Car Insurance Ombudsman

Sandtree

born_again said:

NO. What it shows is what really happened...

Obviously it shows what it captures but, if I understand the circumstances correctly - ie the OP came from behind the van - then it only shows from once the OP is alongside/ahead of the van, it wouldn't show how long the OP had been in the lane whilst behind the van... footage can be misleading when it doesn't capture the run up to an event.

That said, from the OPs own description they hadn't completed their manoeuvre anyway.

born_again

Sandtree said:

born_again said:

NO. What it shows is what really happened...

Obviously it shows what it captures but, if I understand the circumstances correctly - ie the OP came from behind the van - then it only shows from once the OP is alongside/ahead of the van, it wouldn't show how long the OP had been in the lane whilst behind the van... footage can be misleading when it doesn't capture the run up to an event.

That said, from the OPs own description they hadn't completed their manoeuvre anyway.

Why not?

Unless the OP has only sent them a very short clip. In a event like that I would be sending everything from entering the roundabout.

full_stop

GrumpyDil said:

My first thought is to wonder why you tried to drive around him rather than stopping when you realised he was moving into that lane.

It was a split second decision on my part and I instinctively came to the conclusion that this was not possible as I probably would have run into the side of the van.

GrumpyDil said:

Were there any third party witnesses as otherwise it's simply your word against his with some dash cam footage which the insurance companies have used to decide on split liability. 

Regrettably, none.

Sandtree said:

You need to properly engage with the complaint process which would include stating why you are unhappy with their decision on the 50/50 proposal.  You can escalate to the Financial Ombudsman once you have received their final response or once 8 weeks have passed from your complaint being logged, whichever is sooner.

CCTV including dash cam is covered by data privacy law and therefore anyone that holds a copy that shows you/your vehicle then you can do a DSAR request to receive a copy of it.

Thanks for added info.

Sandtree said:

unless you can demonstrate that they've ignored some submitted evidence or have failed to make reasonable efforts to gather evidence

Well I would contest this decision on the basis of the following.

1. The panel van was stationary in a queue of cars waiting at a red light. Apparently, the dash cam footage does shows this much. The analogy of the parked car pulling into moving traffic (as detailed in my post above) would be an important point that I would wish to rely on.

2. This panel van had much reduced visibility. Furthermore, it was even fitted with a bulkhead separator behind the driver's seat so the driver was solely reliant on the door mirrors in order to ascertain and monitor the flow of traffic coming from behind.

3. It is my firm opinion that had the panel van in the adjacent lane patiently queued in his lane and waited for the lights to change to green rather than attempting to change lanes and queue jump as he did in such a busy location, then this collision would not have occurred. Instead the panel van moved out. Probably did not clearly see my car as a result of the reduced visibility. The driver was also wearing somewhat thick glasses too.

Point 2 and 3 above have been completely ignored by my insurer as well as the third party since they have doggedly focused on only the web cam footage and ignored what I believe to be important info. Are points 2 and 3 not sufficient to demonstrate that they have ignored evidence?

I clearly stated these 3 point in my submission to my insurer.

Of course that is my opinion and would appreciate your feedback as you are much more knowledgeable in this matter

Many thanks for your added help in this matter

Sandtree

born_again said:

Sandtree said:

born_again said:

NO. What it shows is what really happened...

Obviously it shows what it captures but, if I understand the circumstances correctly - ie the OP came from behind the van - then it only shows from once the OP is alongside/ahead of the van, it wouldn't show how long the OP had been in the lane whilst behind the van... footage can be misleading when it doesn't capture the run up to an event.

That said, from the OPs own description they hadn't completed their manoeuvre anyway.

Why not?

Unless the OP has only sent them a very short clip. In a event like that I would be sending everything from entering the roundabout.

The OP is saying they want to see the footage which would mean its the TPs not theirs

AdrianC

full_stop said:

Well I would contest this decision on the basis of the following.

1. The panel van was stationary in a queue of cars waiting at a red light. Apparently, the dash cam footage does shows this much. The analogy of the parked car pulling into moving traffic (as detailed in my post above) would be an important point that I would wish to rely on.

2. This panel van had much reduced visibility. Furthermore, it was even fitted with a bulkhead separator behind the driver's seat so the driver was solely reliant on the door mirrors in order to ascertain and monitor the flow of traffic coming from behind.

3. It is my firm opinion that had the panel van in the adjacent lane patiently queued in his lane and waited for the lights to change to green rather than attempting to change lanes and queue jump as he did in such a busy location, then this collision would not have occurred. Instead the panel van moved out. Probably did not clearly see my car as a result of the reduced visibility. The driver was also wearing somewhat thick glasses too.

Point 2 and 3 above have been completely ignored by my insurer as well as the third party since they have doggedly focused on only the web cam footage and ignored what I believe to be important info. Are points 2 and 3 not sufficient to demonstrate that they have ignored evidence?

I clearly stated these 3 point in my submission to my insurer.

Woah up... You are forgetting one thing.
The van driver has been found liable for the collision. His actions caused it.

The question is could you have easily avoided it? Yes, you could. That's why you are also partially liable.

As with the vast majority of incidents, it takes two to tangle. Either driver could have easily avoided it by using their eyes and brains a bit harder. Neither did. That's why liability is split.

