Car Accident - Going Court

BoGoF

I can see nothing in your statement that would change my mind.

Nasqueron

If you admitted you were 2 car lengths from the space (even a standard car, talking less than 7m) when you put your indicator on and started to slow, you'd have had to slam on the anchors to stop to park there and you'd have still been going 20mph+ when you went passed the space. Emergency braking at 30mph has a stopping distance of 23m officially

Amirali26

Nasqueron wrote: »

If you admitted you were 2 car lengths from the space (even a standard car, talking less than 7m) when you put your indicator on and started to slow, you'd have had to slam on the anchors to stop to park there and you'd have still been going 20mph+ when you went passed the space. Emergency braking at 30mph has a stopping distance of 23m officially

Thanks for you response, as stated in my statement, I slowed down till 25mph before noticing that I wont fit in the space. so, no 2 car length is more than enough space to decrease 5mph

BoGoF

Amirali26 wrote: »

Thanks for you response, as stated in my statement, I slowed down till 25mph before noticing that I wont fit in the space. so, no 2 car length is more than enough space to decrease 5mph

I think the point was....what would you have done if the space was big enough as you hadn't left enough distance to stop and park.

Amirali26

BoGoF wrote: »

I think the point was....what would you have done if the space was big enough as you hadn't left enough distance to stop and park.

That's a good question, however, it doesn't relate to the case at all since there was not enough room anyway. If I would have stopped to park then yeah you're right, I would have needed to slam on my brakes. But that did not happen and even the third party accepted that. But a very good point.

Crazy_Jamie

Amirali26 wrote: »

That's a good question, however, it doesn't relate to the case at all since there was not enough room anyway. If I would have stopped to park then yeah you're right, I would have needed to slam on my brakes. But that did not happen and even the third party accepted that. But a very good point.

I'm afraid it does, because the other side will use your evidence as to distance to highlight that you were actually going a lot slower than you say you were. If you were travelling at 25mph when you were two car lengths away from a space, you could not physically have stopped in time to drive into that space. You must therefore be wrong about how fast you were travelling.

In addition, travelling at 25mph it would take you less than a second to cover two car lengths. You also say that you put your indicator on, saw the space wasn't big enough, and then turned it off all within the space of half a car length. Again, at 25mph you would have to do all that in less than a quarter of a second, which means that you must have either been travelling slower than you say you were, or you were much further away than you say you were. It's more likely that you were going slower, because you have to have been reasonably close to make the assessment that you couldn't fit into the space.

The problem, I'm afraid, is that your version of events is simply not physically possible.

Amirali26

I understand. That's a good point pointed out. Anyways, there is no third part involved at this stage anyway, I am raising this issue to the complaints team of Aviva who will be dealing with the complaint.

New question for all. When I was defending this claim, I obtained the police badge numbers of the police who attended the scene. There was also cctv there which I could have gotten to get evidence of the accident. However, the claim investigator for Aviva told me that it is not needed and it should be fine without it.

Furthermore, I was notified two days prior to the deadline which aviva had to make a decision to go to court or accept guilt, that my witness statement was not very strong. Bearing in mind the third parties medical had been sent on the 19th by post, but apparently Aviva received it on the 31st (the letter was not tracked apparently) of december, the deadline for the decision was on the 9th of January and on the 5th of january they notified me that my witness statement is weak and they wouldn't use it. The claims investigator then said that his manager would call me on the 8th of Jan to discuss their verdict further. On the 8th the manager told me that he needs to speak to their techinical team about t his incident and he is not in today, he will be in on the 9th (the deadline day of the incident). On the 9th of January they told me they are not going to take this case to court - and their decision has been made and nothing can change it lol. I also said that I have found new witnesses (told them this on the 8th of Jan) and they are willing to come to court, however, Aviva told me "We can't risk the witnesses to provide information that could be against our case, even though I had talked to the witnesses beforehand (they own a shop next to where the incident happened, so I got what they saw prior)" They said it is too late to bring new witnesses now, 2 of my witnesses where out of the country when they wanted to interview them, now they are back. Everything was left very late by Aviva, and the third parties statement was very vague is said that "I had crossed paths with this motorist" - no evidence or further information was provided, that was literally all that they sent to Aviva, and from that my insurance accepted guilt. They also completely disregarded that the rider had only a CBT qualification, no driving license, overtaking at junction and island.

On the phone their excuse was that the result will be based on probability, and the third party has a solicitor so we would not be challenging this case.

Unfortunately, I think the main reason why they didn't take this case on is because I am covered for legal fees under my insurance, so they wouldn't be able to charge me for their effort in defending my case.

P.S From my experience, and the time that my family has been with aviva (more than 20 years) - I would not recommend them.

Crazy_Jamie

Amirali26 wrote: »

Unfortunately, I think the main reason why they didn't take this case on is because I am covered for legal fees under my insurance, so they wouldn't be able to charge me for their effort in defending my case.

Quite apart from anything else, you're wrong about this. Legal fees in defending a claim are covered as standard with car insurance. There isn't a scenario where they would charge you for their time spent defending your case.

The simple reality is that the single most important piece of evidence here is your statement. Quite apart from additional witnesses you have, or the point you make about the circumstances in which he was trying to overtake, the insurer is not going to defend this case if it doesn't have confidence in the credibility and robustness of your own evidence. They clearly did not have that confidence, and therefore they didn't defend the case. That is a simple assessment on their part that you were not likely to win the case, so they opted to save costs by not defending it. That is a perfectly standard decision for an insurer to make and, from what you've said in this thread, it is not difficult to see why they've gone in that direction.

Amirali26

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Quite apart from anything else, you're wrong about this. Legal fees in defending a claim are covered as standard with car insurance. There isn't a scenario where they would charge you for their time spent defending your case.

The simple reality is that the single most important piece of evidence here is your statement. Quite apart from additional witnesses you have, or the point you make about the circumstances in which he was trying to overtake, the insurer is not going to defend this case if it doesn't have confidence in the credibility and robustness of your own evidence. They clearly did not have that confidence, and therefore they didn't defend the case. That is a simple assessment on their part that you were not likely to win the case, so they opted to save costs by not defending it. That is a perfectly standard decision for an insurer to make and, from what you've said in this thread, it is not difficult to see why they've gone in that direction.

I understand that, however on the phone they told me because I have no witnesses they are not going to defend the claim.