Taking dishonest driver to SCC regarding accident!

Aylesbury_Duck

Is that in the remit of the SCC?

debtdebt

Why won't your insurers issue proceedings for the recovery of their outlay in settling the write off of your vehicle? Probably because they don't think they have any prospects if success despite what they have allegedly told you.

No solicitors will take this on as it'll be a small claim and they won't be able to reclaim costs. Most solicitors will only take the claim on if they consider that they have a better than 50% chance of successfully pursuing a claim. In this case, I doubt any would have done anyway even if you did have legal cover.

If you decide to go it alone, remember that the third party insurers will instruct their own solicitors and barristers to defend your claim. If you want a fault free record, you will have to ask your own insurer whether they want you to include their outlay in your proceedings to. Otherwise once your case has been settled, they will be estopped from making any other recoveries relating to that action.

Personally, at best you might get a split liability decision if you're lucky. The judge might see that you took a risky manoeuvre when passing a vehicle to the nearside when you weren't sure what the driver was doing. Also, you say you know of the driver or the vehicle. If so, shouldn't you have anticipated them turning into their own drive? Perhaps a reasonably prudent driver would have held back to see what the third party was planning on doing before passing.

TuppenceWorth

OP.
Did you mount the kerb to get past?
How much clearance did you give?

47ka74

debtdebt wrote: »

Why won't your insurers issue proceedings for the recovery of their outlay in settling the write off of your vehicle? Probably because they don't think they have any prospects if success despite what they have allegedly told you.

No solicitors will take this on as it'll be a small claim and they won't be able to reclaim costs. Most solicitors will only take the claim on if they consider that they have a better than 50% chance of successfully pursuing a claim. In this case, I doubt any would have done anyway even if you did have legal cover.

If you decide to go it alone, remember that the third party insurers will instruct their own solicitors and barristers to defend your claim. If you want a fault free record, you will have to ask your own insurer whether they want you to include their outlay in your proceedings to. Otherwise once your case has been settled, they will be estopped from making any other recoveries relating to that action.

Personally, at best you might get a split liability decision if you're lucky. The judge might see that you took a risky manoeuvre when passing a vehicle to the nearside when you weren't sure what the driver was doing. Also, you say you know of the driver or the vehicle. If so, shouldn't you have anticipated them turning into their own drive? Perhaps a reasonably prudent driver would have held back to see what the third party was planning on doing before passing.

TuppenceWorth wrote: »

OP.
Did you mount the kerb to get past?
How much clearance did you give?

Debtdebt, my insurers feel it may be difficult to prove in court, as it will be my word against hers, but I will speak to them to notify I am taking this to the SCC, and also ask whether to include their outlay in proceedings. I am still trying to convince them to take it up.

I don't feel it's a case of me getting a split judgement 'at best' in court, as I can get that now... but that's not something I'm wishing to settle for.

Could you enlighten me which 'risky manoeuvre' it is that you're referring to? Lol. I hope you're not referring to me driving slowly down the left hand lane, with right of way...

TuppenceWorth, at no time did I stray outside of my lane, or mount the kerb. If I had been on TP's kerb, as she has said in her statement to her insurers, she would have damaged most of the front side of her car, which has suffered no damage at all.

Car_54

47ka74 wrote: »

Could you enlighten me which 'risky manoeuvre' it is that you're referring to? Lol. I hope you're not referring to me driving slowly down the left hand lane, with right of way.

You did not have ‘right of way’. No-one ever has ‘right of way’. Read the HC.

TuppenceWorth

Thanks OP
You didn't say how much clearance.

The problem is that it's her word against yours. You are saying that she turned towards you. She is saying that you tried to squeeze in to a space that wasn't there. With the absence of independent witnesses I can't see how it can be proven either way. Hence I can see why 50/50 is suggested.

casseus

Car_54 wrote: »

You did not have ‘right of way’. No-one ever has ‘right of way’. Read the HC.

Then by your standards I can ignore this then:rotfl:

But one would think that they would have "right of way" if they have priorty over them.

Also if you "Give way" aren't you giving way to someone who has right of way?

Have you ever used the word yourself "they should have given way".

Or is it its only good for argument sake.

47ka74

Car_54 wrote: »

You did not have ‘right of way’. No-one ever has ‘right of way’. Read the HC.

Don't get your panties in a twist regarding semantics. You know exactly what I mean.

Mercdriver

casseus wrote: »

Then by your standards I can ignore this then:rotfl:

But one would think that they would have "right of way" if they have priorty over them.

Also if you "Give way" aren't you giving way to someone who has right of way?

Have you ever used the word yourself "they should have given way".

Or is it its only good for argument sake.

This is hilarious because it makes the point that Car 54 is making - the sign even has Priority written on it!

There is a difference between priority and right of way. Having priority doesn't mean you have right of way, just as give way doesn't mean anyone else has right of way. Right of way is an absolute. Priority is not.

Aylesbury_Duck

I think you're going to a lot of trouble for the sake of pride. I don't see an upside to what you're proposing and I cannot see how you will succeed. From your description it's my view that you are partly to blame, but my view is irrelevant, it's the court's view that will count, and I cannot see how they will come to a conclusion any different from that of your insurer, ie. that it's not conclusively solely the third party's fault.