3rd party now dispute liability after admitting liability!
Discussion
Hi everyone,
Bit bizarre this one. Last summer on the 27/08/10, someone crashed into me whilst I was on a roundabout, he pulled out of his junction and T-boned me, damaging the left hand side of my car.
Long story short, his insurance company ring me up to announce they have admitted liability, that my car is going in for repairs, and that i shall receive a hire car. This is all in September. Come May when my insurance was due for renewal, i asked my insurance to find out what was taking so long about my claim. Couple of days later they ring back and say that the 3rd Party insurance company has admitted liability and that the reason why my claim is ongoing is because a claims company for the 3rd party is claiming £700 in hire car charges to my insurance company.
I was puzzled by this since they should be charging the 3rd Party insurance company since they admitted liability so my insurance company nor me should incur any charges. So I phone after two weeks to find that the 3rd Party insurance company now say that them admitting liability was a 'mistake' and that repairing my car was also a 'mistake'. They are also now disputing liability. I have now had my insurance shoot up from the reasonable quotes of £800 to insure my MX5 (I'm 21) to a stupid £1800.
I can't get the job i have just been given since I need a car to get there and back (i finish at 3am some nights) so cannot use public transport and taxis are not economically viable, not to mention that i now have to sell my car since i cant use it anymore!
The main point is that I am wondering if it is even legal for an insurance company to admit liability and then (presumably due to having to pay an extra £700 in hire car charges) turning around and saying that it was a 'mistake' (which you can believe or not, sounds fishy to me) and that they are disputing liability in full. I'm trying to get the 3rd partys statement but finding hard due to having to file a Section 29c Data Protection Act Subject Access Requirement which i cant seem to find anywhere!
Help would be much appreciated since the Financial Ombudsman say they cant help and neither can the Associated British Insurers couldn't help either both due to the fact that it wasn't my insurer i was complaining about. I rang the Citizens Advice Bureau and they sent in the direction of some local legal help in Norwich and they said it sounded odd.
Bit bizarre this one. Last summer on the 27/08/10, someone crashed into me whilst I was on a roundabout, he pulled out of his junction and T-boned me, damaging the left hand side of my car.
Long story short, his insurance company ring me up to announce they have admitted liability, that my car is going in for repairs, and that i shall receive a hire car. This is all in September. Come May when my insurance was due for renewal, i asked my insurance to find out what was taking so long about my claim. Couple of days later they ring back and say that the 3rd Party insurance company has admitted liability and that the reason why my claim is ongoing is because a claims company for the 3rd party is claiming £700 in hire car charges to my insurance company.
I was puzzled by this since they should be charging the 3rd Party insurance company since they admitted liability so my insurance company nor me should incur any charges. So I phone after two weeks to find that the 3rd Party insurance company now say that them admitting liability was a 'mistake' and that repairing my car was also a 'mistake'. They are also now disputing liability. I have now had my insurance shoot up from the reasonable quotes of £800 to insure my MX5 (I'm 21) to a stupid £1800.
I can't get the job i have just been given since I need a car to get there and back (i finish at 3am some nights) so cannot use public transport and taxis are not economically viable, not to mention that i now have to sell my car since i cant use it anymore!
The main point is that I am wondering if it is even legal for an insurance company to admit liability and then (presumably due to having to pay an extra £700 in hire car charges) turning around and saying that it was a 'mistake' (which you can believe or not, sounds fishy to me) and that they are disputing liability in full. I'm trying to get the 3rd partys statement but finding hard due to having to file a Section 29c Data Protection Act Subject Access Requirement which i cant seem to find anywhere!
Help would be much appreciated since the Financial Ombudsman say they cant help and neither can the Associated British Insurers couldn't help either both due to the fact that it wasn't my insurer i was complaining about. I rang the Citizens Advice Bureau and they sent in the direction of some local legal help in Norwich and they said it sounded odd.
drophead said:
Hi everyone,
Bit bizarre this one. Last summer on the 27/08/10, someone crashed into me whilst I was on a roundabout, he pulled out of his junction and T-boned me, damaging the left hand side of my car.
