Car accident

Cathartic

Hi all. Advice needed please. I had a car accident about a month ago, 100% not my fault. I was in a left only filter lane at a roundabout intending to take that exit when I was hit on the front offside wing by another vehicle which cut across into my lane from nowhere forcing me into the nearside kerb. My lane is clearly demarcated and separated from the others by Chevron markings on the road on a pink background. My problem is that the other driver is lying about what happened and has claimed that I left my lane and drove into him! Unfortunately I have no dash cam or witnesses (other than my wife who was with me) and despite trying to obtain CCTV footage from the area it seems that the incident hasn't been captured. Whilst investigations are still continuing I have been told that if no proof can be provided as to exactly what happened then it will likely go down as a 50/50 incident i.e. both drivers at fault. I'm absolutely fuming about the situation as this has repercussions on my future premiums as well as the excess I have to pay to have my own car repaired and all because someone couldn't be honest enough to tell the truth. I had only owned the car for a week when this happened! My question is do I have anywhere to go legally from here in terms of challenging the outcome of the investigation or not accepting the findings etc assuming the 50/50 situation is the outcome?

DullGreyGuy

Legally your insurers can settle the claim as they see fit irrespective of if you are happy about it or not. Insurers do vary a little on how much they'll try and pursuade you to accept the 50/50 or how quickly they just tell you it is what it is. 

As a 50/50 settlement you would get 50% of your excess back from the third party insurer but would count as a fault accident for the purposes of NCD and impact on premium. 

If you feel very strongly then some insurers will allow you to litigate against the third party and try to win it on your own. At the end of the day there is an element of rolling the dice when going to court and ironically insurers dont like risk hence preferring the 50/50 settlement. HOWEVER, if the insurer does agree to this then you will be required to sign an indemnity agreement such that if you go to court and dont win you will have to reimburse them the difference between what the court awards to the third party and the 50/50 settlement they'd been proposing. Few policyholders do it and have seen a couple lose thousands after they got a worse outcome. 

daveyjp

Unfortunately without evidence to prove the contrary most collisions at roundabouts where both vehicles are moving result in 50:50.

You state they hit you, they claim you pulled out on them.  Who to believe?

NBLondon

daveyjp said:

You state they hit you, they claim you pulled out on them.  Who to believe?

If as the OP says, it's a demarcated filter lane then one (or possibly both) of the vehicles must have crossed the chevrons.  So I'd definitely be pushing the insurance company to chase for CCTV.

sheramber

It is useful to take a photograph of the position of the vehicles before they are moved.

That would have shown where both cars were in relation to road markings.

Your pohine would do or keep a dosposable camera in the glove box.

Okell

@Cathartic -  can you give a google maps street view link to the roundabout?

Cathartic

DullGreyGuy said:

Legally your insurers can settle the claim as they see fit irrespective of if you are happy about it or not. Insurers do vary a little on how much they'll try and pursuade you to accept the 50/50 or how quickly they just tell you it is what it is. 

As a 50/50 settlement you would get 50% of your excess back from the third party insurer but would count as a fault accident for the purposes of NCD and impact on premium. 

If you feel very strongly then some insurers will allow you to litigate against the third party and try to win it on your own. At the end of the day there is an element of rolling the dice when going to court and ironically insurers dont like risk hence preferring the 50/50 settlement. HOWEVER, if the insurer does agree to this then you will be required to sign an indemnity agreement such that if you go to court and dont win you will have to reimburse them the difference between what the court awards to the third party and the 50/50 settlement they'd been proposing. Few policyholders do it and have seen a couple lose thousands after they got a worse outcome. 

Thanks for this. Unfortunately this is what I feared. Someone from the insurance company said something similar but without going into as much detail. I doubt I would go to the lengths of a court case as I appreciate that without concrete evidence it is just my word against someone else's so my chances of success would remain 50/50

Cathartic

sheramber said:

It is useful to take a photograph of the position of the vehicles before they are moved.

That would have shown where both cars were in relation to road markings.

Your pohine would do or keep a dosposable camera in the glove box.

I did this and have provided them to my insurers. Mine was in the exact position where the incident happened but the other car has moved on somewhat. I recommended this to them

Cathartic

NBLondon said:

daveyjp said:

You state they hit you, they claim you pulled out on them.  Who to believe?

If as the OP says, it's a demarcated filter lane then one (or possibly both) of the vehicles must have crossed the chevrons.  So I'd definitely be pushing the insurance company to chase for CCTV.

To be fair to my insurers they have requested this from the shopping centre where the incident occurred (although I had to do a lot of the leg work in terms of finding the right people to contact). Unfortunately it increasingly appears as though the incident hasn't been captured. I now intend to install a dash cam to avoid anything like this in future. I wished I had told the other party I had one at the time of the incident (even though I didn't!) as he may then have at least been fearful enough to tell the truth!

DullGreyGuy

Cathartic said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Legally your insurers can settle the claim as they see fit irrespective of if you are happy about it or not. Insurers do vary a little on how much they'll try and pursuade you to accept the 50/50 or how quickly they just tell you it is what it is. 

As a 50/50 settlement you would get 50% of your excess back from the third party insurer but would count as a fault accident for the purposes of NCD and impact on premium. 

If you feel very strongly then some insurers will allow you to litigate against the third party and try to win it on your own. At the end of the day there is an element of rolling the dice when going to court and ironically insurers dont like risk hence preferring the 50/50 settlement. HOWEVER, if the insurer does agree to this then you will be required to sign an indemnity agreement such that if you go to court and dont win you will have to reimburse them the difference between what the court awards to the third party and the 50/50 settlement they'd been proposing. Few policyholders do it and have seen a couple lose thousands after they got a worse outcome. 

Thanks for this. Unfortunately this is what I feared. Someone from the insurance company said something similar but without going into as much detail. I doubt I would go to the lengths of a court case as I appreciate that without concrete evidence it is just my word against someone else's so my chances of success would remain 50/50

In court it would be different... insurers do 50/50 not because they believe both are equally to blame for the accident but because they cannot work it out and over the 100,000 claims a year like this they deal with its better not to role the dice with the added cost of court 

In court the judge HAS to decide what is most likely to have happened and rule on liability based on that... so if you say you were in lane and they cut in whereas they say they were in lane and you cut in  then both of those cannot be true so the judge either decides he believe one of you over the other or they decide you are both wrong and you both strayed into the chevroned section. 

This where you start thinking who is the more believable witness to the judge? The middle age nurse on her way home from volunteering providing palliative care or the 17 year old guy with 4 mates in the car on the way back from the nightclub? No one wants to be prejudiced but... Too much risk for an insurer who'll have to be paying for legal representation which is unrecoverable in cases under £10,000

Cathartic

Cathartic said:

sheramber said:

It is useful to take a photograph of the position of the vehicles before they are moved.

That would have shown where both cars were in relation to road markings.

Your pohine would do or keep a dosposable camera in the glove box.

I did this and have provided them to my insurers. Mine was in the exact position where the incident happened but the other car has moved on somewhat. I recommended this to them

* I explained this to them