car insurers not interested in fighting accident liabilty

Mercdriver

jk0 wrote: »

Of course they want to blame your wife in some way. That way, they can jack up your premium next year.


I would cancel the claim, and sue the other driver yourself.

Underwrite their claim yourself then. You clearly don't understand the risks of suing. Even when you win, you can end up out of pocket.

Mercdriver

jk0 wrote: »

Thank you for your kind thoughts. There are no costs recoverable for a claim of under £10k by either side.

They would still have legal fees to pay. No such thing as a free lawyer.

jk0

Mercdriver wrote: »

They would still have legal fees to pay. No such thing as a free lawyer.

No need for a lawyer. Only fee is court fee: https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees

AdrianC

A minor low-value damage-only collision.
One party states the other is at fault.
The other states the first is at fault.
The damage doesn't prove anything either way.
There are no witnesses and no CCTV.
Either scenario is equally probable.

What, exactly, do you expect the insurers to do between them? How much money do you want them to spend on sending people trawling around to gather "evidence" that still won't help much?

Even if there was some way of proving beyond doubt that your car was stationary at the time of impact, it won't say anything - because you may have pulled out in front, suddenly spotted the oncoming vehicle, slammed the anchors on and been stationary at the time...

Quentin

jk0 wrote: »

No need for a lawyer. Only fee is court fee: https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees

No.

Apart from the hearing fee the loser pays the issue fee.

And has to pay the other side's allowable expenses which includes travel/ loss of earnings etc

Hermione_Granger

jk0 wrote: »

Thank you for your kind thoughts. There are no costs recoverable for a claim of under £10k by either side.

And if the van driver decided to claim against the OP for the whiplash they say they received in the accident and the time they had to take off work because of this?
A personal injury and loss of earnings claim could easily exceed £10k.

jk0

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

And if the van driver decided to claim against the OP for the whiplash they say they received in the accident and the time they had to take off work because of this?
A personal injury and loss of earnings claim could easily exceed £10k.

Well that's more nonsense, if they haven't already. That they have not had the cheek to claim yet, rather tends to prove that they hit o/p's wife.


In the very unlikely event that they were able to prove whiplash, o/p can just refer the judgement back to his insurer, and take the NCD hit.

a.turner

jk0 wrote: »

Well that's more nonsense, if they haven't already. That they have not had the cheek to claim yet, rather tends to prove that they hit o/p's wife.


In the very unlikely event that they were able to prove whiplash, o/p can just refer the judgement back to his insurer, and take the NCD hit.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between evidence and proof.

jk0

a.turner wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand the difference between evidence and proof.

Thanks for trolling. That's why I put 'rather tends to'.



Give me strength!

Jk2000

AdrianC wrote: »

A minor low-value damage-only collision.
One party states the other is at fault.
The other states the first is at fault.
The damage doesn't prove anything either way.
There are no witnesses and no CCTV.
Either scenario is equally probable.

What, exactly, do you expect the insurers to do between them? How much money do you want them to spend on sending people trawling around to gather "evidence" that still won't help much?

Even if there was some way of proving beyond doubt that your car was stationary at the time of impact, it won't say anything - because you may have pulled out in front, suddenly spotted the oncoming vehicle, slammed the anchors on and been stationary at the time...

Sadly I think you are right , in 25 years of driving I've never been involed in an insurance claim so I'm learning how this process works , (or not in my case!)

however I still maintain , I do expect my insurance to take this seriously and send a enginner to inspect damage , it may reveal something missed in pictures. Whether this is cost effective for my insurer is not a concern of mine , to be protected by them is what I pay them for in my opininion .

i won't be sueing the third party over this , I cant see I have enough evidence as many have pointed .


Anyhow it's tough to take that people can be so disshonest in claiming responcibilty for an accident . My lesson to learn , and as has been said many many times on this great forum - get a dash cam .
I'll put this one down experience.