car accident - pressured into saying its partly my fault

sams247

Hi

So, in 2018 I was in the slow lane of the motorway when a huge lorry hit me on the drivers side, span me right across to hit the central reservation. Driver was from Lithuania and said he did not see me as he moved to the inside lane. He has now gone back to Lithuania and disappeared. Although my car was flattened and ripped off its axis I was not hurt. The police therefore did not make a report.

I have been claiming compensation for my losses since then. Now my solicitors (from the insurance company) are saying I should accept a 50/50 fault claim as they do not believe I would win a court case. They say as there is damage to the passenger side (where it hit the central reservation) the other side could say I hit them.

The first set of papers they sent me had the wrong driver, this set say I was in the middle lane and therefore could have hit the lorry. I was never in the middle lane. They say they will not represent me in court as they say I should accept the 50/50. They also say if I accept then their fees are in the claim but if I dont then I have to pay for the fees.

I feel pressured to accept, but its so wrong as I was the one who was hit.

What can I do?

Thank you

Shaun_of_the_Dead

You can't disprove the lorry drivers account and the solicitor won't represent you so it looks like you'll be stuck with an at fault claim.

Was it a three lane motorway? Because you you were in late two what's the lorry doing in lane 3? In those circumstances the police may have acted.

facade

Are you claiming compensation for injury?
The pay out will be reduced to 50% of the amount awarded as you are accepting that you are 50% to blame for any injuries.


In a 50/50 fault claim you will lose 50% of your excess, but all car repairs will be paid for if you have comprehensive cover- your insurer picks up 50% of the bill.

Mercdriver

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

You can't disprove the lorry drivers account and the solicitor won't represent you so it looks like you'll be stuck with an at fault claim.

Was it a three lane motorway? Because you you were in late two what's the lorry doing in lane 3? In those circumstances the police may have acted.

Read the post again Sarge. The OP said he was 'never in the middle lane'. This says three lanes to me. Poster also says he was in 'slow' lane (we all know that's actually the lane we should all aim to be in, but hey). Less typing, more thinking and comprehending methinks

Shaun_of_the_Dead

Mercdriver wrote: »

Read the post again Sarge. The OP said he was 'never in the middle lane'. This says three lanes to me. Poster also says he was in 'slow' lane (we all know that's actually the lane we should all aim to be in, but hey). Less typing, more thinking and comprehending methinks

Kind of supports the OP's account, shame he can't prove it.

sams247

I was on the M6 in the midlands, on the inside lane. Lorry in middle lane.

I am claiming for loss of earnings, I was starting a new job and lost pay.

Thank you to all

Shaun_of_the_Dead

sams247 wrote: »

I was on the M6 in the midlands, on the inside lane. Lorry in middle lane.

I am claiming for loss of earnings, I was starting a new job and lost pay.

Thank you to all

Would a copy of the polices control log help and have your insurance requested a copy?

sevenhills

sams247 wrote: »

The police therefore did not make a report.

But they may well recall what happened and help you if requested?

unholyangel

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

You can't disprove the lorry drivers account and the solicitor won't represent you so it looks like you'll be stuck with an at fault claim.

Was it a three lane motorway? Because you you were in late two what's the lorry doing in lane 3? In those circumstances the police may have acted.

Well its balance of probability.

So, on balance of probability....is the version where the lorry driver didn't see OP's car more likely?

Or do you think its more likely the OP didn't see the lorry?

OP by solicitor do you mean ambulance chaser/claims company? Because the bit about fees being payable suggest it is.

soolin

sams247 wrote: »

I was on the M6 in the midlands, on the inside lane. Lorry in middle lane.

I am claiming for loss of earnings, I was starting a new job and lost pay.

Thank you to all

Just to clarify, You say you were unhurt, so where does the loss of pay come into it?

AdrianC

Let me be sure I've got this straight.

Car in L1.
LHD truck in L2, overtaking car..
Truck moves in early, hits car along length of car offside.

We'll ignore why the car didn't just move left within the lane and brake as soon as they saw the truck moving into their lane...

The car - which must, by definition, have been doing ~50mph at most - then spins and hits the length of the nearside across the barriers of the central reservation...?

And the car was on the LHD truck's driver's side, making it far more visible than on the other side?

The EU-national truck driver gives a contradictory account of the incident, but cannot be easily contacted. But he stopped and exchanged details, and his insurer is involved in the process.

The total value of the claim is the OP's car plus any Highways Agency costs for the recovery and damage to road furniture. There's no mention of any claim for damage to the truck.

The OP was unhurt - but is claiming for loss of earnings? That's not happening, without a very good reason.

I have to admit, I'm not surprised the OP's solicitors are saying it's going to be hard to take this to court, they're not going to throw good money after bad, and they're going to settle 50/50. The whole scenario simply fails occam's razor.

The OP's case has been passed to solicitors from the insurer. The terms of that referral will say that if the OP takes their advice, then the insurer covers. But if the OP wants to fight against advice, they need to cover fees. If the OP wins, then costs are likely to be covered in the judgement. But if the OP loses, they're going to face both sets of costs.