Car accident advice

Moonandmoon

Hello, 

I was involved in a car accident (collision) on Friday. 

I have reported it to my insurer but put no claim at this time as I’m not sure if the other party is going through insurance or not. 

It’s not going to be a clear cut, no fault on either part. 

Basically, I turned right onto a 20 mph road. I can’t prove where they were on the road or their speed but I definitely should not have been hit. They collided with my rear, back, passenger tyre and wheel arch. 

Anyway, I’m getting the tyre and alignment checked today to make sure the car is fully safe to drive. It feels fine. 

However, to remove the dent and make bumper flush I’m looking at about 600-700, which I’m willing to pay out of pocket as it’s an 08 car so insurance would likely write it off. 

I haven’t heard anything from the other party, but I want to get the work sorted on my car even if I have to pay. 

Should I hold fire on any work until I know what the other driver is doing? Just send them the quote etc and ask what they are doing? 

Is two working days reasonable? I don’t want to come across pushy. 

Thank you in advance. 

DullGreyGuy

So you were turning right out of a T-junction? What's your allegation of negligence against the other driver.

At best they are a motorcyclist overtaking a line of queuing traffic making their own lane in which case it's a split liability. In most other circumstances you have failed to give way to a vehicle that was established on the "main road" and will be 100% to blame for the accident. 


Depending on the level of damage to their car they may have passed to an accident management company who'll have already given them a hire car on credit or they may just be adding it on the backlog of stuff that needs to get done and will get it looked at in a few weeks. If it was a company car it may even be a few months. 


As to your car, if you have no intent on claiming then there is nothing to stop you proceeding. If you will claim if they claim from your insurance then you'll need to not proceed with your own repairs. Note that the excess is only payable if you claim off your insurance, it isn't payable on a third party only claim. Impact on renewal will be broadly the same if its TP only or both parties.

TELLIT01

It's not clear if the OP means they were hit from behind, by a vehicle which had been travelling in the same direction they were and failed to stop, or hit by a car travelling in the opposite direction which hit the nearside rear as they were crossing the road.  I'm assuming it was the latter.  If that is the case the OP is likely to be classed as 'at fault' unless they can prove the other vehicle could have stopped.  If they can't prove the position of the other car when they turned right I don't see how they can say they definitely shouldn't have been hit.

cw8825

sounds a lot like OP at fault 
TELLIT01 said:

It's not clear if the OP means they were hit from behind, by a vehicle which had been travelling in the same direction they were and failed to stop, or hit by a car travelling in the opposite direction which hit the nearside rear as they were crossing the road.  I'm assuming it was the latter.  If that is the case the OP is likely to be classed as 'at fault' unless they can prove the other vehicle could have stopped.  If they can't prove the position of the other car when they turned right I don't see how they can say they definitely shouldn't have been hit.

i dont see how OP will be able to defend either.

DullGreyGuy

cw8825 said:

sounds a lot like OP at fault 
TELLIT01 said:

It's not clear if the OP means they were hit from behind, by a vehicle which had been travelling in the same direction they were and failed to stop, or hit by a car travelling in the opposite direction which hit the nearside rear as they were crossing the road.  I'm assuming it was the latter.  If that is the case the OP is likely to be classed as 'at fault' unless they can prove the other vehicle could have stopped.  If they can't prove the position of the other car when they turned right I don't see how they can say they definitely shouldn't have been hit.

i dont see how OP will be able to defend either.

I assume they mean the TP was also turning right out of the same side road and so were behind the OP. The OP turned right, the TP thought there was time for both of them to go at the same time but went faster/tighter than the OP so went into the rear quarter.

Wasnt how I read the original description and would be surprised if the OP thought that was "no ones fault"... suspect its the more normal failing to give way but the OP thinks that despite not giving way the TP had sufficient time to see them and so should have stopped in time despite it being them that should have

TELLIT01

cw8825 said:

sounds a lot like OP at fault 
TELLIT01 said:

It's not clear if the OP means they were hit from behind, by a vehicle which had been travelling in the same direction they were and failed to stop, or hit by a car travelling in the opposite direction which hit the nearside rear as they were crossing the road.  I'm assuming it was the latter.  If that is the case the OP is likely to be classed as 'at fault' unless they can prove the other vehicle could have stopped.  If they can't prove the position of the other car when they turned right I don't see how they can say they definitely shouldn't have been hit.

i dont see how OP will be able to defend either.

If the OP was stopped, waiting to turn right and the other car hit them from behind it isn't the OP at fault.  If they were turning right across traffic and were hit by a car coming the opposite direction they are far more likely to be considered the one at fault.

cw8825

TELLIT01 said:

cw8825 said:

sounds a lot like OP at fault 
TELLIT01 said:

It's not clear if the OP means they were hit from behind, by a vehicle which had been travelling in the same direction they were and failed to stop, or hit by a car travelling in the opposite direction which hit the nearside rear as they were crossing the road.  I'm assuming it was the latter.  If that is the case the OP is likely to be classed as 'at fault' unless they can prove the other vehicle could have stopped.  If they can't prove the position of the other car when they turned right I don't see how they can say they definitely shouldn't have been hit.

i dont see how OP will be able to defend either.

If the OP was stopped, waiting to turn right and the other car hit them from behind it isn't the OP at fault.  If they were turning right across traffic and were hit by a car coming the opposite direction they are far more likely to be considered the one at fault.

i agree
I picture OP turning right across the TP path
TP has caught the passenger side rear
OP assumed that because the TP hit them its more the TP fault
The fact OP says he cant be sure where the TP was and has mentioned speed says to me OP at fault
If it hasnt happened like this then I stand corrected