Car insurance claim. No Fault on either side No payment on either side . Who to sue??

John_

Limalex said:

Hello Forum.

I had a collision in 2018.
I was about to exit of the small roundabout an a vehicle approaching of the right ignored the giveaway sigh speed up and intended to drive off in-front of me.

We collided his off side rear damaged and my offside front damaged. I believed it was his fault and i thought it will be a simple case, but he introduced a fake witness then the wittiness disappeared and for two years the insurance companies did not make a decision.
I did not wanted to claim on my comprehensive insurance because my fee would be £1250 and my insurance company said the cannot do anything until I pay and now the case is dropped with noone at fault.

Wo I suppose to sue?
What is the process?
Can I go to small claims court with this?

Any guidance would be appreciated

It sounds like it was mainly your fault but that you got a bit lucky to be given 50:50, so there’s no-one to sue.

Your description seems to only make sense if you were in a country where people drive on the right, as otherwise it’s not possible for you to hit the off-side of a car coming from your right.

photome

John_ said:

Limalex said:

Hello Forum.

I had a collision in 2018.
I was about to exit of the small roundabout an a vehicle approaching of the right ignored the giveaway sigh speed up and intended to drive off in-front of me.

We collided his off side rear damaged and my offside front damaged. I believed it was his fault and i thought it will be a simple case, but he introduced a fake witness then the wittiness disappeared and for two years the insurance companies did not make a decision.
I did not wanted to claim on my comprehensive insurance because my fee would be £1250 and my insurance company said the cannot do anything until I pay and now the case is dropped with noone at fault.

Wo I suppose to sue?
What is the process?
Can I go to small claims court with this?

Any guidance would be appreciated

It sounds like it was mainly your fault but that you got a bit lucky to be given 50:50, so there’s no-one to sue.

Your description seems to only make sense if you were in a country where people drive on the right, as otherwise it’s not possible for you to hit the off-side of a car coming from your right.

Op has corrected the events twice if you read the whole thread

OP I think your mistake was not going through your insurance company , that is what they are for

AdrianC

The OP was turning right at this mini roundabout.
https://goo.gl/maps/qjY3tenxpedBeFYw7

The other vehicle was heading straight on.
https://goo.gl/maps/L5chANHgmA9kkZ5q7

It's a 30 limit.

The OP couldn't possibly stop in time to avoid hitting their front corner onto the rear corner of the other vehicle.

I think somebody was trying to prove a point and misjudged it. The insurers have the right of it.

Dr_Crypto

Ah right of way. The last thought on countless people’s minds as their broken chests fill with blood. The concept should be abolished. 

AdrianC

Dr_Crypto said:

Ah right of way. The last thought on countless people’s minds as their broken chests fill with blood. The concept should be abolished. 

Since it doesn't exist in the first place...

The HC is very clear in that...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158#rule147

"Rule 147

Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204).
...

• try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well.
• be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake.
• do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey.
• slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them."

Somebody established on a roundabout has priority over people joining. Priority is not the same as right of way.

Sandtree

Limalex said
Claim already happened agains my policy. The third party introduced a witness, but the witness was fake and his statement was questionable. My insurer wanted to question the witness but he disappeared. Probably got frightened for the possible hearing.

The insurers was discussing the case for over two years and finally closed it as  no fault accident on my part.

Do not know about the third party's case and for data protection the third party details not available to me. What I know it that the third party intended to claim £55000

My problem is that case should have gone to trial and not closed as no fault claim. If it would happened my country it would be a straight fault for the third party. He did not give me priority even though he has a give away sign and I was already in the roundabout also I was approaching from his right. it is a straight forward case for me.

My stubble is to who to take action against.

Either the third party insurer or my insurer because I believe they are duty bound to defend my case on court.

You said you hadn’t claimed for the damage because the cost was too much? You have registered a claim but havent made a claim, at this point.

If you don’t have the third party details how do you intend to sue them? Data protection is more complex than you think clearly, you are entitled to have the third party’s details, you can get them from the DVLA but in most cases your insurer will give them... after all if you had claimed for the damage and they were talking the matter to court it would be you -v- the third party and the details on the court papers.

Your insurers cannot issue proceeding go to court because you’ve not made a claim against your policy and so they haven’t inherited a right to sue the TP. Claim your damages from them and then they have an outlay and they then can take the TP to court.

You insurers would go to court to defend your case but as the defendant this can only triggered if the third party or their insurers issue against you. Clearly they haven’t and you cannot defend a matter thats not been claimed.

If you want to continue dealing with it yourself by virtue of not claiming off your own insurance then you would need to issue against the third party.

AdrianC

Sandtree said:

If you want to continue dealing with it yourself by virtue of not claiming off your own insurance then you would need to issue against the third party.

...and the third party will simply pass it to their insurance, so your lawyers will be fighting the insurer's lawyers.

Three guesses who has the bigger pockets to defend.

Sandtree

AdrianC said:

Sandtree said:

If you want to continue dealing with it yourself by virtue of not claiming off your own insurance then you would need to issue against the third party.

...and the third party will simply pass it to their insurance, so your lawyers will be fighting the insurer's lawyers.

Three guesses who has the bigger pockets to defend.

No mention of injuries and so this is a small track case; whilst the insurer has deeper pockets they are also not emotionally invested and are commercially minded. In small track there is generally no costs claimable for solicitors or barristers and so whats the point spending £1,000 in legal fees  to try and defend a £1,200 claim which you may or may not win? Make an out of court settlement offer of £900 which you stretch to £1,000 and you’ve come out at your best case outcome without the risk.

The OP hasnt said how much their repairs were, so it may well be it is commercially worth defending but the principle of the small track is that lawyers shouldnt be required which is why their fees are excluded.