Driver accepts liability, now denies it.

[MrTickle]

LoonR1 said:

The next door neighbour's evidence is worthless.

This is not accurate. Whilst I do not dispute Loon's insurance expertise - a statement such as this cannot be made.

The next door neighbour's evidence could well add value SHOULD the case end up in court. It will depend on many factors, such as the quality of the TPs legal team, the judge at the time and the confidence and ability of the witness to put forward his statement.

If you trundle down to a decent bodyshop, explain that you need a loan car while in repair they will more than likely suggest (at great commission levels) that you contact Accident Exchange (or equiv.) who will provide a like4like loaner at hugely inflated rate from which you are indemnified. They will then make absolutely sure it will go to court and they will also provide all the legal team you need FOC long after YOUR insurance company have decided it was easier to pay your repair minus excess than bother chasing the claim.

[Sheepshanks]

LoonR1 said:

I've answered it already. A decent solicitor will tear their statement apart. A court wants to hear about the incident not what was said afterwards

People have been convicted of murder based on confessions to cell-mates.

[pork911]

And what does your insurer say?

[Jasandjules]

LoonR1 said:

The next door neighbour's evidence is worthless.

No it isn't. It is evidence of an admission of liability.

Perhaps you are confusing hearsay with evidence? And even then, hearsay can and is relied upon in Civil Cases.

[B.J.W]

pork911 said:

And what does your insurer say?

They are still going through the tick box process.

The other insurer is sending out an assessor to look at the damage to both vehicles. A call will then be made on whether to proceed. I immediately took photos of his car and have sent them to my insurer. These have been passed on to the other insurer.

[Rude-boy]

LoonR1 said:

The "advice" on this thread is abysmal.

1. An insurer will accept a witness statement from someone who saw the accident and will ask for that info. Them witnessing a conversation is irrelevant.

We are all told that the first rule of having any accident is that even if there is no doubt at all that you are to blame you do not admit blame. This, one would assume, is down to the admission being prejudicial to any subsequent discussions or proceedings. So where there is an independent witness that is prepared to coroberate an admission of liability why would this be irrelevant. I can see why the 'defendant' Ins. Co. is not willing to accept it without demure, yet surely this is of assistance to the OP's Ins. Co. ?

[Rude-boy]

LoonR1 said:

Look at it this way. What is a court likely to consider and the other sides counsel? So you didn't see the incident? Did you hear it? Were you there at all? So all you heard was a conversation after the fact without having seen the incident or the aftermath? Highly unlikely to be viewed as credible especially as a next door neighbour. Would they even go to court?

They are not saying that they saw or witnessed the incident though, only that they heard the 'defendant' admit to causing the incident. The fact that that is also likely to include comments to the effect of 'let's not go through the insurance' etc will likely be in there if overheard but in any event it would place doubt on the veracity and reliability of the rest of the 'defendant's' statement one would have thought. Who do you believe, the proven liar or the one who appears to have played a straight bat?

[otolith]

The actual accident is not and obviously should not be a police matter. I wonder if there would be less of this kind of thing if being caught out lying about it after the event were made something the police were interested in? Would people be so willing to lie if they knew that being caught out could land them in court?

[anonymous-user]

SK425 said:

LoonR1 said:

1. An insurer will accept a witness statement from someone who saw the accident and will ask for that info. Them witnessing a conversation is irrelevant.

I'm surprised by that one. If you're trying to establish what happened, why would a witness who heard someone explain what happened be irrelevant?

Irrelevant may be a little strong. The statement has some value, but it's not evidence of what happened.

Consider: A crashes into B. C sees the accident. C can provide an account of what he saw, which is the accident. Simple: C gives evidence of what he saw.

A crashes into B. C didn't see the accident, but wanders past and hears A admit that he crashed into B. C can provide an account of what he heard: the conversation. He can't provide any account of the accident, because he didn't see it.

In the second instance, C's statement of what he heard A say may be used to rebut A's account of what A did, but in that context it is a piece of evidence that will be inconsistent with A's denial, rather than inconsistent with A's account. A's insurer is (in reality) saying "we don't accept that C's statement has any real weight".

There's also the question of whether C's evidence is that a said "I drove into your car" or "it was my fault". The first is a factual statement; the second is an opinion that is based on facts that aren't disclosed by A's statement. The insurer is likely to be more interested in facts than statements of opinion which don't also recount the facts underlying them.

[Sheepshanks]

Greg66 said:

The insurer is likely to be more interested in facts than statements of opinion which don't also recount the facts underlying them.

How far do you take that, though?

Eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable. Hearing someone say they did it, or they think it was their fault, is arguably better than someone's account of what they think they saw.

[Hackney]

B.J.W said:

I might also add that he reversed into my fiancées car on 2 occasions before I moved in.

Did any of these claims go through your fiancee's insurance? Was he as obstructive in those cases? If so, can those details be passed to your insurance company to help them to decide to pursue?
At the very least it goes to show he can't drive very well.

[B.J.W]

Hackney said:

B.J.W said:

I might also add that he reversed into my fiancées car on 2 occasions before I moved in.

Did any of these claims go through your fiancee's insurance? Was he as obstructive in those cases? If so, can those details be passed to your insurance company to help them to decide to pursue?
At the very least it goes to show he can't drive very well.

No. She had a beat up old fiesta at the time and the damage was cosmetic.

[PurpleMoonlight]

I rather suspect that it is the insurers that chose to ignore a witness that does not actually witness the actual incident.

I'm sure a County Court Judge would not be so cavalier though, and would happily accept a witness to the admission of liability even if they did not witness the incident itself.

[otolith]

PurpleMoonlight said:

I rather suspect that it is the insurers that chose to ignore a witness that does not actually witness the actual incident.

I'm sure a County Court Judge would not be so cavalier though, and would happily accept a witness to the admission of liability even if they did not witness the incident itself.

This - they are playing the numbers game - that's their business.

[pork911]

B.J.W said:

They are still going through the tick box process.

The other insurer is sending out an assessor to look at the damage to both vehicles. A call will then be made on whether to proceed. I immediately took photos of his car and have sent them to my insurer. These have been passed on to the other insurer.

So, respond to any requests that may come from your insurer, let us know anything they say and ignore the guy (and all the bks in this thread).

[LoonR1]

Greg66 said:

Irrelevant may be a little strong. The statement has some value, but it's not evidence of what happened.

Consider: A crashes into B. C sees the accident. C can provide an account of what he saw, which is the accident. Simple: C gives evidence of what he saw.

A crashes into B. C didn't see the accident, but wanders past and hears A admit that he crashed into B. C can provide an account of what he heard: the conversation. He can't provide any account of the accident, because he didn't see it.

In the second instance, C's statement of what he heard A say may be used to rebut A's account of what A did, but in that context it is a piece of evidence that will be inconsistent with A's denial, rather than inconsistent with A's account. A's insurer is (in reality) saying "we don't accept that C's statement has any real weight".

There's also the question of whether C's evidence is that a said "I drove into your car" or "it was my fault". The first is a factual statement; the second is an opinion that is based on facts that aren't disclosed by A's statement. The insurer is likely to be more interested in facts than statements of opinion which don't also recount the facts underlying them.

Thank you that sums it up perfectly. Whilst my comment has again whipped up a frenzy of psuedo-legalese, IANAL failing to disclose that and a few IAALBNYLs getting a bit too much in the detail. When posting on a mobile there are a limited amount of characters so I tend to post high level. I would. It expect any of my claim handlers to run a case to court based exclusively on what a neighbour may have heard another say to a different neighbour.

If you read my other posts earlier in thread I detailed the ins and outs of how to approach it. That of course has got lost in the feeding frenzy of quoting some statutes as if they suddenly win the OP his claim. They don't. My advice remains pragmatic and grounded in reality, not in one of Zeeky's teaching manuals. There needs to be a reality check for many on here. Principle based advice is all well and good, but what's the old adage around the law and principles?

PurpleMoonlight said:

I rather suspect that it is the insurers that chose to ignore a witness that does not actually witness the actual incident.

I'm sure a County Court Judge would not be so cavalier though, and would happily accept a witness to the admission of liability even if they did not witness the incident itself.

We tend to base our judgements of success against years of experience a lot of which has been experienced in court.

[tenpenceshort]

It's not about feeding frenzies. It's about people making blanket statements of principle that are inaccurate. For someone who spends their life attacking those who do so about insurance (quite rightly in my opinion), you react very badly when you're picked up for doing the same.

There is a significant difference between what you and Gregg said. Trying to align yourself as having said the same thing is nonsense.

Ultimately insurers exist to make money, not their punters happy. Having a legal obligation to obtain cover gives them a protected marketplace. An insurer faced with losing money even if successful in litigation may choose not to make the claim for that reason. The ability to make that choice is part of the bargain they make with the punter. That is not the same is being legally unable to make a successful claim.

[LoonR1]

tenpenceshort said:

It's not about feeding frenzies. It's about people making blanket statements of principle that are inaccurate. For someone who spends their life attacking those who do so about insurance (quite rightly in my opinion), you react very badly when you're picked up for doing the same.

There is a significant difference between what you and Gregg said. Trying to align yourself as having said the same thing is nonsense.

Ultimately insurers exist to make money, not their punters happy. Having a legal obligation to obtain cover gives them a protected marketplace. An insurer faced with losing money even if successful in litigation may choose not to make the claim for that reason. The ability to make that choice is part of the bargain they make with the punter. That is not the same is being legally unable to make a successful claim.

FFS. There is a a very limited amount of space to answer in when on the mobile site. Is that bit clear?

Next.

What you've all posted does not mean the OP will win, it just means that in theory the neighbours evidence can be used in court. However, you all seem to be missing that point.

Would any insurer bet their legal costs and their opponents and the whole case on this one statement of hearing him say something, but not witnessing the accident? NOT A CHANCE.

Is that bit clear?

Finally

I have already posted how to approach this and have a far greater chance of success

How are we doing? Is that last bit clear

Now for a wider statement:

Hiding in theoretical land does. Not help people in the real world. I post stuff that is realistic and practical and useful. Not fanciful, irrelevant stuff. My advice is based on what is most likely to get you the result you desire.

Is that bit Ok?

Now you can choose to ignore all of that and keep focussing on your 1955 Act that means jack in the real world because no insurer will run a case with that as the sole element of the case.

[tenpenceshort]

The point you miss entirely Loon is that we're talking about the principle rather than the OP's case in isolation. Why? You made the blanket statement that a witness to a conversation was worthless. In some circumstances it may be, in others it won't. In any case, it ignores the important bit, that the commercial decision often overcomes the legal one (as it should).

[LoonR1]

tenpenceshort said:

The point you miss entirely Loon is that we're talking about the principle rather than the OP's case in isolation. Why? You made the blanket statement that a witness to a conversation was worthless. In some circumstances it may be, in others it won't. In any case, it ignores the important bit, that the commercial decision often overcomes the legal one (as it should).

Amd did the OP COME ON SAYING "Can someone help me with a matter of principle? I'm not too fussed if it doesn't help me, it's much better to have a theoretical discussion than one that helps me"? No he didn't. He asked for specific help relating to his specific case.

The insistence on heading off on principles based tangents is frustrating as hell. However, as there are a few lawyers floating about maybe they can complete this old saying:

Never litigate over a .................. If you do, you will never .......