Accident and County Court

[Phil Dicky]

Roughly 2 years ago GF's son had an accident on a narrow bend he's in a 90 Defender other guy in a Sprinter, long and short is insurances have agreed 'knock for knock and we all move on.
Yesterday morning young leads gets a initial County Court Claims form highlighting cost the third party wants to claim back.
On reading the blurb I wonder if anyone can shed any light,

He's claiming £3k repairs on a van worth probably 3k tops.no invoice so it appears not done yet.
Claiming storage of the van in Cheshire for 3 months @ £1800 he lives in Barnsley.
Hire vehicle charges for 3 months at wait for it £6.6k.. during this time he covered 600 miles , 7 miles at day ??
The obligatory sore shoulder £175


The whole thing smacks of an fiddle, no invoices just quotes and who in their right mind would hire a van for 3 months and pay 6.6k, online quotes are 3k
Storage charge doesn't make sense, it was drivable why would it go into storage

So in the basis of above and the fact the insurance company have agreed no one at fault (I assume) does the GF's son have reason to be worried. He's an apprentice sparky so no cash to settle.

[frisbee]

Just pass it on to the insurance company, they'll handle it.

[Alucidnation]

Just pass it on to his insurance company.

It’s what they are paid for.

[Twig62]

As has already been said just pass it on to the insurance company. Do not get involved/make contact with the other party yourselves.

[Phil Dicky]

Will do and thanks for the help.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Phil Dicky said:

insurances have agreed 'knock for knock and we all move on.

They probably agreed 50/50, which is an entirely different thing.

[Phil Dicky]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Phil Dicky said:

insurances have agreed 'knock for knock and we all move on.

They probably agreed 50/50, which is an entirely different thing.

In which case each party covers their own costs?

[vonhosen]

Phil Dicky said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Phil Dicky said:

insurances have agreed 'knock for knock and we all move on.

They probably agreed 50/50, which is an entirely different thing.

In which case each party covers their own costs?

Each party covers 50% of total costs.
Knock for knock was each party responsible for their own costs.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 9th March 18:11

[Countdown]

I wonder if the other bloke has gone to one of those dodgy accident management companies and they’re pursuing on his behalf (on the basis that your GF’s son’s insurers might chuck them a couple of grand to shut up and FO....?)

[TwigtheWonderkid]

vonhosen said:

Phil Dicky said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Phil Dicky said:

insurances have agreed 'knock for knock and we all move on.

They probably agreed 50/50, which is an entirely different thing.

In which case each party covers their own costs?

Each party covers 50% of total costs.
Knock for knock was each party responsible for their own costs.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 9th March 18:11

^^^This.

You have a Ferrari worth £100K, with a £5K excess
Other party has a £1K Micra, with a £100 excess. Both cars written off, drivers are equally to blame.

Knock for knock, your insurer pays out £95K, you pay £5K excess, other driver's insurers pay him £900, he pays £100 excess.
50/50, your insurer pays out £95K, and recovers £47.5K from Micra insurers. You recover £2500 from Micra Insurers.
Micra insurers pay out £900, but get £450 back from your insurer, and the Micra driver gets £50 back from your insurer.

[hunton69]

The insurance chases are getting desperate we recently received a claim for a driver braking to hard resulting into the passenger suffering an injury

[Phil Dicky]

Countdown said:

I wonder if the other bloke has gone to one of those dodgy accident management companies and they’re pursuing on his behalf (on the basis that your GF’s son’s insurers might chuck them a couple of grand to shut up and FO....?)

Defiantly this.

[KungFuPanda]

Not a lot of people know the true meaning of knock for knock.

It's an old term used between insurers only without any final determination of liability.

Each insurer agreed to absorb their own outlays ie their repair costs.

The agreement didn't extend to their respective insured's uninsured losses ie excess, personal injury, hire etc etc. This was left for their own insured's to fight out themselves via their own solicitors or legal expenses services.

OP, pass all the details onto your insurer to deal with.

[vitesse2000]

I was hit up the arse back in 1980 by an impatient minicab driver from a local firm. He tried to squeeze past me at speed while I was stationary, having just reversed out of my drive. He was driving a two year old Nissan Bluebird, he wrecked the front wing and bonnet on his and it twisted the bumper on my HA Viva. My insurers (CoOp) declared it his fault entirely. Unfortunately that wasn’t good enough for the taxi driver who took out a claim against me in the County Court for the £800 that it cost for the repair - I was 21, and he was 60, and he claimed I was an impatient yoof who reversed into him at speed - the judge believed him, and judgement went against me.
I handed back to my insurers, who said their decision made previously still stood and in their view there was no liability, and it was bad luck on my part that he won a claim in court, but they would not be paying out.
Never used CoOp again, still think minicab drivers are untrustworthy and have an unhealthy distrust of claims departments.

[KungFuPanda]

vitesse2000 said:

I was hit up the arse back in 1980 by an impatient minicab driver from a local firm. He tried to squeeze past me at speed while I was stationary, having just reversed out of my drive. He was driving a two year old Nissan Bluebird, he wrecked the front wing and bonnet on his and it twisted the bumper on my HA Viva. My insurers (CoOp) declared it his fault entirely. Unfortunately that wasn’t good enough for the taxi driver who took out a claim against me in the County Court for the £800 that it cost for the repair - I was 21, and he was 60, and he claimed I was an impatient yoof who reversed into him at speed - the judge believed him, and judgement went against me.
I handed back to my insurers, who said their decision made previously still stood and in their view there was no liability, and it was bad luck on my part that he won a claim in court, but they would not be paying out.
Never used CoOp again, still think minicab drivers are untrustworthy and have an unhealthy distrust of claims departments.

Notwithstanding the fact that the the Co-Op insurer you at the time of the accident and there was an unsatisfied judgment against you that they are bound by law under the Road Traffic Act to settle, they chose not to?

So what happened, did you have to pay it yourself? Did the taxi driver escalate the matter to bailiffs?

I call bullst.

[spaximus]

hunton69 said:

The insurance chases are getting desperate we recently received a claim for a driver braking to hard resulting into the passenger suffering an injury

We had this a few years ago where a woman had allegedly suffered whiplash when our driver over took them at such a high rate the wind pushed the car she was in to the side.

We got the camera footage and could not stop laughing. The driver had tried brake testing our driver for a few times and when he went past it was not at high speed.

Plod not interested at all for blatant actions insurance just told them to go away. I am sure some are driven by easy cash. They need treating like the scum claiming they had a bad gut on holiday. Hoteliers fought back a few have lost thousands as a result and it all seems normal now

[Osinjak]

Phil Dicky said:

Countdown said:

I wonder if the other bloke has gone to one of those dodgy accident management companies and they’re pursuing on his behalf (on the basis that your GF’s son’s insurers might chuck them a couple of grand to shut up and FO....?)

Defiantly this.

[Saleen836]

KungFuPanda said:

vitesse2000 said:

I was hit up the arse back in 1980 by an impatient minicab driver from a local firm. He tried to squeeze past me at speed while I was stationary, having just reversed out of my drive. He was driving a two year old Nissan Bluebird, he wrecked the front wing and bonnet on his and it twisted the bumper on my HA Viva. My insurers (CoOp) declared it his fault entirely. Unfortunately that wasn’t good enough for the taxi driver who took out a claim against me in the County Court for the £800 that it cost for the repair - I was 21, and he was 60, and he claimed I was an impatient yoof who reversed into him at speed - the judge believed him, and judgement went against me.
I handed back to my insurers, who said their decision made previously still stood and in their view there was no liability, and it was bad luck on my part that he won a claim in court, but they would not be paying out.
Never used CoOp again, still think minicab drivers are untrustworthy and have an unhealthy distrust of claims departments.

Notwithstanding the fact that the the Co-Op insurer you at the time of the accident and there was an unsatisfied judgment against you that they are bound by law under the Road Traffic Act to settle, they chose not to?

So what happened, did you have to pay it yourself? Did the taxi driver escalate the matter to bailiffs?

I call bullst.

Surely you submitted the evidence from the insurers showing it was settled in your favour as not being at fault? if you did surely the judge would not have found against you as this would open the flood gates for lots more people to put a private claim against a third party when an insurance claim has gone against them!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Saleen836 said:

KungFuPanda said:

vitesse2000 said:

I was hit up the arse back in 1980 by an impatient minicab driver from a local firm. He tried to squeeze past me at speed while I was stationary, having just reversed out of my drive. He was driving a two year old Nissan Bluebird, he wrecked the front wing and bonnet on his and it twisted the bumper on my HA Viva. My insurers (CoOp) declared it his fault entirely. Unfortunately that wasn’t good enough for the taxi driver who took out a claim against me in the County Court for the £800 that it cost for the repair - I was 21, and he was 60, and he claimed I was an impatient yoof who reversed into him at speed - the judge believed him, and judgement went against me.
I handed back to my insurers, who said their decision made previously still stood and in their view there was no liability, and it was bad luck on my part that he won a claim in court, but they would not be paying out.
Never used CoOp again, still think minicab drivers are untrustworthy and have an unhealthy distrust of claims departments.

Notwithstanding the fact that the the Co-Op insurer you at the time of the accident and there was an unsatisfied judgment against you that they are bound by law under the Road Traffic Act to settle, they chose not to?

So what happened, did you have to pay it yourself? Did the taxi driver escalate the matter to bailiffs?

I call bullst.

Surely you submitted the evidence from the insurers showing it was settled in your favour as not being at fault? if you did surely the judge would not have found against you as this would open the flood gates for lots more people to put a private claim against a third party when an insurance claim has gone against them!

His insurers decided the taxi driver was at fault. If the taxi driver's insurers had also thought the same, they would have paid the repairs. But the taxi driver, and no doubt his insurers, didn't agree.

But bottom line is, the Co[op would have paid out. No question. Their internal decision that you were not at fault means nothing, the courts decided you were, and co-op were obligated to pay the tp damage.

So I'm also doubting this tale of woe.

DHOTYA.

[jesta1865]

Phil Dicky said:

Roughly 2 years ago GF's son had an accident on a narrow bend he's in a 90 Defender other guy in a Sprinter, long and short is insurances have agreed 'knock for knock and we all move on.
Yesterday morning young leads gets a initial County Court Claims form highlighting cost the third party wants to claim back.
On reading the blurb I wonder if anyone can shed any light,

He's claiming £3k repairs on a van worth probably 3k tops.no invoice so it appears not done yet.
Claiming storage of the van in Cheshire for 3 months @ £1800 he lives in Barnsley.
Hire vehicle charges for 3 months at wait for it £6.6k.. during this time he covered 600 miles , 7 miles at day ??
The obligatory sore shoulder £175


The whole thing smacks of an fiddle, no invoices just quotes and who in their right mind would hire a van for 3 months and pay 6.6k, online quotes are 3k
Storage charge doesn't make sense, it was drivable why would it go into storage

So in the basis of above and the fact the insurance company have agreed no one at fault (I assume) does the GF's son have reason to be worried. He's an apprentice sparky so no cash to settle.

i know that there are time limits but if you were that much out of pocket would you wait 2 years?

sounds like he found a right lot of full-on ambulance chasers to pursue this.

I hope your insurance company go after him full tilt.