Car Insurance Claim with Foreign Driver

missile

It is all very well to discuss going to court, but how would you serve a summons on a foreign national?

IMHO this is one area where we ought to learn from other EU countries.

lisyloo

It is all very well to discuss going to court, but how would you serve a summons on a foreign national?

I have no idea, but I agree that the factthat this is a foreign driver makes things more complicated and expensive.

Personally I would not take this to court with the odds as they are and I don't think any solicitor would recommend it unless you have a celebrity budget for legal cases.

slipp_digby

achtunglady wrote: »

Useful advice when driving next to a left hooker (left hand drive truck/lorry)

1) Make use of the road space, don't just sit in their blind spot at 65mph IN THE MIDDLE LANE, your car is capable of doing 70mph which is the speed limit in all lanes for cars, use the outside lane if necessary

With due respect I asked for views/advice on whether to pursue the claim and my options, not advice on how to drive!

Its not easy to describe without a diagram but for clarity I was not SITTING in the blind spot as you assume, I was overtaking an artic which was travelling a lot slower than me (guess about 50-55mph) in the inside lane and I was doing about 65mph in the middle lane so I was in the blind spot for only a small amount of time. It was a glancing blow on the rear passenger side. No signal, no warning.

I would guess he either saw me and midjudged the speed I was travelling OR didn't see me at all before he manouvred.

I agree cars should be doing 70mph "unless road conditions dictate otherwise", they did on this particular day - it was raining - which would no doubt effect visibility as well - yet another reason for the driver to exercise more caution before changing lanes.

slipp_digby

Insurers have confirmed to me that the 'Agreed Statement of Facts Document' has been completed only by the other party on both sides, so it basically just represents their account of the incident. I asked for a copy which they are sending, although its in italian and my insurers haven't translated it yet!

My insurers are going for a 50/50 which I guess is the inevitable outcome where there are no witnesses.

There seems little point in pursuing this, the other driver has basically got away with it lightly and I at least didnt get hurt.

Thanks for the advice everyone.

I am sure there is a moral in this story - perhaps always offer to act as a witness to an accident even if you don't stop at the time, because someday you may need a witness yourself.

Merry christmas!
:beer:

Anarchist

Sorry but I don't really agree with the others, I think you should carry on pushing and refuse the 50/50 outcome.

Its standard policy for this sort of thing to happen. At first they will ALWAYS dispute it and refuse any claim, then they'll go for a 50/50 settlement even if they know they are wrong. If you refuse then they will often just cough up. It is the standard way these things go, no matter how rediculous their claim is.

It certainly sounds like the far more likely cause of events was the other driver, and especially as he did not get you to sign the agreed statement of facts, can only go against him.

I would push for the full claim, I thought that the damage to your car would have been examined, and would have confirmed what you had said. If it goes to a court they would probably only claim a 50/50 verdict at worse anyway.

You may think 'oh its only my no claims' - but that loss will carry on for years (until you either lose it yourself or build it back up to max no claims bonus again), plus it'll bump it up because of the accident being your fault. It will cost you a LOT for several years to come, probably a lot more than the value of your car.

slipp_digby

Anarchist wrote: »

Sorry but I don't really agree with the others, I think you should carry on pushing and refuse the 50/50 outcome.



Thanks for this response Anarchist.

I am now in possession of the third party account of events and with all the information in front of me I have deceided that the third party version of events is so lacking in detail that I wont accept a 50/50 on this basis. It is entirely inaccurate. I am going to tell CIS that I will not accept a 50/50 on the basis of such poor information about the incident.

Keeping_Positive

Good for you. Worst case scenario is 50/50 but I think you should fight for more.

Mr_Bear_2

the answer to to issue question is that the UK handling agents will nominate UK solicitors to accept service

who are the claims handlers out of interest? I may know them!!

missile

slipp_digby wrote: »

Anarchist wrote: »

I am now in possession of the third party account of events and with all the information in front of me I have deceided that the third party version of events is so lacking in detail that I wont accept a 50/50 on this basis. It is entirely inaccurate. I am going to tell CIS that I will not accept a 50/50 on the basis of such poor information about the incident.

I wish you luck, but I feel you are misguided. With no independent witness, no police action, no evidence to support your account, IMHO you have very little chance of making a successful claim against any other driver - far less against johny foriegner.

slipp_digby

missile wrote: »

slipp_digby wrote: »

I wish you luck, but I feel you are misguided. With no independent witness, no police action, no evidence to support your account, IMHO you have very little chance of making a successful claim against any other driver - far less against johny foriegner.

no I am entirely realistic that the chances of a satisfactory conclusions are very slim, but I have already lost my no claims and had a £500 increase in my premium as a result of this incident. what is there to lose from pushing my insurers to pursue this? they can only say no and I have lost nothing.