Post-accident woes
Discussion
Hello all. First time posting in SP&L, and just want to have a moan and see what your opinions are on likely outcomes.
To summarise:
- In March, I rear-ended a taxi which was sitting at the lights. Got distracted due to a parked car indicating to pull out in front of me, and I spent so much time focusing on the car ready to take avoiding action if needed, that I failed to observe the stationary taxi stopped behind another car at a set of red lights.
- Here is where the accident happened. Said indicating car was roughly where the silver focus was, and the taxi was stopped with the rear approximately just before the front of the bumper of the blue fiesta parked at the end of the row.
- It was a very low speed impact, can't have been more than 10-odd mph if not less. Absolutely no injuries to myself, and nothing within the car was flung forwards. The taxi itself did not move, other than a slight wobble on the suspension, like a car would wobble when you give it a firm shove. His handbrake was on, as brake lights were not on, but he didn't move when I hit him.
- We roll forwards a bit and pull over, I hop out in a panic as it was my first crash in 3 years of driving. Failed to take any pictures, partly due to panic, partly due to the lack of damage to actually see. Gave the taxi driver my details and asked him to text me his details.
- Passenger jumps out of the taxi moaning about something or other, so I tell the driver to just take him on to his destination. Text from the driver later said that the passenger was complaining about injuries, but when he offered to take passenger to a walk in centre to get checked out, it was declined. Alarm bells are going off in my head.
- I notify my insurers pretty much the next day, and they said they would let me know if anyone started a claim against my policy. A few days later, the taxi driver opened a claim. His story corresponds with mine, pretty much word for word, figured I'd been lucky and this would be a straightforward open and shut case. Oh no.
- Two weeks later, I get a form from some soliticiors informing me that the passenger in the taxi decided he would like a chunk of money as compenstation for whiplash and lower back injuries. f
k. Upon checking the claim forms, I note the passenger claimed the taxi was moving at about 20 mph and I went into the back of it at approximately 40 mph... I figured that because the story didn't correspond with the driver's version which corresponded with my version of the crash, that the claim would be thrown out.
- A couple of days later, my insurance company inform me the driver has now changed his story and is now claiming that despite being stopped behind a car, at a set of red lights, that I had hit him hard enough to shunt him forwards into some street furniture, and would my insurance company please stump up some dosh to fix the front bumper too.
- My insurance company requested professional inspections of both cars, and photographs of all the damage alledgely caused by the crash. My car was duly inspected, and I furnished the company with pictures showing the damage to my car, which is so insignificant that I hadn't even noticed it until a couple of days later. Damage is pretty much completely localised within the black circle, and the crash expert assessor chap said that it was caused by my bumper bending around the crash bar behind it, and not even caused by the taxi, and in his expert opinion, all the damage etc was consistient with a low speed (<10 mph) shunt.
- Lovely, I thought, this would get resolved quickly when the taxi has been inspected and photographs taken. Hah. I just had to be wrong.
- Today, I've recieved notification that the taxi driver's insurers, despite not furnishing us with either photographs of the alleged damage caused by me, or an independent inspection report confirming that I did/did not cause the damage to the front, is now starting court proceedings.
TL:DR - Shunted taxi at low speed, I'm at fault, 5 months later, taxi's insurance co is now taking my insurance co to court over settlement figures, but taxi driver/passenger have no evidence to back up any of their claims, other than light damage to rear bumper. Driver wants front bumper repaired, but I didn't cause the damage. Passenger has whiplash and wants compo, but I couldn't have caused it as force wasn't enough. My insurers have pictures of damage to my car, and an expert opinion that damage corresponds to low speed shunt.
How will this go? Will it just get thrown out of court? Who pays for all the costs if their claim is rejected by a judge? Do they have any remote chance of winning?
To summarise:
- In March, I rear-ended a taxi which was sitting at the lights. Got distracted due to a parked car indicating to pull out in front of me, and I spent so much time focusing on the car ready to take avoiding action if needed, that I failed to observe the stationary taxi stopped behind another car at a set of red lights.
