RTA at mini roundabout who is at fault?

dbs

My Family member was involved in a RTA at a limited view mini roundabout she had to give way to traffic to the right with a van parked on double yellow lines. She stopped checked the view was clear as possible moved onto the mini roundabout then was hit by a driver who had no intention of slowing down approaching at the roundabout. Her car was fully on the roundabout when the impact occurred.

Her car was hit at the side/rear the impact spun her car around set off the side airbags so she was unable to start the car back up to clear the road for other traffic. Details was exchanged when she told the other driver I would arrive in one minute the other driver drove off leaving her stranded in the middle of the road.

She phoned her insurance company she was told to inform the police as the other driver had no insurance. During her interview which was next day the police stated it was highly unusual for airbags to be set off at a mini roundabout RTA and suspected he was driving with undue care and attention as on his approach there is a give way sign due to school crossing lollypop lady but no 20mph sign.

Two months later no reply from the police then informed the other driver was insured her insurance wanted 100% fault against the other driver but another two months later it had been agreed 50/50 but with no written confirmation.

About two months later she phoned her insurance was told waiting confirmation 50/50 next day told it was now 100% her fault as it was going to court and they was not going to defend her as it was not worth the risk due to road layout and no witnesses. Also she was told her car insurance was now going to be cancelled within 7 days due to her black box score which is a allegedly separate issue.

My question is can she appeal against her insurance decision not to defend her at court and if she attended court would she have to answer questions from a solicitor?

lisyloo

She can certainly talk to her insurer and put her case and make a formal complaint.
She cannot tell her insurer what to do.
I would expect if she went to court that she’d have to answer questions yes, that’s the whole point. If she’s being honest then there is nothing to be afraid of although to be honest insurers rarely go to court because of the costs. It sounds like the other insurer is negotiating harder than her insurer.

If it was me I’d be putting in a formal complaint right now.

Norman_Castle

when she told the other driver I would arrive in one minute the other driver drove off leaving her stranded in the middle of the road.

Not sure of the relevance of your imminent arrival.


Presumably the van joined the roundabout from her right. Without evidence to the contrary such as the vans excessive speed around a restricted view how can they or she argue that she didn't pull out in front of the van.
Did you take pictures of the parked van?

SonOf

My question is can she appeal against her insurance decision not to defend her at court and if she attended court would she have to answer questions from a solicitor?

You can ask the question of the insurer. But it is up to the insurer to decide.

The majority of claims involving roundabouts end up being settled 50/50 where there is no dashcam footage. So, she may want to query what evidence exists that indicates it was 100% her fault.

dbs

lisyloo wrote: »

She can certainly talk to her insurer and put her case and make a formal complaint.
She cannot tell her insurer what to do.
I would expect if she went to court that she’d have to answer questions yes, that’s the whole point. If she’s being honest then there is nothing to be afraid of although to be honest insurers rarely go to court because of the costs. It sounds like the other insurer is negotiating harder than her insurer.

If it was me I’d be putting in a formal complaint right now.

She has been honest she has a black box on her car to prove she stopped at the roundabout and went to the police. Looking at the road layout its impossible for her car to damaged in such a manner without her car being fully on the roundabout.

The other insurer has submitted papers with a court date, this is when her insurer has backed down.

melb

I thought there was some law about not driving away from the scene of an accident. If I was involved in an accident I certainly wouldn't drive away if it wasn't me fault.
You say initially you thought the other driver was uninsured. Could they have got some sort of back-dated insurance and now are trying to use scare-tactics against you?
your insurer should be ashamed. I am assuming you don't have legal expenses cover?

dbs

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Not sure of the relevance of your imminent arrival.


Presumably the van joined the roundabout from her right. Without evidence to the contrary such as the vans excessive speed around a restricted view how can they or she argue that she didn't pull out in front of the van.
Did you take pictures of the parked van?