Long story short, his insurance company ring me up to announce they have admitted liability, that my car is going in for repairs, and that i shall receive a hire car. This is all in September. Come May when my insurance was due for renewal, i asked my insurance to find out what was taking so long about my claim. Couple of days later they ring back and say that the 3rd Party insurance company has admitted liability and that the reason why my claim is ongoing is because a claims company for the 3rd party is claiming £700 in hire car charges to my insurance company.
I was puzzled by this since they should be charging the 3rd Party insurance company since they admitted liability so my insurance company nor me should incur any charges. So I phone after two weeks to find that the 3rd Party insurance company now say that them admitting liability was a 'mistake' and that repairing my car was also a 'mistake'. They are also now disputing liability. I have now had my insurance shoot up from the reasonable quotes of £800 to insure my MX5 (I'm 21) to a stupid £1800.
I can't get the job i have just been given since I need a car to get there and back (i finish at 3am some nights) so cannot use public transport and taxis are not economically viable, not to mention that i now have to sell my car since i cant use it anymore!
The main point is that I am wondering if it is even legal for an insurance company to admit liability and then (presumably due to having to pay an extra £700 in hire car charges) turning around and saying that it was a 'mistake' (which you can believe or not, sounds fishy to me) and that they are disputing liability in full. I'm trying to get the 3rd partys statement but finding hard due to having to file a Section 29c Data Protection Act Subject Access Requirement which i cant seem to find anywhere!
Help would be much appreciated since the Financial Ombudsman say they cant help and neither can the Associated British Insurers couldn't help either both due to the fact that it wasn't my insurer i was complaining about. I rang the Citizens Advice Bureau and they sent in the direction of some local legal help in Norwich and they said it sounded odd.
A ridiculous situation, and I'll leave it to the insurance experts here to comment [BTW, there will be others that comment from a position of greater ignorance].Bit bizarre this one. Last summer on the 27/08/10, someone crashed into me whilst I was on a roundabout, he pulled out of his junction and T-boned me, damaging the left hand side of my car.
Long story short, his insurance company ring me up to announce they have admitted liability, that my car is going in for repairs, and that i shall receive a hire car. This is all in September. Come May when my insurance was due for renewal, i asked my insurance to find out what was taking so long about my claim. Couple of days later they ring back and say that the 3rd Party insurance company has admitted liability and that the reason why my claim is ongoing is because a claims company for the 3rd party is claiming £700 in hire car charges to my insurance company.
I was puzzled by this since they should be charging the 3rd Party insurance company since they admitted liability so my insurance company nor me should incur any charges. So I phone after two weeks to find that the 3rd Party insurance company now say that them admitting liability was a 'mistake' and that repairing my car was also a 'mistake'. They are also now disputing liability. I have now had my insurance shoot up from the reasonable quotes of £800 to insure my MX5 (I'm 21) to a stupid £1800.
I can't get the job i have just been given since I need a car to get there and back (i finish at 3am some nights) so cannot use public transport and taxis are not economically viable, not to mention that i now have to sell my car since i cant use it anymore!
The main point is that I am wondering if it is even legal for an insurance company to admit liability and then (presumably due to having to pay an extra £700 in hire car charges) turning around and saying that it was a 'mistake' (which you can believe or not, sounds fishy to me) and that they are disputing liability in full. I'm trying to get the 3rd partys statement but finding hard due to having to file a Section 29c Data Protection Act Subject Access Requirement which i cant seem to find anywhere!
Help would be much appreciated since the Financial Ombudsman say they cant help and neither can the Associated British Insurers couldn't help either both due to the fact that it wasn't my insurer i was complaining about. I rang the Citizens Advice Bureau and they sent in the direction of some local legal help in Norwich and they said it sounded odd.
s.29 of the DPA relates to crime and taxation, and, regardless, the (c) clauses are not relevant to the situation. I fail to see why the DPA would be an issue here. Is it that the insurer is stating they can't dislose the data? If so, whose and what data is it they're refusing to disclose? A degree of wool-pulling may be involved. You can PM me with more information if you don't want to discuss it in an open forum.
Streaky
Confused.
Who exactly repaired your car and agreed the hire ? What agreement did you sign ? It sounds like "third party capture" in that they (TP insurer) called you and arranged it all ?
