1st Central Insurance Claim & Incorrect Police Report

KC14

My dad has car insurance with 1st Central and he had an accident in April 2021 where a cyclist went over his bonnet as he was turning in to the vets. The cyclist was on the footway (illegal) and was speeding because he was late for work. The cyclist apologised and said it was his fault, it was clear to turn when my dad had looked. A police car was flagged down and an ambulance was called for the cyclist as he said his back hurt. The police looked at the cctv and took a statment from my dad and confirmed the day after there would be no charges as it was an accident and he wasn't at fault. The cyclist is currently claiming on my dads insurance for 12 months off work and fractured vertabrae. My dads car was damaged but he went and got it fixed himself.

1st Central sent my dad an email in January 2022 saying my dad had admitted fault but he didn't see it as he was still recovering from a bowel cancer operation. 1st central automatically added the claim to his insurance because he had apparently admitted fault so he has been paying higher premiums for the past 2 years. I sent 1st Central an email a couple of months ago asking for an update and an explanation as to why the claim was ongoing when my dad wasn't at fault and they sent me a copy of the police report saying my dad had admitted fault.

I got hold of a copy of the full RTC report and the statement taken from dad is different to the one in the police report. Baiscally my dad stated it wasn't his fault and the police have said in one part of the report he admitted fault and then his statement at the end of the RTC report states he didn't admit fault. 1st Central never picked up on this even though they have had the report for 2.5 years. I submitted a subject access request to 1st Central for the body cam footage and the CCTV from the vets and they are stating they don't have the body cam footage and they didn't attempt to upload the CCTV until September 2022 due to Covid19 and at that point the data was inaccessible so they got rid of the disk. They never chased the police for the footage again. We have had no correspndance from 1st Central since January 2022 until I chased them for an update.

I found out the police officers name who submitted the report and contacted him to see if he could amend the report and he said I would need to put in a complaint for anything to be done. I will do this today now that I have the RTC. I will also need to submit a Subject Access request to get copies of the CCTV and the body cam footage.

I am basically asking for advice on how to deal with the mishandling of the claim with 1st Central and whether i should be getting a solciitor involved as mistakes have been made by the insurance company and the police. Is there an ombudsman I can report the insurance company to?

Many Thanks

TSx

Your dad should make a complaint to the FOS about the poor handling of the claim (to do this, he will need to make a formal complaint to 1st central and give them 8 weeks to investigate and produce a final response) but I suspect this will end up being settled with at least some liability on your dads part - the cyclist will have contributory negligence if they were riding on a footpath which wasn't a cycle path but if your dad drove across his path, the argument will be made that he should have checked more carefully before proceeding - unless your dad drove, stopped across the path and the cyclist wasn't paying attention and drove into him. The cyclists acceptance of liability at the scene is likely to mean little, given the extent of the injuries and the police will be looking for any criminal offences, civil liability is not the same.

Aretnap

TSx said:

...I suspect this will end up being settled with at least some liability on your dads part - the cyclist will have contributory negligence if they were riding on a footpath which wasn't a cycle path...

And contributory negligence on the cyclists part will only be relevant if the fact that he was riding on the footway was a significant factor in causing a collision with a car.

In any event there is virtually no difference between a partial fault claim and a full fault claim in terms of your dad's future premiums etc so while while his insurance company's handling of the claim may not have been ideal, it seems unlikely that it will have made much difference to the end result from your dad's point of view at least. By all means make a complaint, but don't expect a huge amount to change as a result.

DullGreyGuy

Aretnap said:

TSx said:

...I suspect this will end up being settled with at least some liability on your dads part - the cyclist will have contributory negligence if they were riding on a footpath which wasn't a cycle path...

And contributory negligence on the cyclists part will only be relevant if the fact that he was riding on the footway was a significant factor in causing a collision with a car.

In any event there is virtually no difference between a partial fault claim and a full fault claim in terms of your dad's future premiums etc so while while his insurance company's handling of the claim may not have been ideal, it seems unlikely that it will have made much difference to the end result from your dad's point of view at least. By all means make a complaint, but don't expect a huge amount to change as a result.

Fault and contributory negligence are two separate things.

