Small claims court

PHK

I think the reason the OP is being asked to withdraw is because if the insurance company (or their solicitors) make an application to the court to have the  judgement set aside because the OP hasn't followed correct procedure then the judge hearing the application could award costs against the OP because the insurance company offered a way out that lessened everyone's cost. But if the judge agrees the OP was given incorrect information (bearing in mind they are not experts) then the judge might not award costs. 

Either way, I am not sure that the OP should be taking the insurance company to court. I agree OP should take proper legal advice. 

Okell

PHK said:

I think the reason the OP is being asked to withdraw is because if the insurance company (or their solicitors) make an application to the court to have the  judgement set aside because the OP hasn't followed correct procedure then the judge hearing the application could award costs against the OP because the insurance company offered a way out that lessened everyone's cost. But if the judge agrees the OP was given incorrect information (bearing in mind they are not experts) then the judge might not award costs. 

Either way, I am not sure that the OP should be taking the insurance company to court. I agree OP should take proper legal advice. 

Yes.  That's what I was trying to say by reference to "increasing costs" but you've expressed it better than I did.

I was primarily thinking about the OP having the costs of the solicitors' application awarded against him because his claim wasn't properly issued.  I hadn't considered that the judge might think the insurance company had misled him into issuing against the wrong address.  Either way it's in both party's interests to keep costs down and do it by consent.  (Assuming of course that the claim was not correctly issued in the first place...)

The OP could try posting on one of the boards on Consumer Action Group and/or Legal Beagles.  Both forums have boards on civil procedure matters

gill1111

eskbanker said:

gill1111 said:
I am claiming for criminal damage caused to my property caused by their insured person in his car

Has the driver been charged and prosecuted?

Yes he was

gill1111

Okell said:

I'm no insurance expert, but why wouldn't you sue the insured driver rather than their insurance company?  Surely your claim is against the driver.  The insurance company didn't damage your property.  They simply indemnify their client against claims like this.

(I assume that's the point DullGreyGuy was making...)

He's disappeared the police gave me his insurance details  to make a claim. They have accepted liability

gill1111

DullGreyGuy said:

gill1111 said:

I served the registered address as the claims process online made a point of saying its important to get the address details right.  So I emailed them to confirm it and they did say if I wish I could serve the registered office and they would pass it on. 

No contact from the solicitor until now, no contact prior to me submitting the claim.

Thank-you for responding. 

You're getting into a fairly technical bit of law...

6.7

(1) Solicitor within the jurisdiction: Subject to rule 6.5(1), where –

(a) the defendant has given in writing the business address within the jurisdiction of a solicitor as an address at which the defendant may be served with the claim form; or

(b) a solicitor acting for the defendant has notified the claimant in writing that the solicitor is instructed by the defendant to accept service of the claim form on behalf of the defendant at a business address within the jurisdiction,

the claim form must be served at the business address of that solicitor.

Note that I've crossed out 6.7(1)(b) as it's not relevant in this case. So had the defendant told you to issue to their solicitors then certainly the above would apply. As the defendant explicitly stated you could serve on either... I mean the wording says "may" which could imply they are correct but I've no experience on how these things are interpreted by the courts. 

I am however even more concerned of your issuing on the insurer now given it was a drunk driver as that would typically invalidate their insurance. They would most likely still be liable as the RTA insurer under S151 however for that to apply you must have a judgement against the tortfeasor (a great archaic word - ie the drink driver). Now most insurers will play happy outside of court to try to settle these claims without the cost of litigation but once things get litigated many start playing hardball. 

Sorry that its not a straight answer from me. 

Thankyou...I think you're right they have me the option and said they would pass it on. 
Looks like they have me on a technicality...even though they give me the registered office address and the solicitor.
Also he wasn't a drink driver...

I'm not sure how a small claims court will see their hardball tactics...I don't have representation.

Thanks for your comment though

PHK

The thing about them asking you to withdraw is to save YOU having to pay the insurers  costs. See the posts above. 

Okell

gill1111 said:

Okell said:

I'm no insurance expert, but why wouldn't you sue the insured driver rather than their insurance company?  Surely your claim is against the driver.  The insurance company didn't damage your property.  They simply indemnify their client against claims like this.

(I assume that's the point DullGreyGuy was making...)

He's disappeared the police gave me his insurance details  to make a claim. They have accepted liability

Are you saying that you don't know who the driver is, or you don't have an address for him, or that he's done a runner?  What details have the police given you?

Why didn't you explain in your opening post that he'd "disappeared"?

My understanding is that if you suffer a loss as a result of a car accident, you sue the driver of the offending car and their insurers indemnify them.  (ie their insurers pay you compensation.  I don't know if you can just sue the insurer if their customer has "disappeared".  How do you prove the driver who disappeared was their client?  Just beacuase the police told you?).

You may think they've accepted liability, but their solicitors don't seem to be making it easy for you, which makes me wonder exactly what they've accepted...?