Taking dishonest driver to SCC regarding accident!

47ka74

Good morning to you all. Please take it easy on me as I have just joined and it is my first post on here :-)


I had a car accident in July 2018, wherein I was driving down my road, in the left hand lane, when suddenly TP (who was partly in the middle boxed area and partly in the right lane and not at any point in my lane) suddenly swerved into my driver's side, hitting the back arch, back door and also slightly the front door. As there is a right turning where TP's car was, I thought she would likely be turning into there or had just stopped for another reason. TP caused only minimal damage to her front passenger side arch, and nowhere else.


TP's version of events, and what she has advised her insurer is that the reason the accident was caused is because I undertook her! (on a residential road!) and mounted the kerb causing the impact just as she was entering her driveway. Whilst it is true that TP lives there, if the accident had occurred as TP claims, it would be impossible for TP to have no frontal damage to the car and it is also interesting to note that there are two posts obstructing cars on the relevant kerb. TP's dishonesty and preposterous and laughable version of events is sickening


I took the necessary pictures and information from the accident site, emphasising to the TP that accident was totally her fault, and passed this onto my insurers on the same day, along with a full telephone explanation of how the accident happened. I did make a call to the police as well, and although they weren't able to attend the site, they did provide me a reference number, which I also passed onto my insurer.


My insurer attempted to resolve the claim on a non-fault basis for me, via Auxillis, but unfortunately due to the dishonest TP and her insurers, they were unable to do this. (for the first few weeks, TP insurer completely ignored Auxillis' correspondence). The matter was then passed back to Bell, who carried out another assessment, again agreeing that the accident was 100% not my fault and have been trying to reach a settlement in my favour.


Unfortunately, the matter is now at deadlock with TP insurer refusing to admit liability, and as I do not have motor legal protection, I am looking to take this to the small claims court to seek the just resolution. I therefore have a few important questions, which I would very much appreciate some clarity and assistance with;


1. With respect to taking the matter to SCC, do I need to issue a pre-action protocol letter, or am I OK in issuing a SCC claim right away?


2. I spoke to Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, who advised that they only take on claims with personal injury involved. As neither myself nor TP suffered any injuries, would I be able to instruct solicitors to fight the case for me, or do I need to do it myself?


3. In terms of the remedies I am seeking a full admission of liability and payment of my excess and travel costs since the courtesy car has been taken back. How can I address the issue of travel costs that are yet to occur, in terms of what I will be claiming, as it could take months to get a court date?


4. Would I be able to claim for the immense distress and inconvenience caused to me by this matter, and the delay due to TP's non-admission of liability?


5. What are my chances of success? Would it be a good idea to instruct an independent accident assessor?


P.S. I have advised my insurer not to accept any settlement except a full admission of liability in my favour, as this would be prejudice my claim.


Many Thanks for any help or assistance with this.


K.

DUTR

Reads like you are in the wrong, have patience when driving.

47ka74

Thank you for your response. I must respectfully and politely advise you that I have an impeccable driving record (and I know TP to be a terrible driver having caused several accidents and with a bad reputation in the area).


I'll also add here that at no point was I 'driving behind' TP. As we only live some houses away, when I arrived towards the location of the accident TP's position was already as is described above.

slinga

Well I don't understand the two posters reaction.


Someone comes here to ask a question and that's the sort of answer they get.


No need for it.

Car_54

Do your insurers know you intend to go to court? They usually have the right to conduct or take over any such claim.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

DUTR wrote: »

Reads like you are in the wrong, have patience when driving.

1st two comments completely uneccessary and unhelpful.
Where is the OP in the wrong. The OP is in left lane and there is a stationary/slow vehicle in the right lane. You do know you can pass a cue of slow vehicles on the left dont you Rule 163 of HC?


Also anyone performing a merge or crossing lanes have the onus on them to make sure the lane is clear from approaching traffic.

Herzlos

Surely you'd only be able to go to small claims court to get any losses covered, so you'd need to have the case settled and then claim back your excess, admin and premium increases for the next 5 years.


Are you wanting to claim from the driver or from their insurer? What has your insurer said about the future of the claim?

DoaM

It took me a while to visualise what happened. Here's my take:

* You were both heading in the same direction?
* TP was over on the boxed area and partly in the other lane (i.e. facing oncoming traffic)?
* You were in the left (correct) lane for the direction of traffic?
* As you passed on TP's left-hand side TP turned left into your vehicle?

If the above summary is correct then you did indeed "undertake" the TP. I can see no reason for TP to be where they were without expecting there to be a further course change - was TP indicating to signal any intentions?

If my summary is right then I'm surprised your insurer is accepting this as a non-fault claim. Especially as you claim to know the TP and where they live - I assume they were turning into their own drive but taking a wide turn at it?

System

47ka74 wrote: »

I'll also add here that at no point was I 'driving behind' TP. As we only live some houses away, when I arrived towards the location of the accident TP's position was already as is described above.

So she was already in position to begin the manoeuvre into her driveway and then you drove up the inside as she'd started to move. Given you actually even know where she lives and that she has a reputation for being a bad driver then it is even more incredible that you made the decision to drive down the inside of her car. If I had been in the same position I'd have stopped whilst she made the clearly obviously going to happen manoeuvre. At some point a driver has to look in the direction they're travelling.

Your impatience and lack of forward planning caused this accident.

An impeccable driving record means nothing. Lots of people have impeccable driving records simply because they've been lucky enough to have people in other vehicles around them be more aware than they are and take avoiding action. It looks like your luck has run out and the impeccable driving record you have which looks to have only been there due to the avoiding actions of others has finally come to an end.

47ka74

DoaM wrote: »

It took me a while to visualise what happened. Here's my take:

* You were both heading in the same direction?
* TP was over on the boxed area and partly in the other lane (i.e. facing oncoming traffic)?
* You were in the left (correct) lane for the direction of traffic?
* As you passed on TP's left-hand side TP turned left into your vehicle?

If the above summary is correct then you did indeed "undertake" the TP. I can see no reason for TP to be where they were without expecting there to be a further course change - was TP indicating to signal any intentions?

If my summary is right then I'm surprised your insurer is accepting this as a non-fault claim. Especially as you claim to know the TP and where they live - I assume they were turning into their own drive but taking a wide turn at it?

Hi. Thanks for your reply.


The TP was not indicating at all and appeared to be stationary/at a very low speed whilst being partly in the middle of the road, and partly in the right lane (facing oncoming traffic as you described). At no point, did I see TP in the left lane or did I 'drive behind' TP. When I saw TP's car whilst driving down the road she was as described. The idea that I 'undertook' her is unrealistic as she was not in my lane and there is a right turn there!


I know TP's family, and of her by association, but did not know it was her driving, whether the car was hers, nor do I know her personally.


My understanding, and that which Auxillis/Bell has agreed upon is that TP has acted in contravention of the Highway code, and other relevant rules, and that this is a non-fault accident. As TP is not in my lane at any point, it is surely her responsibility to check before driving back into the left hand lane. My insurer has been very resolute, firm and clear regarding this.

System

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

1st two comments completely uneccessary and unhelpful.
Where is the OP in the wrong. The OP is in left lane and there is a stationary/slow vehicle in the right lane. You do know you can pass a cue of slow vehicles on the left dont you Rule 163 of HC?

But when they're in that position outside of their house which has a driveway WHERE YOU KNOW THEY LIVE then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that they're going to turn into their drive.