Split liability/fault means both sides settle each others claim up to the proportion you were liable, so a 50/50 claim both sides pay 50% of the other sides claim.

Contributory negligence doesn't change who is as fault for he accident but reduces the damages received. The classic is someone rear ended but they weren't wearing their seatbelt. If there is a 50% contributory negligence the at fault party pays 50% of the third party's losses but the third party pays nothing towards the other party's. 

As you say, 50/50 or 100% makes no difference with most insurers. 100% or 100% but 50% contributory negligence makes even less impact.

[Deleted User]

Was the car moving when the cyclist hit it?

KC14

@[Deleted User] my dad was already pulling into the car park before the cyclist came around the corner. He was probably only going 5mph at most. The cyclist would have seen my dad before he saw him.

[Deleted User]

Unfortunately if the car was moving then it's very likely to include some liability for your dad. The law makes it pretty much impossible to avoid paying out in cases like this.

eddddy

KC14 said:

@[Deleted User] my dad was already pulling into the car park before the cyclist came around the corner. He was probably only going 5mph at most. The cyclist would have seen my dad before he saw him.

Are you saying that your Dad's car was already across the pavement, when the cyclist came around a corner (on the pavement) and saw your Dad's car, but was unable to stop in time?

Based on what you have said, in your position, I'd also make the following points:

Before crossing the pavement, your Dad made reasonable checks up and down the pavement for pedestrians travelling at walking or running speeds. Your Dad didn't look further up and down the pavement for bikes travelling at high speed, because a reasonable person would not expect a bike to be travelling at high speed on a pavement. (And it is illegal and dangerous for a bike to travel at high speed on a pavement.)

I guess nobody checked the condition of the bike and it's brakes after the accident. Maybe ask questions like: How old was the bike? Does the rider have evidence that the bike (and brakes) were well maintained? 

How experienced was the rider? How often had they dealt with situations that required emergency braking? Braking is an automatic reflex action in emergencies for experienced bike riders. It seems strange to experienced riders, but some inexperienced riders have to "think about" applying the brakes when they want to stop. And in an emergency situation, they panic, and forget to apply the brakes.

There was an example of this captured on CCTV in London. As I recall, a lorry turned left in front of a bike, and the rider clearly panicked, and started wobbling and trying to put their feet down - but they didn't seem to brake. Sadly the rider died, but the police didn't take any action against the lorry driver, as the rider should have been able to stop.

 

KC14

eddddy said:

KC14 said:

@[Deleted User] my dad was already pulling into the car park before the cyclist came around the corner. He was probably only going 5mph at most. The cyclist would have seen my dad before he saw him.

Are you saying that your Dad's car was already across the pavement, when the cyclist came around a corner (on the pavement) and saw your Dad's car, but was unable to stop in time?

Based on what you have said, in your position, I'd also make the following points:

Before crossing the pavement, your Dad made reasonable checks up and down the pavement for pedestrians travelling at walking or running speeds. Your Dad didn't look further up and down the pavement for bikes travelling at high speed, because a reasonable person would not expect a bike to be travelling at high speed on a pavement. (And it is illegal and dangerous for a bike to travel at high speed on a pavement.)

I guess nobody checked the condition of the bike and it's brakes after the accident. Maybe ask questions like: How old was the bike? Does the rider have evidence that the bike (and brakes) were well maintained? 

How experienced was the rider? How often had they dealt with situations that required emergency braking? Braking is an automatic reflex action in emergencies for experienced bike riders. It seems strange to experienced riders, but some inexperienced riders have to "think about" applying the brakes when they want to stop. And in an emergency situation, they panic, and forget to apply the brakes.

There was an example of this captured on CCTV in London. As I recall, a lorry turned left in front of a bike, and the rider clearly panicked, and started wobbling and trying to put their feet down - but they didn't seem to brake. Sadly the rider died, but the police didn't take any action against the lorry driver, as the rider should have been able to stop.

 

Thank you, your comments are very helpful. Yes my dad had looked before turning and he was on the pavement entering the car park when the cyclist hit his bonnet. If the cyclist had been following the rules of the road he would have been on the opposite side of the road as he would have had to go around the round about which is just after the entrance to the vets.