Involved in accident. Shall I accept 70:30 offer?

AdrianC

arcon5 wrote: »

Of course a lot of people seem to take what should have happened with the benefit of hindsight and how it could have been prevented with defensive driving techniques or whatever to turn liability around from the moron overtaking a vehicle waiting to turn right to the victim that's just been hit

I haven't seen one single reply saying the OP is 100% at fault, and the other driver is 100% blameless. Clearly, that would be ridiculous.

Equally, the OP was certainly not blameless, because he turned right when it wasn't clear and safe to do so.

Both drivers are at fault.

peter_the_piper

Driver waiting, in middle of road, indicating to turn right. What plonker would overtake him and how could the OP be anyway at fault? Other driver was completely at fault.

AdrianC

peter_the_piper wrote: »

and how could the OP be anyway at fault?

Very simply. He didn't look to see if it was safe to make his manouvre. It wasn't.

Whether the other driver is ALSO partly to blame is beside the point. As it happens, he was.

The OP could very easily have avoided this collision, simply by looking in his mirror before turning.

Quentin

jonj123 wrote: »

... What I want to know is would it be worth me going through the effort of challenging this even if they agree to change it to 90:10 for example?.....

All depends on how much saving getting it to 90/10 would make for you (ie getting an extra 20% of your uninsured losses back), compared with the time involved fighting.


Do the sums and make your decision.


Getting your liability reduced from 30% to 10% won't make any difference to the impact this claim is going to have on your future insurance premiums & NCD.

peter_the_piper

Out of curiosity I wonder if the overtaker was done for driving without due care or some such.

jonj123

Quentin wrote: »

All depends on how much saving getting it to 90/10 would make for you (ie getting an extra 20% of your uninsured losses back), compared with the time involved fighting.


Do the sums and make your decision.


Getting your liability reduced from 30% to 10% won't make any difference to the impact this claim is going to have on your future insurance premiums & NCD.

The only loss for me would be the £250 excess I paid (remaining cost of repair was paid by insurer and I didn't sustain any injuries or damage to property inside the car)

Quentin

jonj123 wrote: »

The only loss for me would be the £250 excess I paid (remaining cost of repair was paid by insurer and I didn't sustain any injuries or damage to property inside the car)

So at 70/30 you can get 70% of your £250 excess back off the third party insurer (£175) and were you to get this up to 90/10 that would mean an extra £50.


So is it worth it to fight on over £50?