- Here is where the accident happened. Said indicating car was roughly where the silver focus was, and the taxi was stopped with the rear approximately just before the front of the bumper of the blue fiesta parked at the end of the row.
- It was a very low speed impact, can't have been more than 10-odd mph if not less. Absolutely no injuries to myself, and nothing within the car was flung forwards. The taxi itself did not move, other than a slight wobble on the suspension, like a car would wobble when you give it a firm shove. His handbrake was on, as brake lights were not on, but he didn't move when I hit him.
- We roll forwards a bit and pull over, I hop out in a panic as it was my first crash in 3 years of driving. Failed to take any pictures, partly due to panic, partly due to the lack of damage to actually see. Gave the taxi driver my details and asked him to text me his details.
- Passenger jumps out of the taxi moaning about something or other, so I tell the driver to just take him on to his destination. Text from the driver later said that the passenger was complaining about injuries, but when he offered to take passenger to a walk in centre to get checked out, it was declined. Alarm bells are going off in my head.
- I notify my insurers pretty much the next day, and they said they would let me know if anyone started a claim against my policy. A few days later, the taxi driver opened a claim. His story corresponds with mine, pretty much word for word, figured I'd been lucky and this would be a straightforward open and shut case. Oh no.
- Two weeks later, I get a form from some soliticiors informing me that the passenger in the taxi decided he would like a chunk of money as compenstation for whiplash and lower back injuries. f
k. Upon checking the claim forms, I note the passenger claimed the taxi was moving at about 20 mph and I went into the back of it at approximately 40 mph... I figured that because the story didn't correspond with the driver's version which corresponded with my version of the crash, that the claim would be thrown out.- A couple of days later, my insurance company inform me the driver has now changed his story and is now claiming that despite being stopped behind a car, at a set of red lights, that I had hit him hard enough to shunt him forwards into some street furniture, and would my insurance company please stump up some dosh to fix the front bumper too.
- My insurance company requested professional inspections of both cars, and photographs of all the damage alledgely caused by the crash. My car was duly inspected, and I furnished the company with pictures showing the damage to my car, which is so insignificant that I hadn't even noticed it until a couple of days later. Damage is pretty much completely localised within the black circle, and the crash expert assessor chap said that it was caused by my bumper bending around the crash bar behind it, and not even caused by the taxi, and in his expert opinion, all the damage etc was consistient with a low speed (<10 mph) shunt.
- Lovely, I thought, this would get resolved quickly when the taxi has been inspected and photographs taken. Hah. I just had to be wrong.
- Today, I've recieved notification that the taxi driver's insurers, despite not furnishing us with either photographs of the alleged damage caused by me, or an independent inspection report confirming that I did/did not cause the damage to the front, is now starting court proceedings.
TL:DR - Shunted taxi at low speed, I'm at fault, 5 months later, taxi's insurance co is now taking my insurance co to court over settlement figures, but taxi driver/passenger have no evidence to back up any of their claims, other than light damage to rear bumper. Driver wants front bumper repaired, but I didn't cause the damage. Passenger has whiplash and wants compo, but I couldn't have caused it as force wasn't enough. My insurers have pictures of damage to my car, and an expert opinion that damage corresponds to low speed shunt.
How will this go? Will it just get thrown out of court? Who pays for all the costs if their claim is rejected by a judge? Do they have any remote chance of winning?
It won’t get thrown out of Court. You went into the back of the taxi. It’s your fault. A low speed shunt can still cause whiplash. It’s the jolting action that does it.
Let your insurer deal with it. It’s what they get paid to do.
You won’t be expected to attend court as liability will probably already have been admitted.
The fight will be over the level of damages being sought. Both taxi driver and passenger will get paid out based on the contents of their medical report. The expert will have signed a statement of truth. The judge will not call the expert a liar as he will not want to rock the boat. The level of quantum involved will not warrant your insurers getting their own expert.
