Advice on insurance claim
Discussion
Last November, while waiting in a queue of traffic, a young guy reversed into me. Not too much damage but enough to warrant a complete front end respray. After he had left I waited 25 minutes to get the details of a witness who had parked on the street just as it had happened. I had to wait as they'd cleared off shopping.
Phoned in the incident to Direct Line and as it turns out he was with them too so I figured it would be quick to resolve.
Next thing I know he's claiming *I* hit him. Needless to say I was angry and was now relying on my witness statements. This seemed to take age to come through but when they did they verified that he had reversed into me. Phew, I thought thats the end of it.
A couple of weeks later though I get another letter from DL saying that they are now waiting for *his* witnesses to provide statements! There was no way he had witnesses cause he drove off straight away and I waited 25 minutes and he didn't return. Plus why hadn't he mentioned them before! When I spoke to DL they just said that they can't do anything until they have his statements, when they get them they will go and interview the witnesses.
I'm really pi$$ed though as he may get away with it, its not the money as I have protected NCD its the principle.
Another annoying thing is that I ranted to DL about what they are going to do about this guy clearly falsifying his claim form and they said nothing. Grrrr! Their putting out the message that if you lie on the claim form even if you're found out nothing is done about it. Great!
I suppose my question (apart from wanting to get it off my chest) is is there anything more I can do? There probably where some other witnesses (smokers outside an office) but it was 3 months ago now.
If DL go for a split liability can I refuse to accept it?
It seems to me they know they have paid anyway and aren't really too bothered as we are both with them.
Phoned in the incident to Direct Line and as it turns out he was with them too so I figured it would be quick to resolve.
Next thing I know he's claiming *I* hit him. Needless to say I was angry and was now relying on my witness statements. This seemed to take age to come through but when they did they verified that he had reversed into me. Phew, I thought thats the end of it.
A couple of weeks later though I get another letter from DL saying that they are now waiting for *his* witnesses to provide statements! There was no way he had witnesses cause he drove off straight away and I waited 25 minutes and he didn't return. Plus why hadn't he mentioned them before! When I spoke to DL they just said that they can't do anything until they have his statements, when they get them they will go and interview the witnesses.
I'm really pi$$ed though as he may get away with it, its not the money as I have protected NCD its the principle.
Another annoying thing is that I ranted to DL about what they are going to do about this guy clearly falsifying his claim form and they said nothing. Grrrr! Their putting out the message that if you lie on the claim form even if you're found out nothing is done about it. Great!
I suppose my question (apart from wanting to get it off my chest) is is there anything more I can do? There probably where some other witnesses (smokers outside an office) but it was 3 months ago now.
If DL go for a split liability can I refuse to accept it?
It seems to me they know they have paid anyway and aren't really too bothered as we are both with them.
OK, take a deep breath! Have you written to your insurance company to say that the guy drove off (presumably after swapping details with you)? This is worth doing before you hear from them. When it comes to witness statements the independency of the witness can be taken in to consideration. The fact that the insurance company will take a dim view of someone making a false statement (and is prosecutable) acts in your favour.
You do not have to accept the insurance company's first offer. Wait to see what they say, you can't really do anything until they've received his statements. At that point you can make your counter claim, re-emphasise that he couldn't have taken witness details unless he knew that person. Do you have legal insurance (often sold as an extra with your motor policy)? If so then you can get them involved.
It's a waiting game and often people will back down if confronted with facts and independent witness statements.
MC
You do not have to accept the insurance company's first offer. Wait to see what they say, you can't really do anything until they've received his statements. At that point you can make your counter claim, re-emphasise that he couldn't have taken witness details unless he knew that person. Do you have legal insurance (often sold as an extra with your motor policy)? If so then you can get them involved.
It's a waiting game and often people will back down if confronted with facts and independent witness statements.
MC
I told them that he drove off as when he 'claimed' I had hit him I said that he obviously didn't realise that I had witnesses otherwise he would have just taken it like a man or declared his witneeses (read mates) from the outset.
Also does anybody know what details they go into when they interview witnesses? Ie what we're you going at the time? where you off work etc etc.
Also does anybody know what details they go into when they interview witnesses? Ie what we're you going at the time? where you off work etc etc.
A lot if they suspect fraud. Followed swiftly by yon Cambridgeshhire Constabulary.
