Driver accepts liability, now denies it.

[LoonR1]

V8 Fettler said:

LoonR1 said:

V8 Fettler said:

In my experience, AMCs only exist because insurers are incompetent. However, the competence of AMCs can also vary considerably.

They existed originally for TPF&T policies where then surer had no cover on risk.

Thanks you for the history lesson. In my experience, AMCs only continue to exist because insurers are incompetent. Is that better?

IME they continue to exist as courts keep supporting their arguments, however tenuous they are, that people like to use them to avoid their insurer. However this isn't through competence, it's due to people thinking that saving their NCD and potential premium is worth it even thought they should still declare. Oh and pretty well every manufacturer, repairer, recovery truck and a even the police are happy to refer people to them for a fee.

[V8 Fettler]

LoonR1 said:

V8 Fettler said:

LoonR1 said:

V8 Fettler said:

In my experience, AMCs only exist because insurers are incompetent. However, the competence of AMCs can also vary considerably.

They existed originally for TPF&T policies where then surer had no cover on risk.

Thanks you for the history lesson. In my experience, AMCs only continue to exist because insurers are incompetent. Is that better?

IME they continue to exist as courts keep supporting their arguments, however tenuous they are, that people like to use them to avoid their insurer. However this isn't through competence, it's due to people thinking that saving their NCD and potential premium is worth it even thought they should still declare. Oh and pretty well every manufacturer, repairer, recovery truck and a even the police are happy to refer people to them for a fee.

In my experience, my insurer couldn't even pick-up the phone when I called from beside the M25 with a wrecked vehicle courtesy of an idiot 3rd party. I wasn't going to get home until I found an AMC contact number tucked away in some breakdown insurance. Excellent service from the AMC, although they were flash gits, which I will hold against them.

[paintman]

LoonR1 said:

IME they continue to exist as courts keep supporting their arguments, however tenuous they are, that people like to use them to avoid their insurer. However this isn't through competence, it's due to people thinking that saving their NCD and potential premium is worth it

An interesting viewpoint. I fail to see good reason why people should be penalised for the mistakes of others. Perhaps I'm missing something.

[MrTickle]

LoonR1 said:

And still weird logic. How is it in the insurers best interest to piss you off. They won't get any more money off you as you'll leave, so that part of your argument is null and void.

Also the FCA and PRA would be quite interested in insurers who refuse to out the customers interests first on claims like this. What happened was your AMC litigated, not for liability but for quantum. That's a whole different ball game. Few AMCs litigate for liability nowadays.

It is not a weird logic. You said yourself, insurers keep premiums down if they think it would cost more to go to court than just settle a 50/50. That was the case in my situation, but the AMC was in an all or nothing situation, so it was in their interest to pursue.

And it was NOT a quantum claim, it was liability as the decision resulted in the other party having 100% liability and me and my insurers (despite zero effort from them) having all costs refunded.

[bad company]

B.J.W said:

LoonR1 said:

Jasandjules said:

You can lodge a claim yourself in the county court if you so wish.

You can also use three quotes for repairs and sue for the average figure, before getting the repairs done.

How will he prove the other person did it?

Exactly. My word against his. He will say the damage to the back of his car was already present.

Wouldn't he also have to deny initially admitting liability or commit perjury?

[Sheepshanks]

LoonR1 said:

Oh and pretty well every manufacturer, repairer, recovery truck and a even the police are happy to refer people to them for a fee.

Surely insurance companies are by far the biggest referers?

Edited by Sheepshanks on Wednesday 16th July 13:21

[Zeeky]

bad company said:

B.J.W said:

LoonR1 said:

Jasandjules said:

You can lodge a claim yourself in the county court if you so wish.

You can also use three quotes for repairs and sue for the average figure, before getting the repairs done.

How will he prove the other person did it?

Exactly. My word against his. He will say the damage to the back of his car was already present.

Wouldn't he also have to deny initially admitting liability or commit perjury?

The issue is more a case of the TP's word (confession) against his own word (denial) than the OP's word against the TP's.

Assuming the confession evidence is accepted (there is a good chance of this) one cannot assume the confession itself will be accepted over the denial. Ideally the OP needs corroborating evidence. There is little weight in the mere fact of the presence of damage to the TP's car.

I think it would be a high risk strategy for the TP to deny having made the confession as if his denial is not accepted his credibility is undermined.

Better to admit to the confession and explain it. For example, scared of neighbour; knew neighbour would blame him, tried to keep the peace, cost too high.

I prefer the OP's case to the TP's but in the absence of better corroborating evidence this is neither a foregone conclusion or a very strong case.

OP do you have the results of the assessment?

[B.J.W]

A quick update on this.....

The TP's assessor turned up today. He advised me that he'd spoken to the TP and that he is continuing to deny anything happened. He asked for my account, took pictures if my car, took pictures of the TP's and measured the height of the damage to both vehicles - both 18 inches. His exact words "what a coincidence"

He's spoken in person to my witness and took her details.

Obviously, he's wasn't going to give anything way, but he did say that he was going to go back and speak to the TP. As we were outside talking the TP was standing by his car. My witness has also advised me that the TP has been verbally abusive to her since the incident (he is aware she is the witness). I've had no further contact with him since he accused me if harassing him. I've taken my fiancé's advice and ignore him (he's had a pop on a couple of occasions when he's seen me - evidently trying to provoke a reaction)

Fingers crossed for positive feedback!

[Jasandjules]

B.J.W said:

. My witness has also advised me that the TP has been verbally abusive to her since the incident (he is aware she is the witness).