Let your insurer deal with it. It’s what they get paid to do.
You won’t be expected to attend court as liability will probably already have been admitted.
The fight will be over the level of damages being sought. Both taxi driver and passenger will get paid out based on the contents of their medical report. The expert will have signed a statement of truth. The judge will not call the expert a liar as he will not want to rock the boat. The level of quantum involved will not warrant your insurers getting their own expert.
I know they are hated on here, but a Dashcam would of helped!
Whiplash is caused by the jolt, not always the speed of the impact. Somebody crashed into the back of me at low speed the other week, under 10mph i'd say. It did cause me some pain and discomfort but not enough to feel entitled to compensation! I just want my car repaired and the matter closed asap.
Whiplash is caused by the jolt, not always the speed of the impact. Somebody crashed into the back of me at low speed the other week, under 10mph i'd say. It did cause me some pain and discomfort but not enough to feel entitled to compensation! I just want my car repaired and the matter closed asap.
AllyBassman said:
I know they are hated on here, but a Dashcam would of helped!
In what way? It would have shown him crashing into the back of a taxi.The damage to his bumper makes look like he barely touched the taxi though, although maybe that's because he just happened to catch it at one of the strengthening points.
My daughters Golf got pushed into the car in front at the weekend and her bumper split across the front and popped out at the sides. The van that hit her at 'walking pace' made a fair old mess of the rear hatch and bumper.
Sheepshanks said:
In what way? It would have shown him crashing into the back of a taxi.
The damage to his bumper makes look like he barely touched the taxi though, although maybe that's because he just happened to catch it at one of the strengthening points.
My daughters Golf got pushed into the car in front at the weekend and her bumper split across the front and popped out at the sides. The van that hit her at 'walking pace' made a fair old mess of the rear hatch and bumper.
To clear up the question of speed and severity of the impact. If the other side are playing silly buggers about the speed and severity, the footage can help dismiss that. Not who was at fault (OP)The damage to his bumper makes look like he barely touched the taxi though, although maybe that's because he just happened to catch it at one of the strengthening points.
My daughters Golf got pushed into the car in front at the weekend and her bumper split across the front and popped out at the sides. The van that hit her at 'walking pace' made a fair old mess of the rear hatch and bumper.
In my situation, my dashcam footage shows me slowing up gently behind a van then coming a stop. 2 seconds later *bang* and my car jolts forward. This puts to bed any counter claims that I slammed on my brakes unduly or did any stupid that could give the other sides insurance leverage to try and wiggle out of accepting 100% liability.
BertBert said:
I'm just wondering if you hit a stationary car what it is that determines the magnitude of the jolt, if it's not the speed of the moving car?
Bert
If you are referring to what a person in the struck vehicle might feel, then there's the relative weight of both vehicles. The stationary one (on the assumption that it was not moving) might have the handbrake on. If so then there's the effort required to overcome the mechanism. There's rolling resistance, but I would assume, without evidence, that this would be minimal. The springs absorb some of the force. Then there's the degree of deformation of both vehicles on impact, especially vehicles more modern in design. The affect would be limited by the seat, and the degree will vary. There is also the angle of the impact.Bert
'Black' cabs are (or at leased use to) be build to different requirements than cars. They have varied over the years. I've no idea if, or how, this affects injuries to an occupant.
Don't forget that passengers in a black cab might not have their seatbelt on. They might have also been bending down to access a bag or briefcase, turning to look at something outside the cab, leaning forward to to talk to the cab driver, whatever.
But the whole thing is fishy to me and I'd recommend leaving it to your insurers. Get a dash cam
But the whole thing is fishy to me and I'd recommend leaving it to your insurers. Get a dash cam
AllyBassman said:
I know they are hated on here, but a Dashcam would of helped!
Whiplash is caused by the jolt, not always the speed of the impact. Somebody crashed into the back of me at low speed the other week, under 10mph i'd say. It did cause me some pain and discomfort but not enough to feel entitled to compensation! I just want my car repaired and the matter closed asap.
