Driver accepts liability, now denies it.

[B.J.W]

I've spoken to my insurer this morning. They've said that the other party's insurer have agreed to send an independent assessor to examine the rear of the offending vehicle, though they suspect that the response of the other party will likely be along the lines of "it was there before the alleged incident"

It is possible that the assessor may well correlate the damage to my vehicle with the damage to his, but I've been advised that I'm on a sticky wicket.

I've sought some legal advice and the chances of me getting anything are, at best 50:50.
Either way, it would need to go through small claims which would mean that I would have to repair the vehicle myself.

I own 2 other vehicles, so if I claim on the insurance (I have my wedding in September and simply don't have that amount of cash lying around at the moment), it's likely that my premiums will rise across the board.

This leaves me with a bill for £1500, I've shelled out £300 for a CCTV system as the only way of moderately covering my back when he does it again, and a 'neighbour' across the road who shouts at me in the street whenever I am out the front, accusing me of harassing him and the fact that he is scared to let his children leave the house. It's absolutely fking ridiculous. I'm the completely innocent party here and there is nothing I can do about it if the assessor finds in the defendants favour.

I'm just a tad livid at the moment.....

[Jasandjules]

B.J.W said:

I'm the completely innocent party here and there is nothing I can do about it if the assessor finds in the defendants favour.

I'm just a tad livid at the moment.....

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.

[LoonR1]

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?

[LoonR1]

MrTickle said:

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

I presume you're unfamiliar with the different concepts of liability and quantum. Rarely do AMCs sue for the former, they do enjoy the latter but only because that is exclusively in their own interest.

[B.J.W]

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.

[LoonR1]

B.J.W said:

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

Which is why Ive been saying that the neighbours witnessing of the conversation isn't much use in the real world.

[PurpleMoonlight]

B.J.W said:

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

But you have an independent person that witnessed his admission to you. That counts for a lot in a County Court where one denies and one alleges. The burden of proof is very low (balance of probabilities) and often just based on verbal testimony.

[Jasandjules]

LoonR1 said:

How will he prove the other person did it?

He has evidence of damage to his vehicle. He may have pics of the damage to the Defendant's vehicle (hopefully, and even better they match up).

He then has a witness who evidences an admission of liability (which is a rather valuable thing to have), which supports his own evidence of an admission of liability.

If it helps, the last time I was in court in a situation where it was "his word against mine", the judge basically looked at the independent witness and decided based upon their testimony (which I can assure you was funny as hell, including "nah, the guy did a superman impression and dived")....

[MrTickle]

LoonR1 said:

MrTickle said:

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

I presume you're unfamiliar with the different concepts of liability and quantum. Rarely do AMCs sue for the former, they do enjoy the latter but only because that is exclusively in their own interest.

I understand them perfectly thank you. When my AMC took my accident to court, and I had a non-independent witness (an employee) I won my case and the AMC received their settlement. At that point, I went back to my insurers (a year later) to inform them of the case and they immediately reimbursed my excess and NCD.

[LoonR1]

MrTickle said:

I understand them perfectly thank you. When my AMC took my accident to court, and I had a non-independent witness (an employee) I won my case and the AMC received their settlement. At that point, I went back to my insurers (a year later) to inform them of the case and they immediately reimbursed my excess and NCD.

And that equates to a thriving AMC marketplace? Weird logic.

[MrTickle]

LoonR1 said:

MrTickle said:

I understand them perfectly thank you. When my AMC took my accident to court, and I had a non-independent witness (an employee) I won my case and the AMC received their settlement. At that point, I went back to my insurers (a year later) to inform them of the case and they immediately reimbursed my excess and NCD.

And that equates to a thriving AMC marketplace? Weird logic.

As you rightly said, it was not in the interests of the insurance company to pursue my claim through the courts. Much cheaper for them to take my £500 excess and my NCD, call it a 50/50, increase my premiums by having a partial fault claim on account and close it off. This is especially true if both parties are underwritten by the same companies! The only person that would lose out here is me personally.

However, the AMC made it financially beneficial to pursue it, and did so, resulting in a win and re-instating me to my rightful position.

With these situations, it makes total sense to get AMCs involved as insurance companies are all too willing to settle @ 50/50 when there is a dispute.

[LoonR1]

MrTickle said:

As you rightly said, it was not in the interests of the insurance company to pursue my claim through the courts. Much cheaper for them to take my £500 excess and my NCD, call it a 50/50, increase my premiums by having a partial fault claim on account and close it off. This is especially true if both parties are underwritten by the same companies! The only person that would lose out here is me personally.

However, the AMC made it financially beneficial to pursue it, and did so, resulting in a win and re-instating me to my rightful position.

With these situations, it makes total sense to get AMCs involved as insurance companies are all too willing to settle @ 50/50 when there is a dispute.

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.

[yzrh]

If it's a Civil Court matter, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. So an impartial witness to an admission of liability would help.

If you have photos of the damage to his own and your vehicle on one date then that is circumstantial evidence which should be admissible.

[LoonR1]

And the question I keep asking is who is paying for this litigation? Everyone seems to keep forgetting this key point, because the insurer sure as hell isn't.

[Jasandjules]

LoonR1 said:

And the question I keep asking is who is paying for this litigation? Everyone seems to keep forgetting this key point, because the insurer sure as hell isn't.

Costs follow the event.

[StuntmanMike]

Any resolution to this OP?

[LoonR1]

Jasandjules said:

Costs follow the event.

Do they? Full costs awarded? No upfront money to pay so no potential losses to incur? Alls great if you win, it hurts if you don't.

[V8 Fettler]

LoonR1 said:

MrTickle said:

As you rightly said, it was not in the interests of the insurance company to pursue my claim through the courts. Much cheaper for them to take my £500 excess and my NCD, call it a 50/50, increase my premiums by having a partial fault claim on account and close it off. This is especially true if both parties are underwritten by the same companies! The only person that would lose out here is me personally.

However, the AMC made it financially beneficial to pursue it, and did so, resulting in a win and re-instating me to my rightful position.

With these situations, it makes total sense to get AMCs involved as insurance companies are all too willing to settle @ 50/50 when there is a dispute.

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.

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

[LoonR1]

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.

[V8 Fettler]

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?