Tell her to report to the police that she is being verbally assaulted by him and tell the police why i.e. she is a witness. The Courts come down very hard on such conduct.... Also tell her to log the dates and times and what he says to her so it can be used in your civil action.

[tenpenceshort]

Jasandjules said:

Tell her to report to the police that she is being verbally assaulted by him and tell the police why i.e. she is a witness. The Courts come down very hard on such conduct.... Also tell her to log the dates and times and what he says to her so it can be used in your civil action.

I may be wrong, however I imagine the crime being reported would be perverting the course of justice (as I think the statutory offence is for criminal proceedings only and I'm assuming PCoJ would apply to civil proceedings). Whether you'd get anywhere with that on the word of one neighbour against another, I'm not sure (CPS Guidance on PCoJ; "A prosecution may not be in the public interest if the principal proceedings are at a very early stage and the action taken by the defendant had only a minor impact on those proceedings.", taken from here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_...)

In any case, it's worth keeping a log of any such interaction in case bad relations continue or escalate and evidence is needed in harassment or public order proceedings.

[Russ T Bolt]

LoonR1 said:

IME they continue to exist as courts keep supporting their arguments, however tenuous they are, that people like to use them to avoid their insurer. However this isn't through competence, it's due to people thinking that saving their NCD and potential premium is worth it even thought they should still declare. Oh and pretty well every manufacturer, repairer, recovery truck and a even the police are happy to refer people to them for a fee.

Absolutely untrue.

When a van driver left the handbrake off his van and it rolled down the office car park into my car, my insurer passed me to their preferred Accident Management Company.

I declined and resolved it with the 3rd party, which was quite easy as it was a van owned by a supplier who had much to lose.

Accident Management Companies exist because in the main insurers refer their insured to them for kickbacks on referrals.

As an Insurance Admin person I would expect you to know this.

Edited by Russ T Bolt on Wednesday 23 July 19:39

[LoonR1]

Russ T Bolt said:

Absolutely untrue.

When a van driver left the handbrake off his van and it rolled down the office car park into my car, my insurer passed me to their preferred Accident Management Company.

I declined and resolved it with the 3rd party, which was quite easy as it was a van owned by a supplier who had much to lose.

Accident Management Companies exist because in the main insurers refer their insured to them for kickbacks on referrals.

As an Insurance Admin person I would expect you to know this.

Edited by Russ T Bolt on Wednesday 23 July 19:39

Very good. Completely inaccurate, other than maybe HelpHire who live off Admiral and their brands, but don't let that bother you.

Nice throwaway dig too

[Russ T Bolt]

LoonR1 said:

Very good. Completely inaccurate, other than maybe HelpHire who live off Admiral and their brands, but don't let that bother you.

Nice throwaway dig too

If you search on Google, you will find many forums littered with posts from people all saying the same.

Someone hit me?....my insurers have referred me to xxx accident management company.

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that.

I wasn't insured by Admiral group nor was I referred to HelpHire.

So your so called expertise is sadly lacking.

I could post up the many emails I received from my insurers, but I guess your view would be head in the sand, it doesn't happen.

[LoonR1]

Seriously? Maybe tell me which insurer refers to the AMCs on the list in the link below

http://www.thecho.co.uk/members/

I'll give you a start

Admiral to HelpHire
Direct Line Group to Quindell
RSA to Enterprise
KGM to Winns

I've never denied that insurers refer, I know that we are all happy to see the end of our income stream if the indemnity cost gets eradicated as per the Competition Commission interim report.

Oh and please stop with the sly digs, it's quite puerile.

[B.J.W]

Well.......

I have had a call from the TP's insurer today.

They have agreed to cover the full cost of the repair to my vehicle!

Apparently, when the assessor spoke to the TP for the second time after inspecting the vehicles, the TP changed his story and said that it was a friend of his that had hit my truck. When asked to provide the details of the friend the TP said he didn't know them!

On this basis, they said that they had reason to believe that the TP was lying and that they wanted to mitigate costs (I advised them that I was prepared to take this to court)

I suspect that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye - I'm still of the opinion that whilst the car is insured, the TP is not the driver on the policy. That's for the police to investigate...

[selym]

B.J.W said:

positive stuff.....

Result! I wonder if the neighbour's statement had any impact?

[LoonR1]

B.J.W said:

Well.......

I have had a call from the TP's insurer today.

They have agreed to cover the full cost of the repair to my vehicle!

Apparently, when the assessor spoke to the TP for the second time after inspecting the vehicles, the TP changed his story and said that it was a friend of his that had hit my truck. When asked to provide the details of the friend the TP said he didn't know them!

On this basis, they said that they had reason to believe that the TP was lying and that they wanted to mitigate costs (I advised them that I was prepared to take this to court)

I suspect that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye - I'm still of the opinion that whilst the car is insured, the TP is not the driver on the policy. That's for the police to investigate...

So pretty well what I said right at the start of the thread.

[alcad]

I'm glad it's getting sorted now.

I have just realised in reading this thread that I know who you are. I'm the guy who lives 2 doors up from you (not the neighbour in question relating to this incident BTW!), you were chatting to me in the street about this the other day.

So a online hello from me and I love the bright yellow Westfield, Sounds good too!

Alan.

[B.J.W]

alcad said:

I'm glad it's getting sorted now.

I have just realised in reading this thread that I know who you are. I'm the guy who lives 2 doors up from you (not the neighbour in question relating to this incident BTW!), you were chatting to me in the street about this the other day.

So a online hello from me and I love the bright yellow Westfield, Sounds good too!

Alan.

Small World - a fellow Pher living next door but one to me

Thanks Alan. It's been a stressful few weeks, but the right result.

Enjoying the Westfield - the V8 has a serious drink problem though!