Driver accepts liability, now denies it.

[tenpenceshort]

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.


5. Why do people without a clue continue to post as if they know what they are talking about in threads like this?

You began on a statement of principle. I didn't type that, you did.

The law disagrees with your statement that it is irrelevant. It might be irrelevant to an insurer whose irrecoverable costs exceed the desired risk versus claim value.

What are you going to claim next? That keepers cannot be liable for road accidents caused by their animals?

[LoonR1]

tenpenceshort said:

You began on a statement of principle. I didn't type that, you did.

The law disagrees with your statement that it is irrelevant. It might be irrelevant to an insurer whose irrecoverable costs exceed the desired risk versus claim value.

What are you going to claim next? That keepers cannot be liable for road accidents caused by their animals?

No I didn't. I made a statement around whether it was of any use to the OP

[selym]

Football's on chaps.

[tenpenceshort]

Black = White. Oh, right.

[LoonR1]

tenpenceshort said:

Black = White. Oh, right.

Unlike you tangential lot I like to answer the question as posed by the OP, or ask direct questions of them, not head off on the principles of whatever.

[TankRizzo]

LoonR1 said:

No I didn't. I made a statement around whether it was of any use to the OP

You also basically said that the OP was anti-immigrant with little reason, pissing him off in the process needlessly. Your advice is often great but I cannot bend my head around the severely poor attitude you have. Working in the industry does not give you carte blanche to be a massive prick to everyone.

[LoonR1]

TankRizzo said:

You also basically said that the OP was anti-immigrant with little reason, pissing him off in the process needlessly. Your advice is often great but I cannot bend my head around the severely poor attitude you have. Working in the industry does not give you carte blanche to be a massive prick to everyone.

I'm a username on here and nothing else. I'm also fed up with the amount of references being made both explicit and implicit around the race, creed, culture, religion of those who have allegedly done wrong to a PH member. I do. to believe that the reference to any of those would be made if the person was a white Caucasian, so why is it made for others?

3 out of 3 insurance threads have made reference to the ethnicity of others and I despise that stereotyping. So is that me being a "prick" quite possibly, but as you've chosen to abuse me then you can take a long hard look in the mirror.

[paintman]

A witness can - amongst other things - give evidence as to what they heard or saw.
In this instance the witness overheard a discussion between the alleged driver of the offending vehicle and the owner of the damaged vehicle and their evidence would be what they heard each party say e.g "I heard MrX say 'Im sorry, I reversed into your car'". That they didn't see a collision is irrelevant.

Puts me in mind of a colleague who was set up by a group of youths & finished up on trial at Crown Court. Things were looking very bleak until a DC was approached by a cafe owner who told him he had heard this group discussing in his cafe how they had 'stitched up a copper'. The cafe owner hadn't seen the incident & was only aware because of the publicity surrounding the trial. The evidence of the cafe owner was heard by the court & the Judge threw the case out. What happened to the youths you may ask? Nothing.

Edited by paintman on Wednesday 9th July 22:06

[LoonR1]

And who's funding this trial that you've decided is happening? I can tell you that the insurer most definitely isn't, of this is the only piece of evidence that their whole case would be based on.

Of course, don't let the multiple posts from me dissuade you from your hypothetical stance, after all theory is far better than practicality in the real world

[B.J.W]

LoonR1 said:

TankRizzo said:

You also basically said that the OP was anti-immigrant with little reason, pissing him off in the process needlessly. Your advice is often great but I cannot bend my head around the severely poor attitude you have. Working in the industry does not give you carte blanche to be a massive prick to everyone.

I'm a username on here and nothing else. I'm also fed up with the amount of references being made both explicit and implicit around the race, creed, culture, religion of those who have allegedly done wrong to a PH member. I do. to believe that the reference to any of those would be made if the person was a white Caucasian, so why is it made for others?

3 out of 3 insurance threads have made reference to the ethnicity of others and I despise that stereotyping. So is that me being a "prick" quite possibly, but as you've chosen to abuse me then you can take a long hard look in the mirror.

I didn't make reference to his race. I was asked the question "why don't you have a quiet word with him?"

I was simply trying to state that a neighbour had tried to have a quiet word with him over another matter and that the other party (who drove into my car) accused him of racial abuse. The last thing I want to do is to open myself up to further hassle from this individual (who already knows' he's in the wrong).
When I spoke to him after he initially changed his mind he became abusive towards me and accused me of harassing him.

Again (and please can we put this side issue to bed), his race is completely irrelevant.

All I need to know is.....

1) if the chap appraising the cars decides that the other party is not liable (they believe his story) am I just going to have to suck it up, or does the eye witness statement about her hearing him admit it provide me with a strong position to take it further?

Once again, thanks for the advice so far.