Certainly not illegal to change your mind on liability. But need to understand who did what to whom !
Who exactly repaired your car and agreed the hire ? What agreement did you sign ? It sounds like "third party capture" in that they (TP insurer) called you and arranged it all ?
Certainly not illegal to change your mind on liability. But need to understand who did what to whom !
Noger said:
Confused.
Who exactly repaired your car and agreed the hire ? What agreement did you sign ? It sounds like "third party capture" in that they (TP insurer) called you and arranged it all ?
Certainly not illegal to change your mind on liability. But need to understand who did what to whom !
Think how confused i feel about this situation!Who exactly repaired your car and agreed the hire ? What agreement did you sign ? It sounds like "third party capture" in that they (TP insurer) called you and arranged it all ?
Certainly not illegal to change your mind on liability. But need to understand who did what to whom !
The 3rd party insurer have repaired my car (straight after the collision) with their approved bodyshop and agreed to pay for a hire car as they had admitted liability. They now say this was all a mistake (to admit liability, give me a paid for hire car and admit liability) and that they are disputing the liability as of June 2011. During the month straight after the collision, the 3rd party insurance dealt with me directly rather then through my insurance company which in hindsight, probably should have set alarm bells ringing.
The point is that after all the repairs, paid hire car and the (recorded!) admission that they, the 3rd party, caused the accident have decided all of a sudden to now dispute liability just as my insurance has run out, but also just as a claims company that gave a hire car to the 3rd party have popped up demanding £700 in hire car charges.
My insurance company have not paid a single penny to the 3rd party in repairs or hire car charges as of June 2011.
Just read up on Third Party Capture and sounds alot like the 3rd party insurance have done that to me.
One way out of this mess would be to take the third party ( who caused the crash ) to the small claims court and sue them for your losses . You are suing the other driver and not their insurer ( although the insurer is contracted to indemnify their client against just such claims , the insurer is not the defendant , the driver is ) .
Once the court has ruled in your favour , there is no more argument - the 3rd party must pay up and his insurer is contracted to indemnify him against the claim ( so actually the insurers pay ) .
You mentioned the ABI , but have you spoken to the insurance ombudsman ?
Once the court has ruled in your favour , there is no more argument - the 3rd party must pay up and his insurer is contracted to indemnify him against the claim ( so actually the insurers pay ) .
You mentioned the ABI , but have you spoken to the insurance ombudsman ?
drophead said:
I have now had my insurance shoot up from the reasonable quotes of £800 to insure my MX5 (I'm 21) to a stupid £1800.
...
Help would be much appreciated since the Financial Ombudsman say they cant help and neither can the Associated British Insurers couldn't help either both due to the fact that it wasn't my insurer i was complaining about.
Each to their own, but I'd complain about my insurer like a motherf...
Help would be much appreciated since the Financial Ombudsman say they cant help and neither can the Associated British Insurers couldn't help either both due to the fact that it wasn't my insurer i was complaining about.
ker if my fee went up by 125% for no reason.drophead said:
Think how confused i feel about this situation!
The 3rd party insurer have repaired my car (straight after the collision) with their approved bodyshop and agreed to pay for a hire car as they had admitted liability. They now say this was all a mistake (to admit liability, give me a paid for hire car and admit liability) and that they are disputing the liability as of June 2011. During the month straight after the collision, the 3rd party insurance dealt with me directly rather then through my insurance company which in hindsight, probably should have set alarm bells ringing.
The point is that after all the repairs, paid hire car and the (recorded!) admission that they, the 3rd party, caused the accident have decided all of a sudden to now dispute liability just as my insurance has run out, but also just as a claims company that gave a hire car to the 3rd party have popped up demanding £700 in hire car charges.
My insurance company have not paid a single penny to the 3rd party in repairs or hire car charges as of June 2011.
Just read up on Third Party Capture and sounds alot like the 3rd party insurance have done that to me.
Still somewhat confused !The 3rd party insurer have repaired my car (straight after the collision) with their approved bodyshop and agreed to pay for a hire car as they had admitted liability. They now say this was all a mistake (to admit liability, give me a paid for hire car and admit liability) and that they are disputing the liability as of June 2011. During the month straight after the collision, the 3rd party insurance dealt with me directly rather then through my insurance company which in hindsight, probably should have set alarm bells ringing.
