Car accident - other party admitted liability, subsequently changed their mind

JC1234

Hi, I was involved in a car accident just over a week ago. It was at night and I came to be behind a cyclist, I slowed down waiting for the road to become clear, indicated and overtook the cyclist. On the right hand side of the road there was a car waiting to pull out of a side road, whilst I was still overtaking the cyclist the driver pulled out of the side road and hit the rear drivers side wheel of my car spinning me at 90 degrees and causing significant damage to both mine and their car (airbags deployed).
The police were called, insurance notified, cars recovered and the driver of the vehicle apologised for the accident. The cyclist was no where to be seen. I can only imagine that the driver looked right to check the road was clear, didn't look left and just pulled out.
I have since received a letter from their legal representation suggesting that I was at fault for the accident. Their claim is that they had pulled out and were established on the road before I then overtook the cyclist and veered onto their side of the road hitting their car.
Their car hit my rear wheel, it boggles the mind to think how it would be possible for their story of events to be possible - I was driving a 4 wheel drive vehicle not a rear wheel drive sports car! 
My questions are how do the insurers come to a decision on liability? In the absence of dashcams and witnesses, do they consider the layout of the road, where the damage is on the cars? Or is just based on statements from both parties when neither are accepting liability? Finally, is it not against the law to lie on an insurance claim? 
Thanks in advance for your views.

The_Rainmaker

Let your insurer deal with it.

AdrianC

Defensive driving tip - it was not at all wise to pass the cyclist as you passed a side road on your right with somebody waiting to join your road... The chances of them looking "the wrong way" before pulling out were slim. They did an utterly unsurprising manouvre.

That's not the same as it being your fault, of course. Wholly or in part. But it does mean the chances of your insurer recovering their outlay in full are reduced. And, if they're out of pocket, it goes as an at-fault claim on your insurance history. But the two insurers will be the ones who come to an agreement. If both sides really dig their heels in, it may eventually go to court, but for a relatively minor damage-only, no-injury collision with no witnesses, that's unlikely.

JC1234

The_Rainmaker said:

Let your insurer deal with it.

They are, I was just interested to understand my position.

Car_54

AdrianC said:

Defensive driving tip - it was not at all wise to pass the cyclist as you passed a side road on your right with somebody waiting to join your road...

Indeed. It's pretty basic. The Highway Code tells you specifically "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example, approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road". [Rule 167]

almillar

Basic hazard perception stuff. You're approaching a slow vehicle - do you overtake? There's a junction ahead. There's a car in it. No, is the answer. That car might pull out. And it did. And you've been caught on the wrong side of the road.

It doesn't matter whether that vehicle was a bike, car or tractor, you made a poor overtake.

The other car shouldn't have pulled out, sure, but you were driving along the wrong side of the road.