Also does anybody know what details they go into when they interview witnesses? Ie what we're you going at the time? where you off work etc etc.
My Dad's just been through similar with someone who reversed in to him whilst he was parked... low and behold the other driver started producing dodgy witness statements from people who weren't even at the scene. Direct line are pretty professional at sorting stuff like this out (pretty much have to be as they come under the www.gisc.co.uk )
MC
DL are going to pay for the damage to both cars in any event. The best outcome for them would be a split liability, therefore allowing a loading on both policys next year, as you will both now have at fault claims.
Will be interesting to see if DL actually carry out a thorough investigation
Will be interesting to see if DL actually carry out a thorough investigation
Just going through a similar scenario. Some Plonker pulled out in front of Mrs T at night and is now saying she didn't have her lights on. I actually saw the accident as she was picking me up from the station at the time.
Called plod and they had a chat with the other driver and checked round to see if there were any other witnesses (it was also outside a night club and there was a queue of people going in) and no one owned up.
We all had to fill in statements.
Insurance company now tells me the other driver has an independent witness saying lights were definitely not on. oh yeh ? wifey had just driven 10 miles along unlight roads plus driven past numerous plod in town !
Can we put a time limit on this fairy story arriving ?
If the insurance company wimp out and do a knock for knock, can we take the plonker to court and if proven, will he have to pay our uninsured loss out of his own pocket ?
Called plod and they had a chat with the other driver and checked round to see if there were any other witnesses (it was also outside a night club and there was a queue of people going in) and no one owned up.
We all had to fill in statements.
Insurance company now tells me the other driver has an independent witness saying lights were definitely not on. oh yeh ? wifey had just driven 10 miles along unlight roads plus driven past numerous plod in town !
Can we put a time limit on this fairy story arriving ?
If the insurance company wimp out and do a knock for knock, can we take the plonker to court and if proven, will he have to pay our uninsured loss out of his own pocket ?
DL can't determine liability on your behalf without your agreement. Sue the fella, you don't have to leave it in DL's hands. The county court will be quite interestd in the independence of any witnesses.
Most people won't have the bravado to actually turn up in court and lie that it's your fault and that they don't know him. If you think his witneses are doing this say so and the court will check his mobile and home phone record s with his permission to see if they are mates.
If he won't supply the phone records the court will laugh at the supposed witness statements.
Most people won't have the bravado to actually turn up in court and lie that it's your fault and that they don't know him. If you think his witneses are doing this say so and the court will check his mobile and home phone record s with his permission to see if they are mates.
If he won't supply the phone records the court will laugh at the supposed witness statements.
Instruct your insurance company that they are not to accept knock for knock in any circumstances. Inform them that your wife did have her headlights on and that any so-called witness that says otherwise is lying and would need to perjure themselves if it came to court.
Edited to add: I presume she did have her lights on
>> Edited by kevinday on Wednesday 26th February 08:37
Edited to add: I presume she did have her lights on
>> Edited by kevinday on Wednesday 26th February 08:37
tallchris99 said: DL can't determine liability on your behalf without your agreement.
Oh yes they can - if he wants the insurer to deal with the claim they are entitled to do so in whatever manner they see fit - this is known as 'subrogation'. If he does not agree to this, the insurer is not obliged to deal with the claim. Bear in mind that insurance companies are out to make a profit - it does not make any sense for a company to admit liability if there is a sufficient measure of doubt, as it would mean paying out when they don't have to.
Sue the fella, you don't have to leave it in DL's hands. The county court will be quite interestd in the independence of any witnesses.
Quite within his rights to do so - but if he chooses this option, and loses, he will be fully liable from his own pocket - he will have waived his indemnity under the insurance contract by taking the case on himself against the advice of the insurer.
(long reply warning!!)
DL, by previous experience (which I'll detail in a sec) like to do things the hard way, hoping that if something is disputed - one party will back down and it'll be a 50/50 fault claim on both parties.
My little experience of this was in 1998, I was out with a (female) mate and we met some undesireable ex-friends, I ended up stuck behind her and her cronies at some traffic lights so, having nowhere to go she jumps out, giving verbal etc...
I drive away, getting out of her way as quickly as I could and head off to my other mate's house. When I got there my mate told me that my mum was on the phone (was her car y'see) and that I've got to get home asap. I didn't know anything about this at the time.
