Accident eighteen months ago

ChumLee

redmalc wrote: »

He is not bringing any claims against us he is bringing charges against the insurance company acting on behalf of the lorry driver for damages

Yeah, but that doesn't reduce his time limits to claim.

redmalc

Chum Lee I fully understand that but why have we got to go to court,I cannot understand why we would be required to give evidence

arcon5

redmalc wrote: »

The police attended,I am of the opinion he is claiming the lorry driver hit him first which pushed him onto our car.
We have told the police we only felt one bump when he hit us,why was we paid out when all this is still going on,we had no idea this was going on behind the scenes we got paid out six months after the crash

Because there is no dispute that you was not liable for the incident. The second car hit you, they paid out. But now they believe, but struggling to prove, the lorry was liable for their client causing damage to your vehicle so they want the lorry company to not just cover their clients costs but also reimburse them for what they paid you.

redmalc wrote: »

Chum Lee I fully understand that but why have we got to go to court,I cannot understand why we would be required to give evidence

Because your statement appears to substantiate their clients claims. Without your statement it is nothing more than his word against theirs.

bazster

redmalc wrote: »

Chum Lee I fully understand that but why have we got to go to court,I cannot understand why we would be required to give evidence

It's quite simple, if you get a summons then go to the court and tell the truth. No point in worrying about what can't be helped.

I've just been contacted as a potential witness by a solicitor acting for someone over an accident that happened more than 5 years ago!

photome

I am a bit confused, in your OP you say your d in l had an accident and your son has been paid.

Then you go on to say we felt a bump etc. we're you in the car with your d in l or are you just posting what they have told you
As has been said one bump would suggest one impact

buglawton

Just go, if only to experience a bit of how British justice work. Make a feature of the trip by visiting some tourist spots afterwards.

thescouselander

Op - are you sure you have the sequence of events correct. As others have said if those in the front car only felt one bump it's likely the lorry did cause the crash. Also perhaps the reason the man in the car behind didn't help was because he was injured in the crash.

All if this is for the court to detrrmine and as a witness I'd say you at least have a moral responsibility to tell them what was seen so they can do their job.

BTW - it's notoriously difficult to claim off lorry drivers insurance and they try all sorts of tricks to get out of paying. I'm sure if you thought you'd been hit by a lorry you'd appreciate witnesses coming forward.

robatwork

If you were in the middle car, and the only way of proving your case against the lorry was to get a witness ie. the person in the front car... you would ask the person in the front car to appear as a witness ie. appealing to their better nature.

Not because they have to, but because it's the right thing to do.