[paintman]

I have said nothing about a trial being started for this accident so wind your neck in.
I am simply pointing out that the evidence of the person overhearing the conversation in respect of what was said by the two parties is admissible.

[anonymous-user]

paintman said:

I have said nothing about a trial being started for this accident so wind your neck in.
I am simply pointing out that the evidence of the person overhearing the conversation in respect of what was said by the two parties is admissible.

But it is only evidence of what the speaker said. It is not evidence of what the speaker did prior to making that statement, if the witness didn't see that.

[LoonR1]

B.J.W said:

All I need to know is.....

1) if the chap appraising the cars decides that the other party is not liable (they believe his story) am I just going to have to suck it up, or does the eye witness statement about her hearing him admit it provide me with a strong position to take it further?

Once again, thanks for the advice so far.

Ok, other bit put to bed and finished with.

Back on to real world practical advice (which many may want to come back to and quote a theoretical scenario instead)

Your insurer should ask for an independent inspection on the other drivers car. If he refuses then your insurer should push and threaten litigation. It's a poker game, brinksmanship whatever you want to call it to see who blinks first.

If the independent engineer inspects then he'll find either damage or recently repaired bodywork. That's circumstantial but again helps with the same poker game that needs playing.

Each time it's about who blinks first, keep pushing your insurer and they may make the other side blink.

It's never straightforward, but please don't hang any hopes on your other neighbours statement of what they overheard it isn't of any practical use at all.

[paintman]

Greg66 said:

paintman said:

I have said nothing about a trial being started for this accident so wind your neck in.
I am simply pointing out that the evidence of the person overhearing the conversation in respect of what was said by the two parties is admissible.

But it is only evidence of what the speaker said. It is not evidence of what the speaker did prior to making that statement, if the witness didn't see that.

Exactly.

[LoonR1]

paintman said:

Greg66 said:

paintman said:

I have said nothing about a trial being started for this accident so wind your neck in.
I am simply pointing out that the evidence of the person overhearing the conversation in respect of what was said by the two parties is admissible.

But it is only evidence of what the speaker said. It is not evidence of what the speaker did prior to making that statement, if the witness didn't see that.

Exactly.

And in that case it's pretty useless to an insurer and certainly not sufficient for them to pursue it to court on this alone.

[paintman]

'I heard MrX say to MrY "I ran into your car & caused the damage to your door"'
All I can say is if the insurers have no interest in this then I see why so much just finishes up as knock-for-knock & how the cash-for-crashers get such an easy ride.
Leave it with you.

[LoonR1]

paintman said:

'I heard MrX say to MrY "I ran into your car & caused the damage to your door"'
All I can say is if the insurers have no interest in this then I see why so much just finishes up as knock-for-knock & how the cash-for-crashers get such an easy ride.
Leave it with you.

Not sure how anything ends up as "knock for knock" when that ended in the late 70s as a market agreement and had nothing at all to do with liability decisions.

You mean 50/50 and that is based on the outcome of 10,000s of claims over years and the general trends they are exhibiting as well as precedent and other legal stuff.

So let's run your case to a theoretical court as that's where you believe the witness statement holds water and ask some basic questions.

"Did you see the accident?"
"Did you hear the accident?"
"Did you see the aftermath of the accident?"
"Did you see the damage on either of the cars?"
"So what exactly did you witness?"
"Do you know if an accident happened?"
"Did you know this when you overheard the conversation."
"Many thanks"

What else do you have to support your case that Mr X did the damage that Mr Y alleges? Nothing?

I wonder what the outcome would likely be.

[PurpleMoonlight]

LoonR1 said:

And who's funding this trial that you've decided is happening? I can tell you that the insurer most definitely isn't, of this is the only piece of evidence that their whole case would be based on.

Yes, we get that. Because the insurer puts their own best interests (profit) before the best interests of their policy holder (compensation).

[LoonR1]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Yes, we get that. Because the insurer puts their own best interests (profit) before the best interests of their policy holder (compensation).

Best interests of who? Who pays out the most? Who is the one legally repos single for the debt?

How an insurer paying out more money chasing a case with little hope of success is in the policyholders (plural) best interest is beyond me. It may arguably be so for one policyholder. What happens to everyone else as all insurers spend a fortune chasing down every case and losing? The only winners are solicitors and courts.

[MrTickle]

LoonR1 said:

Best interests of who? Who pays out the most? Who is the one legally repos single for the debt?

How an insurer paying out more money chasing a case with little hope of success is in the policyholders (plural) best interest is beyond me. It may arguably be so for one policyholder. What happens to everyone else as all insurers spend a fortune chasing down every case and losing? The only winners are solicitors and courts.

Which is exactly why accident management companies thrive, because they are willing to go to court when the insurers don't.