The point is that after all the repairs, paid hire car and the (recorded!) admission that they, the 3rd party, caused the accident have decided all of a sudden to now dispute liability just as my insurance has run out, but also just as a claims company that gave a hire car to the 3rd party have popped up demanding £700 in hire car charges.
My insurance company have not paid a single penny to the 3rd party in repairs or hire car charges as of June 2011.
Just read up on Third Party Capture and sounds alot like the 3rd party insurance have done that to me.
The TP insurer agreed to fix your car and provide a hire car (nothing particularly wrong in that). What agreement did you have with them ?
Now they are disputing liability ? How ? What are they saying they are going to do ? Are they claiming you lied ?
And a Credit Hire company for the TP driver is claiming from your insurers ? One assumes they have been given a different story ?
Another thought on this matter .
Since the third party insurers repaired the OP's car directly , at what time did the OP make a CLAIM against his own insurance ?
I have had this in the past , on two separate occasions , where I was rear ended ( once at the bottom of a motorway slip road when the following driver was unable to stop , and another time whilst waiting behind a driver who was waiting to turn right ) : on both occasions the other drivers admitted liability and both happened to be insured with Direct Line , whose policy seemed to be to offer to pay for the damages without me needing to involve my own insurer ( both times I still informed them of the incident , but on neither occasion did I make any claim against my insurance ) .
By the sound of things , the OP did not claim against his insurance either , therefore his claims history , and NCD , should be intact .
There ought to be nothing to prevent him looking for insurance elsewhere , and if asked if he has made any claims in the last year , he can truthfully answer NO .
Since the third party insurers repaired the OP's car directly , at what time did the OP make a CLAIM against his own insurance ?
I have had this in the past , on two separate occasions , where I was rear ended ( once at the bottom of a motorway slip road when the following driver was unable to stop , and another time whilst waiting behind a driver who was waiting to turn right ) : on both occasions the other drivers admitted liability and both happened to be insured with Direct Line , whose policy seemed to be to offer to pay for the damages without me needing to involve my own insurer ( both times I still informed them of the incident , but on neither occasion did I make any claim against my insurance ) .
By the sound of things , the OP did not claim against his insurance either , therefore his claims history , and NCD , should be intact .
There ought to be nothing to prevent him looking for insurance elsewhere , and if asked if he has made any claims in the last year , he can truthfully answer NO .
Thanks to everyone for your responses, it is much appreciated to a confused young bloke!
I've had a look at the 3rd party capture which looks alot like what has happened, and under the guidelines says that this practise is not something that the FSA likes too much, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/third_party_capture.pdf .
I have made a claim through my insurance company, the issue is that they (TP insurers) rung me rather then my insurance company to say that they admit liability. I also didn't sign anything to acknowledge that they had admitted liability. My problem with the 3rd party insurance is that after nearly a year, they are saying that admitting liability was a mistake and that they are now going to dispute it. I always thought that once you've admitted liability, that is an admittance of guilt and so you can't go back on what you have already said. Someone, somewhere within the 3rd party insurance company, has filed papers or gave the green light for them to be held accountable for the collision.
I've had a look at the 3rd party capture which looks alot like what has happened, and under the guidelines says that this practise is not something that the FSA likes too much, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/third_party_capture.pdf .
I have made a claim through my insurance company, the issue is that they (TP insurers) rung me rather then my insurance company to say that they admit liability. I also didn't sign anything to acknowledge that they had admitted liability. My problem with the 3rd party insurance is that after nearly a year, they are saying that admitting liability was a mistake and that they are now going to dispute it. I always thought that once you've admitted liability, that is an admittance of guilt and so you can't go back on what you have already said. Someone, somewhere within the 3rd party insurance company, has filed papers or gave the green light for them to be held accountable for the collision.
Edited by drophead on Wednesday 22 June 00:22
drophead said:
Thanks to everyone for your responses, it is much appreciated to a confused young bloke!