On my arrival I would have asked him about the road signs because I used to live next to this roundabout I suspect he never noticed it was a roundabout until the impact like other accidents there over the years. Also I would have checked for a dash cam on his car.

The driver who was parked illegally after hearing the accident suddenly appeared and drove off. Two people who assisted my family member who was in shock said it was a red van but did not get the reg number.

SonOf

I thought there was some law about not driving away from the scene of an accident. If I was involved in an accident I certainly wouldn't drive away if it wasn't me fault.

Not once details are exchanged and you know the other party is not injured.

You say initially you thought the other driver was uninsured. Could they have got some sort of back-dated insurance and now are trying to use scare-tactics against you?

The OP is not the person in the accident.
And you cant backdate car insurance. Especially when an incident has occurred.

your insurer should be ashamed.

We are getting one side of the story from a third party that wasnt present but is reliant on what they are being told by one of the parties involved.

So, you cannot rely on it being accurate.

Insurers nearly always do 50/50 on roundabouts. So, the fact that one side has changed their mind about going from 50/50 to full liability and the otherside is not fighting it suggests that there may be evidence available showing fault. Maybe the other party had a dashcam or another driver witnessed it had a dashcam.

The OP says that the damage could not have occurred without being fully on the roundabout. However, that doesn't mean anything as that just shows they got out in front of the person. Not that they gave the other person a chance to avoid the accident.

You cannot rely on one side of the story from a third party that wasnt there as being an accurate representation.

dbs

melb wrote: »

I thought there was some law about not driving away from the scene of an accident. If I was involved in an accident I certainly wouldn't drive away if it wasn't me fault.
You say initially you thought the other driver was uninsured. Could they have got some sort of back-dated insurance and now are trying to use scare-tactics against you?
your insurer should be ashamed. I am assuming you don't have legal expenses cover?

Will ask if his insurance was backdated.

Yes she has legal cover I going to ring later today on her behalf as to why this does not cover the court costs.

If no person has been injured or crime committed and details are exchanged then you can drive off.

dbs

SonOf wrote: »

Not once details are exchanged and you know the other party is not injured.



The OP is not the person in the accident.
And you cant backdate car insurance. Especially when an incident has occurred.



We are getting one side of the story from a third party that wasnt present but is reliant on what they are being told by one of the parties involved.

So, you cannot rely on it being accurate.

Insurers nearly always do 50/50 on roundabouts. So, the fact that one side has changed their mind about going from 50/50 to full liability and the otherside is not fighting it suggests that there may be evidence available showing fault. Maybe the other party had a dashcam or another driver witnessed it had a dashcam.

The OP says that the damage could not have occurred without being fully on the roundabout. However, that doesn't mean anything as that just shows they got out in front of the person. Not that they gave the other person a chance to avoid the accident.

You cannot rely on one side of the story from a third party that wasnt there as being an accurate representation.

This used to be a cross road junction then made into a mini roundabout.

There is a give way sign at the roundabout from the third party side but no give way sign at her approach, this was done to slow traffic down as this use to be the right of way.

A give way sign at a mini roundabout means slow down.

I stood for an hour yesterday watching traffic at this junction and everyone slows down.

I have lived in this area for many years and know this junction very well.

In her statement she also said the driver never braked this is why the impact was so bad and her car was a written off.

dbs

SonOf wrote: »

Not once details are exchanged and you know the other party is not injured.



The OP is not the person in the accident.
And you cant backdate car insurance. Especially when an incident has occurred.





The OP says that the damage could not have occurred without being fully on the roundabout. However, that doesn't mean anything as that just shows they got out in front of the person. Not that they gave the other person a chance to avoid the accident.

Her car was hit in the middle/rear position so was fully on the roundabout if she had hit his side/front of his car then there no dispute.

As for who got out first onto the mini roundabout is the reason why you slow down at mini roundabouts and be prepared to stop not travel at the max speed of the road concerned.