Indeed! I've fitted one very shortly after the accident. I have no trouble with the fact it's my fault, I was honest and put my hands up about it. My problem is that the passenger is claiming for whiplash and all sorts of muscle tissue injuries, however on the claim form from the passenger, it says he has not sought ANY medical advice or seen any medical professionals, so I have no clue how he's diagnosed all these injuries if he's not seen a doctor about them? I also have a text from the driver claiming that he offered to take the passenger to a walk in centre as he was complaining post accident about being in pain, but he refused to go. The other problem I have is the taxi driver suddenly changed his story from one that corresponded to mine, to one where I hit him so hard he got forced off the road and shunted into "street furniture" and consequently has damage to his front bumper he wants repairing under the claim. This is impossible as he was stopped, behind a car, and so if I'd shunted him forwards that hard, he would've hit the car in front and there'd be another driver involved in the claim!Whiplash is caused by the jolt, not always the speed of the impact. Somebody crashed into the back of me at low speed the other week, under 10mph i'd say. It did cause me some pain and discomfort but not enough to feel entitled to compensation! I just want my car repaired and the matter closed asap.
Sheepshanks said:
The damage to his bumper makes look like he barely touched the taxi though, although maybe that's because he just happened to catch it at one of the strengthening points.
It was a really low speed impact, no worse than say bumping into a parked car in a car park. I would have thought if the force was enough to injure the passenger, it would have caused the car to move forwards, but it didn't, it just sort of wobbled for a bit. I was hard on the brakes too. The expert inspector even commented that the damage to my front bumper wasn't even caused by the taxi, it was caused by my bumper bending around the crash bar behind it and consequently fracturing the plastic at that flexing point. Otherwise, he said everything behind the bumper looked like the accident never even happened. He also said that if it wasn't for that little fracturing which I highlighted, there would have been absolutely no proof on my car that the accident ever happened.Derek Smith said:
If you are referring to what a person in the struck vehicle might feel, then there's the relative weight of both vehicles. The stationary one (on the assumption that it was not moving) might have the handbrake on. If so then there's the effort required to overcome the mechanism. There's rolling resistance, but I would assume, without evidence, that this would be minimal. The springs absorb some of the force. Then there's the degree of deformation of both vehicles on impact, especially vehicles more modern in design. The affect would be limited by the seat, and the degree will vary. There is also the angle of the impact.
'Black' cabs are (or at leased use to) be build to different requirements than cars. They have varied over the years. I've no idea if, or how, this affects injuries to an occupant.
I hit the taxi pretty much straight on, but my nearside 1/2 of the bumper made contact with his offside 1/2 of his rear bumper. The taxi did not move, at all, except for a wobble upon impact. No rolling forwards or anything. The impact was so low speed that my backpack which was resting on the middle of the front passenger seat didn't even move or fall off the chair. It was a 2017 Dacia Logan MCV too, so not a black cab where I could have understood the passenger coming away with some injuries. He got out of the car perfectly fine about 5 minutes after the accident and started shouting at me about something, I couldn't understand, it was dark and it's hard to lip-read when someone's shouting at you.'Black' cabs are (or at leased use to) be build to different requirements than cars. They have varied over the years. I've no idea if, or how, this affects injuries to an occupant.
Edited by TheInsanity1234 on Wednesday 8th August 16:35
I was stationary in a traffic light queue on a steep hill. A BMW ran into the back of me. The driver had stopped, applied the handbrake, it failed, and then rolled forward. I was pushed into a convenient gap in the oncoming traffic.
I pulled into the side of the road and then the BMW rolled into me again. You might remember the failed handbrake, but he didn't. Both times the speed was low. It had only rolled about 10' at most. The impact was forceful.
There's a lot of weight in cars.
As an aside, I suffered nothing other than a small bruise and cut to my head and didn't claim for injury/whiplash. This set up a flag at the other chap's insurance company and a claims assessor came to view the car. It seems whiplash is expected nowadays even at walking pace.
