Car accident non fault, liability split?

joshmaiden

I was told by my insurance that the decision that they made on car accident that i was involved in, was a liability split.

The reason for that decision was because the other party at fault wont answer phone calls (gone to hiding cuz the other party was 100percent fault)and the other party insurance wont communicate with my insurance.

This is really unfair to me because the accident was not my fault and i have to pay for the damages. I dont want to accept liability split and what can i do about this? please help

I would also like to add that i filled in the accident report form (made sketches)and police incident report who has all the photos of the accident and still my insurance came up with the liability spit cuz some idiot wont answer phone calls.

EdGasket

If the other party won't communicate then logically they should be guilty by default. I have been in a position twice where the TP just ignored everything. The only way I got things moving was to take one to court myself and threaten the other with a letter before court action. They both caved in then and I came out on top however it is a lot of hassle and insurers should really offer a better 'non-fault' service than they do.

I suspect insurers love 50/50 splits because then both parties pay an excess and both parties lose NCB so its win-win for the insurers plus less work for them. It sucks.

InsideInsurance

What are the accident circumstances?

Split liability is often used in cases of disputed circumstances because chasing non-injury cases through the courts is pretty much a lose/ lose result for the insurers.

They arent normally used in cases where the TP denies involvement or simply buries their head in the sand.

Ultimately, from a legal point of view, your insurers have the right to settle the case as they see fit though most will listen to their customers for a while before going against them. If you cannot pursuade them then you can talk to them about allowing you to deal with the matter yourself or at least they deal with things on a without prejudice basis so that you can still deal with things privately without their actions impacting it.

InsideInsurance

EdGasket wrote: »

I suspect insurers love 50/50 splits because then both parties pay an excess and both parties lose NCB so its win-win for the insurers plus less work for them. It sucks.

Insurers hate it.

They dont get all their money back, they have to pay 50% of the other sides claim which can be high value PI claims and they normally lose the customer at renewal.

Insurers love non-fault claims because they can sell their customers details to credit hire companies, solicitors etc. They use companies that give them kickbacks so get a £1,000 invoice that they pay, the other side reimburses their £1,000 but the invoicing company at year end gives them £50 as a profit share etc. At the end of the day they are also more likely to retain their customer at renewal too

joshmaiden

Its a non-injury case. So my only option is to take it to the court and how do i do that? also do i have to pay court costs and other fees that i dont know about?

I still dont understand why my insurance came up with liability split when clearly it was not my fault.

DUTR

joshmaiden wrote: »

Its a non-injury case. So my only option is to take it to the court and how do i do that? also do i have to pay court costs and other fees that i dont know about?

I still dont understand why my insurance came up with liability split when clearly it was not my fault.

Bet you wish you spent the £20 on a dash cam?
Do you have legal cover?
When a guy ran into my car and then refused to respond with the insurance , I contacted the Police and a week later he was totally compliant.
Perhaps the other party has complied with the insurance as otherwise they would not have come to an agreement of liability.

FiremanDave

DUTR wrote: »

Bet you wish you spent the £20 on a dash cam?
Do you have legal cover?
When a guy ran into my car and then refused to respond with the insurance , I contacted the Police and a week later he was totally compliant.
Perhaps the other party has complied with the insurance as otherwise they would not have come to an agreement of liability.

That's strange they became involved unless there was an injury.

DUTR

FiremanDave wrote: »

That's strange they became involved unless there was an injury.

Giving details after a car accident

When you're involved in a car accident you’re obliged to give your name and address to anyone else involved.
Avoid saying sorry or accepting blame for the accident until you know precisely what happened as it could count against you later on.
You should stop and give your details if you crash into something on or near the road even if there aren't any other people involved. If you hit a parked car, for example, you should leave your details on the windscreen.
Car accidents should be reported to the police within 24 hours. Failure to do so could result in a fine, penalty points or even disqualification.

So perhaps as my 3rd party didn't comply, something they said made him change his mind, I must add, his name had changed by the time his insurance company had accepted their clients liability. That said on top of that I had pics of the road situation and the 3rd party.

FiremanDave

DUTR wrote: »

Giving details after a car accident

When you're involved in a car accident you’re obliged to give your name and address to anyone else involved.
Avoid saying sorry or accepting blame for the accident until you know precisely what happened as it could count against you later on.
You should stop and give your details if you crash into something on or near the road even if there aren't any other people involved. If you hit a parked car, for example, you should leave your details on the windscreen. dont remember that being stated in the road traffic act
Car accidents should be reported to the police within 24 hours. only if the road traffic act is not complied withFailure to do so could result in a fine, penalty points or even disqualification.

So perhaps as my 3rd party didn't comply, something they said made him change his mind, I must add, his name had changed by the time his insurance company had accepted their clients liability. That said on top of that I had pics of the road situation and the 3rd party.

What didn't your third party comply with?

As I said if there wasn't an injury he wasn't required to provide you with his insurance details.

DUTR

FiremanDave wrote: »

What didn't your third party comply with?

As I said if there wasn't an injury he wasn't required to provide you with his insurance details.

He doesn't and didn't provide me with his insurance details, but he certainly eventually supplied them to the accident management company, coincidently after the police had made contact with him.
There was damage to my vehicle so I guess that was enough otherwise no one would need to insure if they are involved in an accident.

FiremanDave

DUTR wrote: »

He doesn't and didn't provide me with his insurance details, but he certainly eventually supplied them to the accident management company, coincidently after the police had made contact with him.
There was damage to my vehicle so I guess that was enough otherwise no one would need to insure if they are involved in an accident.

Why do you say that?

I'm simply saying that chasing round for you after a non injury collision is not the job for the police.