I've had a look at the 3rd party capture which looks alot like what has happened, and under the guidelines says that this practise is not something that the FSA likes too much, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/third_party_capture.pdf .
I have made a claim through my insurance company, the issue is that they rung me rather then my insurance company to say that they admit liability. I also didn't sign anything to acknowledge that they had admitted liability. My problem with the 3rd party insurance is that after nearly a year, they are saying that admitting liability was a mistake and that they are now going to dispute it. I always thought that once you've admitted liability, that is an admittance of guilt and so you can't go back on what you have already said. Someone, somewhere within the 3rd party insurance company, has filed papers or gave the green light for them to be held accountable for the collision.
Do you recall who called you and/or when they called you to admit liability and organise repairs and a hire car? Have you tried asking the 3rd party's insurer for their copy of the tape of that call?I've had a look at the 3rd party capture which looks alot like what has happened, and under the guidelines says that this practise is not something that the FSA likes too much, http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/third_party_capture.pdf .
I have made a claim through my insurance company, the issue is that they rung me rather then my insurance company to say that they admit liability. I also didn't sign anything to acknowledge that they had admitted liability. My problem with the 3rd party insurance is that after nearly a year, they are saying that admitting liability was a mistake and that they are now going to dispute it. I always thought that once you've admitted liability, that is an admittance of guilt and so you can't go back on what you have already said. Someone, somewhere within the 3rd party insurance company, has filed papers or gave the green light for them to be held accountable for the collision.
Can Noger or some other knowledgeable person advise whether the act of repairing the car and providing a hire car should be reasonably capable of being construed as an offer of settlement?
Noger said:
Still somewhat confused !
The TP insurer agreed to fix your car and provide a hire car (nothing particularly wrong in that). What agreement did you have with them ?
Now they are disputing liability ? How ? What are they saying they are going to do ? Are they claiming you lied ?
And a Credit Hire company for the TP driver is claiming from your insurers ? One assumes they have been given a different story ?
No agreement just a phone call to say they have admitted liability and that my car will be fixed, i said great and then didn't agree to anything else.The TP insurer agreed to fix your car and provide a hire car (nothing particularly wrong in that). What agreement did you have with them ?
Now they are disputing liability ? How ? What are they saying they are going to do ? Are they claiming you lied ?
And a Credit Hire company for the TP driver is claiming from your insurers ? One assumes they have been given a different story ?
I dont know how they are disputing liability they just are, hence why i'm asking for advice on whether thats technically aloud. They have claimed nothing more then saying it was a 'mistake' that they admitted fault and repaired my car and have decided that they are disputing the liability of the collision. I believe they want 50/50 but they can f*** off since no one wins with 50/50, only the insurance companies.
Correct. The TP Credit Hire company have been told a different story to the one i am saying. I think the TP is blaming me for the accident. As i have said above, i have tried (but failed so far) to obtain his statement of the accident but to no avail. Hence why i believe that the TP is lying through his teeth.
I will try to get the information of the phone call but im guessing they will throw another Section 29c Data Protection Act at me, which they swear i need to get any info. Im pretty sure that under the Freedom of Information Act that i can get his statement since it is a document which is about me or at the very least contains me in it.
Edited by drophead on Wednesday 22 June 00:28
drophead said:
Im pretty sure that under the Freedom of Information Act that i can get his statement since it is a document which is about me or at the very least contains me in it.
Unfortunately not. The FoI Act only applies to public bodies and publicly owned cpanies (i.e. owned by the Crown or a public authority).drophead said:
I will try to get the information of the phone call but im guessing they will throw another Section 29c Data Protection Act at me, which they swear i need to get any info. Im pretty sure that under the Freedom of Information Act that i can get his statement since it is a document which is about me or at the very least contains me in it.
Did you not read what I posted earlier? You are confused about more than the claim. And as another has said, the FOI doesn't apply.DPA s.29(1)(c) is an exemption to the First Data Protection Principle that data shall be processed lawfully and fairly) in respect of the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature.
DPA s.29(5)(c) applies to an authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit, by way of defining a "relevant authority".
These are the only two (c) subsections in s.29, and neither would apply as you suggest. There is no s.29(c).