I pulled into the side of the road and then the BMW rolled into me again. You might remember the failed handbrake, but he didn't. Both times the speed was low. It had only rolled about 10' at most. The impact was forceful.
There's a lot of weight in cars.
As an aside, I suffered nothing other than a small bruise and cut to my head and didn't claim for injury/whiplash. This set up a flag at the other chap's insurance company and a claims assessor came to view the car. It seems whiplash is expected nowadays even at walking pace.
Lady S had a similar experience a few years ago.
Very minor bump into another vehicle whilst pulling into parking space. No mention of any injuries - minor scuff on her bumper and minor scuff on "rubbing strip" on other vehicle - so minor in fact that we offered to pay for repairs to 3rd party vehicle and I polished scuff off her car.
Other party insisted we went through insurance companies - we admitted liability and thought that was that - all logged as a damage only.
18 months later our insurance company phoned to say they had received a large injury claim from 3rd party insurance company and as we had already admitted liability they were going to pay it.
Long discussions on phone and I pointed out exactly what had happened and that this was obviously a fraudulent claim but they still paid out - no wonder people get all these unsolicited calls about "the recent accident you had - we can help" - robbing bar stewards !!!!!
Very minor bump into another vehicle whilst pulling into parking space. No mention of any injuries - minor scuff on her bumper and minor scuff on "rubbing strip" on other vehicle - so minor in fact that we offered to pay for repairs to 3rd party vehicle and I polished scuff off her car.
Other party insisted we went through insurance companies - we admitted liability and thought that was that - all logged as a damage only.
18 months later our insurance company phoned to say they had received a large injury claim from 3rd party insurance company and as we had already admitted liability they were going to pay it.
Long discussions on phone and I pointed out exactly what had happened and that this was obviously a fraudulent claim but they still paid out - no wonder people get all these unsolicited calls about "the recent accident you had - we can help" - robbing bar stewards !!!!!
HustleRussell said:
OP, a fault claim is a fault claim- the amount your insurer pays out is of little consequence to you.
Is the correct answer. Why the OP thinks a dashcam would have helped is beyond me as it would just show him crashing into the car in front. The example given by AllyBass is completely different amd totally irrelevant. A dashcam would simply prove your guilt.
I’m intrigued why you’ve seen the claimant forms, as they’re normally not shared with you. You’ll have misread it to think that they haven’t seen a medical professional.
TheInsanity1234 said:
My problem is that the passenger is claiming for whiplash and all sorts of muscle tissue injuries, however on the claim form from the passenger, it says he has not sought ANY medical advice or seen any medical professionals, so I have no clue how he's diagnosed all these injuries if he's not seen a doctor about them?
I think it's pretty normal to give them a grand or so in full and final settlement to make them go away - although when I've heard of that being done it's been very soon after the accident, with the 3rd party insurer offering it pro-actively to head off a bigger claim.Perhaps he's miffed he hasn't been offered anything.
BobSaunders said:
Why do you care? You are insured. Forward onto your insurance company, and advise them that the other parties are committing fraud.
Morally wrong, unless the insurance company decide to challenge.
Buy a dash camera moving forward.
with the exception of "why do you care" I'll agree with the above. Morally wrong, unless the insurance company decide to challenge.
Buy a dash camera moving forward.
irocfan said:
BobSaunders said:
Why do you care? You are insured. Forward onto your insurance company, and advise them that the other parties are committing fraud.
Morally wrong, unless the insurance company decide to challenge.
Buy a dash camera moving forward.
with the exception of "why do you care" I'll agree with the above. Morally wrong, unless the insurance company decide to challenge.
Buy a dash camera moving forward.
LordBretSinclair said:
These fraudulent claims matter to each and every one of us - why else do you think premiums get hiked every year ????? 
Why is it fraudulent? The OP doesn’t like the claim being made, that doesn’t make it fraudulent. The claimant could quite easily be injured as has already been described. No seatbelt, no headrests and easily knocked onto the floor. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff