Accident in borrowed vehicle

robin58

Marktheshark wrote: »

They will probably claim, they were signalling to turn right and took avoiding action against a car approaching too fast ignoring the car already on the roundabout.
If you were going straight on and they were indicating right, it will take some explaining as to why you were on the roundabout at all.

I would hate to be driving anywhere near you.

If I had an accident with you, you would say anything but the truth in your claim.

If you believe in what you said in both of your posted messages, I think it is time for you to go for an advance driving course and maybe resit your driving test.

Crazy_Jamie

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

They are out there Jamie

I don't doubt it, though as far as I can recall I haven't had any experience of them personally.

Parking_Trouble wrote:

So both insurers are backing off, not helping and both now saying grey car should engage a CMC.

Any other options here?

Unless you do manage to track down a CMC to deal with it, and if you do I would look closely on the basis on which they would deal with it as I mentioned previously, I really don't see the harm in your wife or her friend starting the claim themselves. It's a small claim in terms of value, and whilst I appreciate litigation is not ideal there doesn't appear to be an attractive alternative at this stage.

Parking_Trouble

I was reluctantly coming to that conclusion myself Jamie.

I suspect a CMC will only be interested if they can get a long credit hire out of it and she doesn't need it.

My wife's workmate won't have a clue about small claims.

I did one myself a few years ago so I can see where this is going.

Quentin

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

So both insurers are backing off, not helping and both now saying grey car should engage a CMC.


Any other options here?

Your friend's insurer isn't "backing off" - they have no reason to become involved over the damage done to the car she was driving.


When she drove with third party cover she understood the implications should the car be damaged.


Now it has, then the options are all down to her to get it sorted - either pursue the other party herself, instruct a solicitor/claims manager or pay for the repairs herself.

Parking_Trouble

No need Quentin to defend LV=

You know that most people haven't got a clue about car insurance, other than they need to have and they want the cheapest.

Until you are involved in an RTC you have little or no idea how the claims process goes.

At the moment neither insurer is lifting a finger and it up to a single mother with no spare cash to either swim with CMC sharks or embark on legal action which she doesn't have a clue about.

DL won't look at the evidence, they tell her to go to LV=.
LV= won't touch it.

It doesn't smell very nice.

missile

I feel sorry for the owner of the car.

Quentin

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

No need Quentin to defend LV=

You know that most people haven't got a clue about car insurance, other than they need to have and they want the cheapest.

Until you are involved in an RTC you have little or no idea how the claims process goes........

I have no axe to grind for LV. The same situation would apply whoever the insurer was giving the third party only cover.


You wrongly stated they were "backing off" when in fact they have no interest regarding the damaged car.


Your friend may be ignorant of the claims process but cannot claim to have been ignorant of the significance of third party only cover.


She has been given the options open to her, now that liability is being disputed she cannot simply expect the other side's insurer to cave in and needs to pursue them. It seems this is now her only option if she has ruled out using a solicitor or claims manager.


At worst this will mean the small claim court which is intended for "ordinary" people without legal training to use - she can get free help from the CAB on the correct procedure.


As a first step she needs to get a quote for the repairs and send it to the other side, saying she holds them responsible for the damage and asking them to pay for the repairs to get the ball rolling. Then take it from their reply.

OnanTheBarbarian

Have the third party insurers seen the pics that have been posted on here?

I know common sense and insurers are not even on the same page, but surely if they can see these images, they have to question the credibility of their own policyholder's description and the long game of actually successfully defending the claim from the focus vehicle owner? That being the case, why they can't take the blinkers off and agree to deal with the third party claim on a without prejudice basis is staggering.

A non-roadworthy vehicle whereby no other insurance policy can be called on to mitigate the situation is simply going to give rise to an escalation of losses, be them hire charges or loss of use.

Crazy_Jamie

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Until you are involved in an RTC you have little or no idea how the claims process goes.

At the moment neither insurer is lifting a finger and it up to a single mother with no spare cash to either swim with CMC sharks or embark on legal action which she doesn't have a clue about.

I do appreciate your frustrations, but this difficulty has arisen not due to ignorance of the claims process per se, but due to the car being driven under third party cover at the time of the accident. The information as to the difference between third party and comprehensive is easily accessible for those who wish to look at it, but as you say most don't until they are looking to make use of the policy. That is a common situation, but not that one that in fairness I think insurance companies can be legitimately blamed for.

The small claims process is relatively quick and simple, and fee remissions are available if the relatively modest court fees cannot be afforded. There is ample free information and guidance online as to how to go through the process, and whilst I absolutely agree that it is not ideal, I think the only person to be blamed here is the one who decided to cut right across a roundabout.

Stephb1986_2

Did the person in the white car admit liability infront of the police? I had an accident in 2005, the other person admitted full liability infront of everyone including the police, when it came down to solicitors she denied liability and said it was my fault. I contacted the police because they had taken statements and they confirmed that the other person had admitted liability and was happy to send a copy of the statement and go to court if necessary.

Maybe that is an option for your friend?