His bumper hit your front door. What were you driving? Something with a very short front wing, or a relatively normal length one? Because if you're working on the "But his rear three-quarter vision is compromised" angle (and, if you've never driven one, almost every van has blind-spot wide-angle mirrors), how come you were mostly in front of him...?

The thickness of his glasses? REALLY...? His vision must meet the legal standard. Corrective optical devices (glasses and contacts) are allowed to do so.

You are not going to win this one. Accept it now, or go through a lot of time, effort, blood pressure and find the end result is the same. Your choice.

full_stop

Just for clarity. I did not slow down to allow him to go and then close the door on him.

I drive very little these days and try to remain calm and civil at all times.

I know the roundabout where this incident happened like the back of my hand.

That roundabout is very busy so it pays to keep very alert and not to look at any instrumentation. But at the time the panel van pulled out into the lane that I was mostly in (not quite fully in but mostly in), I guess I was traveling at no more than 20mph and decelerating. Which translates to some 30 feet per sec.

So I reckon I had about one second to react to the white van moving into my lane.

Hope this clears up any confusion

full_stop

AdrianC said: Woah up... You are forgetting one thing.
The van driver has been found liable for the collision. His actions caused it.

The question is could you have easily avoided it? Yes, you could. That's why you are also partially liable.

As with the vast majority of incidents, it takes two to tangle. Either driver could have easily avoided it by using their eyes and brains a bit harder. Neither did. That's why liability is split.

His bumper hit your front door. What were you driving? Something with a very short front wing, or a relatively normal length one? Because if you're working on the "But his rear three-quarter vision is compromised" angle (and, if you've never driven one, almost every van has blind-spot wide-angle mirrors), how come you were mostly in front of him...?

The thickness of his glasses? REALLY...? His vision must meet the legal standard. Corrective optical devices (glasses and contacts) are allowed to do so.

You are not going to win this one. Accept it now, or go through a lot of time, effort, blood pressure and find the end result is the same. Your choice.

I have tried to describe this collision clearly and objectively in my view.

It seems regrettable from what you are saying that I should just accept my insurer's decision

Many thanks for your added comments

AdrianC

full_stop said:

...But at the time the panel van pulled out into the lane that I was mostly in (not quite fully in but mostly in), I guess I was traveling at no more than 20mph and decelerating. Which translates to some 30 feet per sec.

So I reckon I had about one second to react to the white van moving into my lane.

Exactly.

1.5x both the van's length and the highway code braking distance.

Yet still his front bumper hit your driver's door, yet his dashcam won't show you in front of him until the very last second.

Aretnap

AdrianC said:

Remember that "50/50" doesn't mean an EXACT equal split of liability. Just that you were partially liable, not completely innocent.

That's not really true. If a court awards a 50/50 settlement, it does mean precisely that it thinks both parties were equally to blame. If it thinks that one party was mostly to blame but the other had some lesser blame it will award a different settlement to reflect that, such as 60/40 or 80/20.

In practice though 50/50 is what insurers tend to settle on when there isn't enough evidence for them to determine with confidence who was at fault, and neither insurer wants to pay the legal costs of fighting a court case which could easily go either way. In which case it means that nobody is actually judging the OP to be fully liable, partially liable or blameless - they're saying that there isn't really enough evidence to judge him at all.

AdrianC said:

full_stop said:

In practical terms does 50/50 mean that 50% of my repair will be paid by my insurer and the other 50% by the third party insurer?

It makes no difference to you. You pay your excess. Your car gets repaired.

If it's settled as 50/50 you can reclaim 50% of your excess from the third party insurer, along with any other uninsured losses such as personal injury, the cost of a hire car while yours is repaired, or any uninsured goods that you had in the boot which were damaged. (If it was settled as something else, like 80/20 in your favour, you'd be able to claim 80% of your uninsured losses. Obviously if it was settled as entirely the other driver's fault you'd be able to claim them all.)

If you have significant uninsured losses (eg a personal injury, or a collection of valuable paintings in the boot) you can ask your insurer to settle on a "without prejudice" basis, ie settle their share of the repair costs with the third party insurer without admitting liability on your part. That leaves you free to attempt to pursue your uninsured losses from the third party's insurer yourself, through the courts if necessary. A court might award you all your uninsured losses, 50% of them or none of them depending on what evidence is presented and who sounds most credible giving evidence, however your insurer would stand back and take no part in the process having already settled for the car's repair bill.

ontheroad1970

full_stop said:

Just for clarity. I did not slow down to allow him to go and then close the door on him.

I drive very little these days and try to remain calm and civil at all times.

I know the roundabout where this incident happened like the back of my hand.

That roundabout is very busy so it pays to keep very alert and not to look at any instrumentation. But at the time the panel van pulled out into the lane that I was mostly in (not quite fully in but mostly in), I guess I was traveling at no more than 20mph and decelerating. Which translates to some 30 feet per sec.

So I reckon I had about one second to react to the white van moving into my lane.

Hope this clears up any confusion

Do the actions of the van driver surprise you?  It wouldn't surprise me.  If they didn't surprise you, then did you take any mitigating actions in case he did what you thought he might do?  

I can't see you getting it as wholly his fault.  It's common for people to cut across you, and you should drive taking into consideration the visibility issues that you were aware of - i.e. the lack of rear windows.  That should have left you to be even more cautious, especially as it seems you were crossing two lanes, so were even more likely to be in his blind spot.