So, home I go - to be met with this ex-mate and her dad outside my house effing and blinding about the 'damage' I've caused to her car. B'lox mylud... nothing ever happened... anyway - mum had already given them the insurance details as they were threatening the police etc - anything for an easy life (we've learned the hard way now)
So, ffwd to earlier in 2002, court summons and so on (I denied the accident ever took place, even having the kid that was in the back seat of her car as MY witness!). After a few statements are sent backward and forward, my barrister prepared the case and we went to see the judge, he picked up on a few points - notably that her second statement and her invented witnesses statement were virtually identical, her second statment said (and I quote)
"He stopped behind me, reversed, then rammed me"
where her first statement said:
"If he hadn't been travelling so fast he wouldn't have locked up and hit me" (despite the fact there were no tyre marks!!)
And so on and so forth.
DL didn't believe any of these statements btw - they just kept saying it was "for the court to decide" etc, thereby negating any judgementary obligations they had.
At the end though, I didn't even need to give a statement, allow my witnesses (2 of em!) to come into the court room or anything as my barrister simply tore the other side to shreds. The judge said she'd made a judgement after the first break and it was in my favour.
Obvious case of fraud, and attempting to pervert the course of justice etc - guess what the outcome was? A loading on MY policy as I had to declare it (not any more!) and no investigation for fraud etc. The police were not involved and she got away scot free (well almost, as she had crashed her car at a later date and tried to claim it was me that did it - the four-months between the supposed accident date and date of repair gave that game right away!)
So that's perjury, insurance fraud, insurance deception, attempting to gain money by deception, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. What was done about it - sod all...
>> Edited by CB-Dave on Wednesday 26th February 10:53
DL, by previous experience (which I'll detail in a sec) like to do things the hard way, hoping that if something is disputed - one party will back down and it'll be a 50/50 fault claim on both parties.
My little experience of this was in 1998, I was out with a (female) mate and we met some undesireable ex-friends, I ended up stuck behind her and her cronies at some traffic lights so, having nowhere to go she jumps out, giving verbal etc...
I drive away, getting out of her way as quickly as I could and head off to my other mate's house. When I got there my mate told me that my mum was on the phone (was her car y'see) and that I've got to get home asap. I didn't know anything about this at the time.
So, home I go - to be met with this ex-mate and her dad outside my house effing and blinding about the 'damage' I've caused to her car. B'lox mylud... nothing ever happened... anyway - mum had already given them the insurance details as they were threatening the police etc - anything for an easy life (we've learned the hard way now)
So, ffwd to earlier in 2002, court summons and so on (I denied the accident ever took place, even having the kid that was in the back seat of her car as MY witness!). After a few statements are sent backward and forward, my barrister prepared the case and we went to see the judge, he picked up on a few points - notably that her second statement and her invented witnesses statement were virtually identical, her second statment said (and I quote)
"He stopped behind me, reversed, then rammed me"
where her first statement said:
"If he hadn't been travelling so fast he wouldn't have locked up and hit me" (despite the fact there were no tyre marks!!)
And so on and so forth.
DL didn't believe any of these statements btw - they just kept saying it was "for the court to decide" etc, thereby negating any judgementary obligations they had.
At the end though, I didn't even need to give a statement, allow my witnesses (2 of em!) to come into the court room or anything as my barrister simply tore the other side to shreds. The judge said she'd made a judgement after the first break and it was in my favour.
Obvious case of fraud, and attempting to pervert the course of justice etc - guess what the outcome was? A loading on MY policy as I had to declare it (not any more!) and no investigation for fraud etc. The police were not involved and she got away scot free (well almost, as she had crashed her car at a later date and tried to claim it was me that did it - the four-months between the supposed accident date and date of repair gave that game right away!)
So that's perjury, insurance fraud, insurance deception, attempting to gain money by deception, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. What was done about it - sod all...
>> Edited by CB-Dave on Wednesday 26th February 10:53
Just spoke to DL to get an update on my claim and it seems the numpty I spoke to before didn't actually read the file correctly.
His witness is his passenger who is obviously not independant.
They have written to him suggesting he admits liability.
So my original post about him making up witnesses isn't quite true. Perhaps that will be next!
His witness is his passenger who is obviously not independant.
They have written to him suggesting he admits liability.
So my original post about him making up witnesses isn't quite true. Perhaps that will be next!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff