging with the insurer at all in the hope the matter will somehow go away - something which could rebound badly if the insurers obtain a judgement by default against him.

HP_Source

HP_Source wrote: »

Either way the insurer ends up paying out. It then has the choice of whether or not to try to recover from the uninsured person. If it does seek recovery this is not under contract (which often doesn't exist as it has been voided ab initio) or the RTA but is done as a subrogated claim for personal injury in the name of the victim against the uninsured driver.

Hmmm, thinking about it that can't be right either because it would involve two identical actions albeit one of them is subrogated. When I get the chance I'll ask a barrister who I know to explain it to me.

I thought I understood this subject!

vaio

Yep, as post #61 I think the right of recovery arises either from RTA or the contract of insurance and would be for the fixed sum that was agreed/decided by the court and then paid out by the insurer.

Can't see how it could be a subrogated PI claim as the PI claim would have already been settled.

Bonez14

There where 4 cars involved in this accident. 3 in-front and 1 behind me. I never accepted fault but i believe it may have been mine. However they did cancel my insurance within a week or 2 of accident due to nondisclosure.

Looking at the letter i just received I see 3/4 solicitors one solicitor firm claimed nearly 4k. there where also payments to 3 individuals and car hire charge. They also mentioned they are responsible for dealing with claims on my behalf.

Why do they not claim the money from the guy that hit me from behind?


question: if i move out and they send a letter and someone else responds saying i have moved. can they still take me to court without knowing where i live. do they not have to confirm my adsress?

[Deleted User]

shorif2000 wrote: »

Looking at the letter i just received I see 3/4 solicitors one solicitor firm claimed nearly 4k. there where also payments to 3 individuals and car hire charge. They also mentioned they are responsible for dealing with claims on my behalf.

That's good because it means if you do go the bankruptcy route it will all be wiped out.

Why do they not claim the money from the guy that hit me from behind?

Have you asked them? You could potentially argue that you are not liable for the costs they are claiming you are in court.

question: if i move out and they send a letter and someone else responds saying i have moved. can they still take me to court without knowing where i live. do they not have to confirm my adsress?

Once the court has told you to turn up you had better turn up. They won't take kindly to you trying to hide.

Parking_Trouble

shorif2000 wrote: »

There where 4 cars involved in this accident. 3 in-front and 1 behind me. I never accepted fault but i believe it may have been mine. However they did cancel my insurance within a week or 2 of accident due to nondisclosure.

Looking at the letter i just received I see 3/4 solicitors one solicitor firm claimed nearly 4k. there where also payments to 3 individuals and car hire charge. They also mentioned they are responsible for dealing with claims on my behalf.

Why do they not claim the money from the guy that hit me from behind?


question: if i move out and they send a letter and someone else responds saying i have moved. can they still take me to court without knowing where i live. do they not have to confirm my adsress?

You need to engage with Bell rather than try to run away. If you ignore them you will end up being pursued for a lot more than £17k. Engage them to slow the process down and reduce the amount claimed.

If they know you won't defend the amount of the claim they will go through the court and win by default then costs will rocket as they try to enforce a judgment against you.

Challenge Bell on the costs.

Did they get you to sign an indemnity form?

They will done very little to reduce the claim. Is the Credit Hire cost reasonable? Ask them for the engineers report, witness statements, police report and the medical reports.

Ask them what they have done to validate the claim. Have they conducted their own medicals or engineers report?

I suspect they have done nothing other accept what those acting on behalf of the third party have claimed.

Bonez14

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Did they get you to sign an indemnity form?
.

They did send me a letter regarding this but i did not, even a solicitor told me do not sign it.

problem is CAB will just give free advice on debt management and solicitors will be hungry for money only.

what im looking for is a way out without paying, there must be a loophole somewhere.:j

tberry6686

shorif2000 wrote: »

They did send me a letter regarding this but i did not, even a solicitor told me do not sign it.

problem is CAB will just give free advice on debt management and solicitors will be hungry for money only.

what im looking for is a way out without paying, there must be a loophole somewhere.:j

The only loophole I can see is not lying to Bell in the first place. I don't buy the "I forgot to mention the disqualification" claim, everyman and his dog knows this would have to be mentioned and would have a major effect on the quote. Bell do not believe that you forgot as can be seen by keeping the whole premium.

A minor car park ding or speeding ticket from a few years ago you could probably get away with "forgetting" a ban on the other hand - no chance.

[Deleted User]

shorif2000 wrote: »

what im looking for is a way out without paying, there must be a loophole somewhere.:j

What you mean is that you want everyone else to pay for it. That's what will happen, the 17k you owe will come out of other people's premiums.

Just to be clear about what you are asking, from a moral point of view.

The reality is that you are not going to get out of all this debt easily. Bankruptcy is about the only option, and if it's true that you have no worldly possessions other than your clothes then you won't lose anything.

tberry is right though, you should try to work something out. You can maybe get the amount reduced, but in the end you caused an accident and were not insured, and now you legally and morally owe that money and can't get out of it.