Either you have misheard, or the insurer is confused (possible), or the insurer is trying to confuse you (likely).
Streaky
Edited by streaky on Wednesday 22 June 12:26
drophead said:
No agreement just a phone call to say they have admitted liability and that my car will be fixed, i said great and then didn't agree to anything else.
I dont know how they are disputing liability they just are, hence why i'm asking for advice on whether thats technically aloud. They have claimed nothing more then saying it was a 'mistake' that they admitted fault and repaired my car and have decided that they are disputing the liability of the collision. I believe they want 50/50 but they can f*** off since no one wins with 50/50, only the insurance companies.
Correct. The TP Credit Hire company have been told a different story to the one i am saying. I think the TP is blaming me for the accident. As i have said above, i have tried (but failed so far) to obtain his statement of the accident but to no avail. Hence why i believe that the TP is lying through his teeth.
Ah, OK. It sort of makes sense now ! It isn't a particularly common situation you are in, which makes it difficult to predict what will happen.I dont know how they are disputing liability they just are, hence why i'm asking for advice on whether thats technically aloud. They have claimed nothing more then saying it was a 'mistake' that they admitted fault and repaired my car and have decided that they are disputing the liability of the collision. I believe they want 50/50 but they can f*** off since no one wins with 50/50, only the insurance companies.
Correct. The TP Credit Hire company have been told a different story to the one i am saying. I think the TP is blaming me for the accident. As i have said above, i have tried (but failed so far) to obtain his statement of the accident but to no avail. Hence why i believe that the TP is lying through his teeth.
TP capture isn't particularly frowned upon (apart from PI lawyers, for obvious reasons) and there is a code of practice. If it wasn't too high pressure (and you weren't injured, which can make it complicated) then it will probably be Kosher. That said, the FSA consider a "captured" TP to be a customer, and thus treated fairly. It would be along these lines that you should complain. They should explain why they have changed their minds. They probably should not have cold called, was there a letter ?
There is another purpose to TP capture, and that is to offer "free" hire car so as to be able to point to lack of cost mitigation later.
I suspect what has happened is that the "computer" assigned the claim as an obvious fault, and their TP team swung into action and converted you. Now either they, or the TP's CHO/Solicitor is countering that.
As previous, there is no particular reason why you can't re-open a claim and change the liability. But you would need something tangible beyond "we got it wrong".
Probably what will happen is the two insurers will have a bit of a ding-dong about liability and argue over the two versions. I would think "Tough, you have already admitted liability" to be the key phrase your insurer will use
Might also be a bit squeaky for the Hire Car company, I wonder if their insured told them his insurer had already admitted !
Your insurer will not want to go 50:50, as they have paid nothing (other than some expenses in setting the claim up) so far.
Efbe said:
drophead said:
stuff
Drophead,What happened with this in the end?
Exactly the same has happened to a colleague at work, who is now in the stages of getting his car fixed through the other party's insurance.
Basically, I went to the local citizens advice place and got some free legal advice. Then rung up my insurance company every week, sent my statement again and again with a diagram of the collision, stating where the 3rd party was on the road etc, their manner and tone, what they said etc.
Waited for the claims company to make up their mind (took the whole summer), and threatened legal action. Basically, it is a whole lot of waiting, repeating yourself and doing most of the work too! I still haven't had confirmation that I am not to blame for the accident even though it's been 18months because they know that they can jump both premiums up! I have my no claims bonus back finally! It took them from the 27th of August 2010 until mid to late july this year for me to get my no claims back.
The industry is quite frankly, a f
ing mess done on purpose to make this as hard and as time consuming as possible so you just give up. I've been on hold for 40minutes at some points.The only reason I (apparently) got my no claims back was because the 3rd party 'accidentally' fixed my car due to a 'computer error'. I pointed out that someone from the claims department needed to sign this off so it couldn't have been a computer error. I got no response back
Good luck to your colleague as it will be a long year for him. The only reason I fought so much and actually won is because I had alot of time over summer to make sure the insurance company was kept on its toes. I'm guessing your colleague does not. I think it's worth it just because the whole system feels like it was designed to make you give up and go 50/50 as "they'll sort everything for you"...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff