Insurance problem - 3rd party trying it on
Discussion
Hi All
Am in a situation where advice would be appreciated please (sorry it’s so long).
Back in May I was taking my son to school (in my weekday Celica) heading up a residential street towards the main road when a car came out of a side turning on my left crossing give way lines, I braked and swerved to the right but she hit my n/s front wing & wheel causing extensive damage to both cars. Fortunately no-one was hurt, though my son was a little bruised and shocked. My car would not start so the police attended and pushed the car clear and took statements from myself and the other driver.
There was no-one else around at the time of the accident.
The police asked me if I wanted to prosecute for ‘due care’, but also suggested that if I did it might make the claim take longer to be resolved. I decided against it, as I figured accidents happen and that’s why we have insurance.
I do remember the other driver saying to the police that as she came to the crossroad she looked down the road, saw nothing, looked up and saw nothing so pulled out to go across but ran into me.
The insurance machine started to roll, my car was taken away on a flatbed for repairs and a courtesy car was provided. Letters and forms start arriving from insurers etc. and after about 3 weeks, my car was repaired so I paid the £350 excess to get it back.
Then it all started to go wrong… Apparently my insurers wrote to the 3rd party insurers asking for an admission of liability but they decided to dispute this claiming to have witness evidence “in support of their client’s claim that they were stationary and I collided with their stationary vehicle”!!!! I phoned my insurers wondering (a) how on earth I could have slid sideways into the front of a car as it came across the give way lines and (b) where this witness had come from - but did say that surely if there was a witness the police would have taken details. The insurers told me ‘this sort of thing happens a lot’ and leave it to them to sort out…
Weeks pass and various letters arrive updating me that my insurers were continuing to ask 3rd party or insurers to repay their outlay in the claim. (Unfortunately, I also have a couple of letters sent to me in error by my insurers saying they had closed the file or that they hadn’t received replies from me – which did not give me a nice warm feeling at the time, but phone calls confirmed that these were wrong and should be ignored). In mid-July a letter came saying that my insurer was waiting for a copy letter from 3rd party which they’d never apparently received.
Yesterday a letter arrives stating that my insurers have “received a dispute on liability from the 3rd party insurers and they are prepared to offer settlement on a 50/50 basis”!!! I was livid!!!
A couple more phone calls later and I am told that the 3rd party has “2 independent witnesses” stating I was clearly at fault but unfortunately they haven’t yet submitted their statements yet, so to close this file quickly they are offering 50/50!!!
The insurers have told me I can object and take this to the Small Claims court, but as I have no independent witness of my own the Judge may well award 50/50 anyway as it would be up to me to ‘prove’ my innocence. They have also told me that often 3rd parties suddenly produce ‘independent witnesses’ making outrageous claims which cannot be proved or disproved and the easiest thing is to agree to bit the bullet and meet in the middle.
It’s so obvious that the 3rd party is lying and trying it on, but it looks like they can get away with it and I will end up 50% out of pocket on the excess and my NCB would be affected - presumably on both my cars as they are insured thru same company with the NCB mirrored on each.
I’ve been driving for nearly 20 years and have paid out thousands in insurance premiums in the belief that they would sort things out when I needed them. In that time I’ve only had a couple of non-fault claims against 3rd parties (resolved without problem) and one claim for damage following attempted theft about 10yrs ago.
What can I do?
Thanks folks…
Am in a situation where advice would be appreciated please (sorry it’s so long).
Back in May I was taking my son to school (in my weekday Celica) heading up a residential street towards the main road when a car came out of a side turning on my left crossing give way lines, I braked and swerved to the right but she hit my n/s front wing & wheel causing extensive damage to both cars. Fortunately no-one was hurt, though my son was a little bruised and shocked. My car would not start so the police attended and pushed the car clear and took statements from myself and the other driver.
There was no-one else around at the time of the accident.
The police asked me if I wanted to prosecute for ‘due care’, but also suggested that if I did it might make the claim take longer to be resolved. I decided against it, as I figured accidents happen and that’s why we have insurance.
I do remember the other driver saying to the police that as she came to the crossroad she looked down the road, saw nothing, looked up and saw nothing so pulled out to go across but ran into me.
The insurance machine started to roll, my car was taken away on a flatbed for repairs and a courtesy car was provided. Letters and forms start arriving from insurers etc. and after about 3 weeks, my car was repaired so I paid the £350 excess to get it back.
Then it all started to go wrong… Apparently my insurers wrote to the 3rd party insurers asking for an admission of liability but they decided to dispute this claiming to have witness evidence “in support of their client’s claim that they were stationary and I collided with their stationary vehicle”!!!! I phoned my insurers wondering (a) how on earth I could have slid sideways into the front of a car as it came across the give way lines and (b) where this witness had come from - but did say that surely if there was a witness the police would have taken details. The insurers told me ‘this sort of thing happens a lot’ and leave it to them to sort out…
Weeks pass and various letters arrive updating me that my insurers were continuing to ask 3rd party or insurers to repay their outlay in the claim. (Unfortunately, I also have a couple of letters sent to me in error by my insurers saying they had closed the file or that they hadn’t received replies from me – which did not give me a nice warm feeling at the time, but phone calls confirmed that these were wrong and should be ignored). In mid-July a letter came saying that my insurer was waiting for a copy letter from 3rd party which they’d never apparently received.
Yesterday a letter arrives stating that my insurers have “received a dispute on liability from the 3rd party insurers and they are prepared to offer settlement on a 50/50 basis”!!! I was livid!!!
A couple more phone calls later and I am told that the 3rd party has “2 independent witnesses” stating I was clearly at fault but unfortunately they haven’t yet submitted their statements yet, so to close this file quickly they are offering 50/50!!!
The insurers have told me I can object and take this to the Small Claims court, but as I have no independent witness of my own the Judge may well award 50/50 anyway as it would be up to me to ‘prove’ my innocence. They have also told me that often 3rd parties suddenly produce ‘independent witnesses’ making outrageous claims which cannot be proved or disproved and the easiest thing is to agree to bit the bullet and meet in the middle.
It’s so obvious that the 3rd party is lying and trying it on, but it looks like they can get away with it and I will end up 50% out of pocket on the excess and my NCB would be affected - presumably on both my cars as they are insured thru same company with the NCB mirrored on each.
I’ve been driving for nearly 20 years and have paid out thousands in insurance premiums in the belief that they would sort things out when I needed them. In that time I’ve only had a couple of non-fault claims against 3rd parties (resolved without problem) and one claim for damage following attempted theft about 10yrs ago.
What can I do?
Thanks folks…
Sorry about your problems. These people make me sick.
In my experience, faced with a BiB talking about perjury etc, "independent witnesses" seem to evaporate so your 3rd party will be back to square 1. Actually slightly worse having obviously lied about the witness in the first place.
See if you can get the BiB that attended the accident to make some enquiries regarding the "witnesses"
Good luck.
In my experience, faced with a BiB talking about perjury etc, "independent witnesses" seem to evaporate so your 3rd party will be back to square 1. Actually slightly worse having obviously lied about the witness in the first place.
See if you can get the BiB that attended the accident to make some enquiries regarding the "witnesses"
Good luck.
Surely you do have a witness, the police officer who attended the incident. Perhaps a letter pointing out to your insurers that they should remind the new "witnesses" about the offence of perjury?I would be interested to say how the witnesses could put you at fault in such an accident. The police report *should* have enough information that the story would need to be pretty complex to make it believable.
I would say stuff 'em and hold out for 100% on their side. I imagine that even if you go to court then your insurer would still pay out. The good thing about court is that the other party would need to submit the statements and/or appear in person and would risk perjury (ie. prison) if they lie there.
Gareth
I would say stuff 'em and hold out for 100% on their side. I imagine that even if you go to court then your insurer would still pay out. The good thing about court is that the other party would need to submit the statements and/or appear in person and would risk perjury (ie. prison) if they lie there.
Gareth
Don't take that crap, as you say the damage to both vehicles would be impossible to achieve on 3rd parties story.
Make it very clear that you will not be ever using the insurance company again if they do not do their job properly. Why do they think you have insurance in the first place? They are supposed to use expert loss adjusters and investigators, obvoiusly they have decided the cost to them is too much to justify fighting, throw in withdrawal of your business and it might swing it back your way.
Make it very clear that you will not be ever using the insurance company again if they do not do their job properly. Why do they think you have insurance in the first place? They are supposed to use expert loss adjusters and investigators, obvoiusly they have decided the cost to them is too much to justify fighting, throw in withdrawal of your business and it might swing it back your way.
Mrs LongQ had something similar some years ago, though the circumstances were a little different in that she was pulling out of a junction in rush hour, the passing traffic having stopped, and someone went down the outside across newly painted chevrons denoting a filter lane. Basically her then insurer (large and well known) dealt with things OK but after some months decided that, as the other driver had somehow got to know a 'witness', who supported his position, wanted to settle for 10:90. We objected, pointing out the photo evidence of the road layout I had taken later that evening.
They then said - OK we don't like the inept way these other people are handling the admin anyway. We will send an expert assessor along to look at the location.
He took one look and decided it should be fought on principle. The srotu dragged on but basically just over a year after the shunt (only about 600 damage and very slight to wife's car. But needed new wing, bumper and bonnet and fittings to fix it!) they got to 5:95 in our favour and and no effect on NCB so it seemed appropriate to agree to them closing the file.
So you should fight it - but it depends on whether you are with one of the big companies or a relative midget in the industry.
All previously posted advice sound good as well.
They then said - OK we don't like the inept way these other people are handling the admin anyway. We will send an expert assessor along to look at the location.
He took one look and decided it should be fought on principle. The srotu dragged on but basically just over a year after the shunt (only about 600 damage and very slight to wife's car. But needed new wing, bumper and bonnet and fittings to fix it!) they got to 5:95 in our favour and and no effect on NCB so it seemed appropriate to agree to them closing the file.
So you should fight it - but it depends on whether you are with one of the big companies or a relative midget in the industry.
All previously posted advice sound good as well.
A very similar thing happened to a friend of mine a few years back, his insurer wanted to go for 50/50 when the other party claimed to have some witnesses (that weren't there). My mate stuck to his guns and refused to settle and a date was set for court. A week before, the other party's insurance decided to pay out 100%.
Could you not make a complaint to the Police of attempted deception (or whatever it is) so that they'd be bound to investigate the 'witnesses'?
Alternatively (opposite approach!), as you were presumeably near home, could you not produce a couple of witnesses of your own? You could say you hadn't mentioned them previously as you thought there was no dispute.
>> Edited by deva link on Thursday 25th August 14:58
Alternatively (opposite approach!), as you were presumeably near home, could you not produce a couple of witnesses of your own? You could say you hadn't mentioned them previously as you thought there was no dispute.
>> Edited by deva link on Thursday 25th August 14:58
Sadly indicative of the insurance game.
We could fight, costing us loads in direct costs, perhaps involving lawyers and protracting affairs meaning the pounds that are in the bank earning arent earning as much for us.
Or we could pay half and have done with it, squeeze the body shop on the invoice and keep the money earning.
If there is *any* opportunity to get a 50/50 for expeditious reasons then it will almost certaintly end up like that as its easier for everyone apart from the poor person who was driven into.
You have my sympathies mainly because it bloody stinks.
We could fight, costing us loads in direct costs, perhaps involving lawyers and protracting affairs meaning the pounds that are in the bank earning arent earning as much for us.
Or we could pay half and have done with it, squeeze the body shop on the invoice and keep the money earning.
If there is *any* opportunity to get a 50/50 for expeditious reasons then it will almost certaintly end up like that as its easier for everyone apart from the poor person who was driven into.
You have my sympathies mainly because it bloody stinks.
I'd try to take this straight to the insurance ombudsman myself, it sounds to me like your insurance company are making a total balls up of handling the claim... at the very least, the ombudsman will be able to give you some proper advice on how to proceed. The problem here is your insurers. They should simply deal with the claim for you and at worst have to come back to you once for some clarification of detail before they go to court on your behalf. The worst that should happen is they ask you to attend court. I had a similar thing years ago where some numpty persuaded one of the direct type insurance criminals to go for me because I had had an older car repaired and they felt it was too expensive and as I had an older car I must be thick. After I had finished my barrister and I had destroyed the numpty and direct cheapskates trainee solicitor and we got costs, the lot. If you are sure you are in the right then go to court. The small claims court will apportion blame fairly, provided you do not try to ellaborate the facts. Producing witnesses who lie in court is a very different thing from producing witnesses who lie to insurance companies. If the numpty who hit you is incapable of coherent speach, ie says "right" and "yknow" and "mate" a lot then they have no chance.
leosayer said:
A very similar thing happened to a friend of mine a few years back, his insurer wanted to go for 50/50 when the other party claimed to have some witnesses (that weren't there). My mate stuck to his guns and refused to settle and a date was set for court. A week before, the other party's insurance decided to pay out 100%.
Bingo! This is exactly what to do.
I would suggest hitting them with a counterclaim for your son's injuries which I am assuming were documented at the time. You have 3 years to bring an injury claim, so time limitation is not a factor here....yet.
The fact that they have 2 independent witnesses, who suggest it is your fault and THEY are offering 50/50!!......I mean......Who's fault is it exactly?!! This shows they are defensive and on the back foot. If they believed that their witnesses were of any use, they'd hold out for 100% and go to court if this was the case. This is typical of insurance companies wanting to settle a claim expeditiously. Remember well, it costs them money the longer it drags on. I say dig your heels in, accept no liability and confirm that you WILL have your day in court if this is necessary. The fact is the insurers DO NOT want to go to court....it's expensive. However, if you instructed Solicitors to take on your claim, they will bring your insurers outlay into play and will recover this also on their behalf (whether they deserve to be paid back, is another matter). I know a firm that can help, if you wish. Please feel free to email me and I will be happy to discuss this with you.
Should you choose not to pursue an injury claim, all you can do is stand firm and confirm you WILL have your day in court and hope that your insurance company have the balls to see it through and to back you up. Chances are as suggested earlier on in the thread that these so called witnesses (remember your insurers haven't seen any evidence of these yet - YOU MUST DEMAND COPIES OF THE WITNESS STATEMENTS TO BE ABLE TO OFFER YOUR COMMENTS IN RETURN) will be unable to attend court for some spurious reason.
STAND FIRM!
Insurance companies....Aaaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!
Steve
p.s. I have to work with these buggers every day, so I know how they work.
p.p.s. Why do you have to prove your innocence? It is up to them to prove you were at fault, if they are the so called "Claimant".
p.p.p.s If you do instruct Solicitors, get one that's not actually frightened of going to court.
>> Edited by anniesdad on Thursday 25th August 15:20
Ist par to the course 
If no witness - they try it on. Seen one case on another motor forum. Biker ran into back of car on offside rear - driver states in inner lane slowing for amber lights in green flow system. According to story I saw on the thread - he claimed initially driver changed lane "suddenly". Driver say lane change occureed at first set of traffic light as sopmething was blocking L1 und lane change as such occurred as driver steered around hazard in yellow box at first lights. Biker then places his skid at firstt lights und say his car skidded 170 yards or so down road - striking car on right rear. Ist rush hour - und slow moving.... ist not possible und ist wrong side - should be nearside if change L2-L1.... BUT according to thread - und cannot remember where saw it? Here or vielleicht another site - insurance company say because one word against other - split liability Think person was advised to stand ground - especially as driver also said that bikers own lawyer did not believe his story..but that insurance company was sticking point as they had already paid for repair und hired bike based on the fabrications
Found this of interest as sis- in law has friend who had similar type nasty.. mit a "try-on" of this type. She battled it out und won though.
Und of course - I make no secret of what strokes these sharks tried to pull on me all those years ago... but it took several years of wrangling to establish that the guy did not die before he hit me.....und that
is depth they are prepared to stoop to avoid a pay out Ist the law we have to pay it - but I still feel 
when I sign this cheque on basis I am paying for zero really.
I thus do not really trust these people - even though I think am with reputable company overall.
>> Edited by WildCat on Thursday 25th August 17:58
If no witness - they try it on. Seen one case on another motor forum. Biker ran into back of car on offside rear - driver states in inner lane slowing for amber lights in green flow system. According to story I saw on the thread - he claimed initially driver changed lane "suddenly". Driver say lane change occureed at first set of traffic light as sopmething was blocking L1 und lane change as such occurred as driver steered around hazard in yellow box at first lights. Biker then places his skid at firstt lights und say his car skidded 170 yards or so down road - striking car on right rear. Ist rush hour - und slow moving.... ist not possible und ist wrong side - should be nearside if change L2-L1....
BUT according to thread - und cannot remember where saw it? Here or vielleicht another site - insurance company say because one word against other - split liability Think person was advised to stand ground - especially as driver also said that bikers own lawyer did not believe his story..but that insurance company was sticking point as they had already paid for repair und hired bike based on the fabrications Found this of interest as sis- in law has friend who had similar type nasty.. mit a "try-on" of this type. She battled it out und won though.
Und of course - I make no secret of what strokes these sharks tried to pull on me all those years ago... but it took several years of wrangling to establish that the guy did not die before he hit me.....und that
is depth they are prepared to stoop to avoid a pay out Ist the law we have to pay it - but I still feel when I sign this cheque on basis I am paying for zero really. I thus do not really trust these people - even though I think am with reputable company overall.
>> Edited by WildCat on Thursday 25th August 17:58
Plotloss said:
Sadly indicative of the insurance game.
How true this is.
Webmistress, you don't say in your post if you took out that extra bit of insurance cover for 'uninsured loss recovery' that insurance companies offer when you take your policy out.
If you did then instruct them to start proceedings to recover your Excess. This is normally enough to get the third party insurers to cough up, mainly because they will then be dealing with someone on your side and not another insurance company who is only aim is to maximise their own profit (or reduce their potential loss).
Even without this insurance, or a broker to fight your corner, don't let the b
ds grind you down. Stick to your guns. The truth will out. Esp. as you have the initial statements given to the attending BiB. But it may take some time..... (Speaking from experience)KB_S1 said:The loss adjuster works in favour of the insurer, not the insured. A loss assessor (generally) works for the insured (and therfore, hopefully, in their favour - Streaky
Don't take that crap, as you say the damage to both vehicles would be impossible to achieve on 3rd parties story.
Make it very clear that you will not be ever using the insurance company again if they do not do their job properly. Why do they think you have insurance in the first place? They are supposed to use expert loss adjusters and investigators, obvoiusly they have decided the cost to them is too much to justify fighting, throw in withdrawal of your business and it might swing it back your way.
Hi All
Many, many thanks for your replies – it good to know you are all out there
Just to clarify a couple of points:
As far as I was aware, there were no witnesses to the accident (except my 10yr old son who apparently doesn’t count as he is not ‘impartial’!).
Yesterday I was informed by my insurers that the 3rd party has 2 witnesses who haven’t (after 3 months) submitted their statements and therefore, to save time and inconvenience, I should accept the 50/50 offered by the 3rd party insurers.
Re. my son’s injuries, he was bruised and shocked and the police offered to call an ambulance. I declined thinking all kids get bumps & bruises and he’d be better off going back to our friend’s house to watch a bit of telly with some TLC whilst all was being sorted out rather than face additional trauma of A&E. I did mention the bruising & shock on my claim form and the fact that he was sitting in the back wearing a seatbelt.
I do not have witnesses to the accident, but hopefully the police will have noted the position of the vehicles when they arrived. I was on the wrong side pointing to 2o’clock where I had swerved and braked to try and avoid her. Her car was nestling neatly into my front wing and wheel. (After the police moved the car and swept up the glass & bits I noticed my wheel centre in the debris and picked it up for my son.)
I’ve also now realised that it’s in the interest of insurers that I accept because if I lost my NCB (on 2 cars) they are quids in when I renew.
Yes, I do have the ‘uninsured loss recovery’ and they are the branch of insurers that wrote to me yesterday informing me of the 50/50 offer (was they that provided the courtesy car). Also my policy states I have NCB protection…
I intend to fight this all the way now.
Thanks again folks - will update in due course.
Many, many thanks for your replies – it good to know you are all out there
Just to clarify a couple of points:
As far as I was aware, there were no witnesses to the accident (except my 10yr old son who apparently doesn’t count as he is not ‘impartial’!).
Yesterday I was informed by my insurers that the 3rd party has 2 witnesses who haven’t (after 3 months) submitted their statements and therefore, to save time and inconvenience, I should accept the 50/50 offered by the 3rd party insurers.
Re. my son’s injuries, he was bruised and shocked and the police offered to call an ambulance. I declined thinking all kids get bumps & bruises and he’d be better off going back to our friend’s house to watch a bit of telly with some TLC whilst all was being sorted out rather than face additional trauma of A&E. I did mention the bruising & shock on my claim form and the fact that he was sitting in the back wearing a seatbelt.
I do not have witnesses to the accident, but hopefully the police will have noted the position of the vehicles when they arrived. I was on the wrong side pointing to 2o’clock where I had swerved and braked to try and avoid her. Her car was nestling neatly into my front wing and wheel. (After the police moved the car and swept up the glass & bits I noticed my wheel centre in the debris and picked it up for my son.)
I’ve also now realised that it’s in the interest of insurers that I accept because if I lost my NCB (on 2 cars) they are quids in when I renew.
Yes, I do have the ‘uninsured loss recovery’ and they are the branch of insurers that wrote to me yesterday informing me of the 50/50 offer (was they that provided the courtesy car). Also my policy states I have NCB protection…
I intend to fight this all the way now
. Thanks again folks - will update in due course.
Hi, sorry to hear of the problem you're having.
I practice in this area, if I can be of any help, feel free to email me.
FWIW I agree with pretty much everything anniesdad has said, albeit as your son is a minor, he has until his 21st birthday to make a personal injury claim. It would, of course, be a lot easier to do so sooner rather than later.
I hope you get it sorted.
Edited to add: what exactly are the other driver's allegations of negligence against you, given that it appears you were correctly proceeding, with right of way and the damage to the vehicle should speak for itself?
>> Edited by SpaceCowboy on Thursday 25th August 23:58
I practice in this area, if I can be of any help, feel free to email me.
FWIW I agree with pretty much everything anniesdad has said, albeit as your son is a minor, he has until his 21st birthday to make a personal injury claim. It would, of course, be a lot easier to do so sooner rather than later.
I hope you get it sorted.
Edited to add: what exactly are the other driver's allegations of negligence against you, given that it appears you were correctly proceeding, with right of way and the damage to the vehicle should speak for itself?
>> Edited by SpaceCowboy on Thursday 25th August 23:58
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff