3rd parties insurer admitted liability then changed mind

tir21

they admitted liability to my claims management company. they subsequently withdrew this admission and said that because they had admitted liability to an accident management company rather than my insurer it was without prejudice (I think) and so was not binding

is this the case. why would they admit liability and then change their minds anyway. thanks

Mercdriver

tir21 wrote: »

they admitted liability to my claims management company. they subsequently withdrew this admission and said that because they had admitted liability to an accident management company rather than my insurer it was without prejudice (I think) and so was not binding

is this the case. why would they admit liability and then change their minds anyway. thanks

Probably because they want to minimise their costs. Claims management companies often inflate the cost. Look around the forum and you'll see what happens when the AMCs overcharge for the use of hire cars. You the claimant end up paying for what is considered (in court if necessary) unreasonable. Always think twice about using a Claims Management Company. Often best to let the 3rd party insurance company deal with it.

debtdebt

Mercdriver wrote: »

Probably because they want to minimise their costs. Claims management companies often inflate the cost. Look around the forum and you'll see what happens when the AMCs overcharge for the use of hire cars. You the claimant end up paying for what is considered (in court if necessary) unreasonable. Always think twice about using a Claims Management Company. Often best to let the 3rd party insurance company deal with it.

Rubbish. If a third party admits liability, they will admit liability regardless as to whether the OP is representing himself, has got legal expenses insurer involved, an AMC or his own insurers. Who the OP is represented by doesn't change the accident circumstances.

Quentin

tir21 wrote: »

they admitted liability to my claims management company. they subsequently withdrew this admission and said that because they had admitted liability to an accident management company rather than my insurer it was without prejudice (I think) and so was not binding

is this the case. why would they admit liability and then change their minds anyway. thanks

As already advised this change of heart is absolutely nothing to do with you being represented by a claim handler

Their new stance is probably because fresh evidence has turned up

If your claim handler is no longer acting for you then if you have ( comprehensive) cover you probably are best to claim on that.

Otherwise consider trying a different AMC or instructing a solicitor if you feel liability is clear cut

tir21

26th

Mercdriver wrote: »

Probably because they want to minimise their costs. Claims management companies often inflate the cost. Look around the forum and you'll see what happens when the AMCs overcharge for the use of hire cars. You the claimant end up paying for what is considered (in court if necessary) unreasonable. Always think twice about using a Claims Management Company. Often best to let the 3rd party insurance company deal with it.

it went to the acm without my knowledge. it took me a while to work out that kindertons were not part or my insurance company

ps the accident was clear cut in that debris fell off back of lorry - but i have no way of proving it

oldagetraveller

"ps the accident was clear cut in that debris fell off back of lorry - but i have no way of proving it"
And there is a glaring example of why spending a few quid on a dashcam could pay off eventually.:)
Assuming the debris fell off within the camera lenses field of view.

tir21

oldagetraveller wrote: »

"ps the accident was clear cut in that debris fell off back of lorry - but i have no way of proving it"
And there is a glaring example of why spending a few quid on a dashcam could pay off eventually.:)
Assuming the debris fell off within the camera lenses field of view.

i don't like the wires and clutter. i wish cars came with the camera in the grill somewhere or behind the mirror

RichardD1970

tir21 wrote: »

i don't like the wires and clutter. i wish cars came with the camera in the grill somewhere or behind the mirror

No wires and clutter with mine. Fitted professionally (although not that hard to do yourself) for £30, hard wired into fuse box, no wires in sight and the camera sits just below and behind the mirror.

There are even some that sit over your existing mirror so even less obtrusive.

societys_child

I bought a £40 dual lens (back and front) camera and fitted it myself in less than 30 minutes. What is this clutter you speak of?

mattyprice4004

tir21 wrote: »

i don't like the wires and clutter. i wish cars came with the camera in the grill somewhere or behind the mirror

Then get one fitted professionally and don't bodge it yourself.

Mirror cams are available.
Behind the grill is generally not - apply a bit of logic and you'll see why heavy rain plus a camera lense there means you'll get less than useable footage. :money:

Car_54

tir21 wrote: »

ps the accident was clear cut in that debris fell off back of lorry - but i have no way of proving it

If you have no way of proving it, it's very far from being clear cut!