Insurance Claim Query

[Goatwidcoat]

There is probably a lesson to be learned here and I fear I am out of luck.
Somebody reversed into the drivers rear quarter of my car while we were in traffic. I have this on dashcam. There was no damage to their car and mine was scratched resulting in bumper and rear quarter needing to be repainted and we both agreed to not go through insurance due to them not needing to claim at all and it likely to be sub £500 to fix. Less than any excess and no doubt subsequent insurance hikes for both parties even if I was not at fault. (I did a dummy quote with a no fault claim and it put mine up £180 so I still end up paying for it in a round about way!) We both agreed we would get quotes to fix after she initially thought it was £50 to spray paint a car! It cost £400 for the 3 stage paint repair and due to the car being ceramic coated, a further £150 for the correction and recoating to the area.
The incident was never reported to insurance and I was going on holiday, she needed time to get the money etc and it was 3 months before I got the car in to be repainted. Before finally booking it in she said to now go through insurance.
Claims have to be notified to the insurer within 48 hours and the car was booked in to be repainted and I decided to just get it done. I always feared I would be the one left holding the bill.
Has anybody ever used the small claims court to retrieve money in this situation? I have all their details, drivers license photo, the incident on dashcam, numerous text message backups of our conversations before her finally saying to go through insurance knowing it is now too late to report. I'd almost rather potentially lose £70 in raising a small claim and get nothing than her get away with it scott free.
I feel like all the evidence is 100% in my favour but wondering if a court/mediator would turn around and say yes you are correct however you should have gone through insurance in the first instance, tough luck.
What are your thoughts people and has anybody had to do similar?

Edited by Goatwidcoat on Tuesday 7th November 11:16

[-Lummox-]

Do you have her insurance details?

If so you could contact them directly and explain the delay is due to her initially saying she didn't want to involve them.

[Goatwidcoat]

I do but not sure whether it is still cutting my nose off to spite my face even if I am able to go through her insurance so many months later. It has cost me £550 and adding a non fault claim to a dummy quote put my insurance up £180 just for one year. This is why we both decided it is cheaper to actually just pay for the work outside of insurance due to excess and subsequent insurance hikes, especially as she had no damage (lucky her haha). Although her saying to now go through insurance will cost her more long term, knowing where she lives and the car she was driving I think it is more a case of her not having the money to pay.

[monthou]

Goatwidcoat said:

T
Has anybody ever used the small claims court to retrieve money in this situation? I have all their details, drivers license photo, the incident on dashcam, numerous text message backups of our conversations before her finally saying to go through insurance knowing it is now too late to report. I'd almost rather potentially lose £70 in raising a small claim and get nothing than her get away with it scott free.
I feel like all the evidence is 100% in my favour but wondering if a court/mediator would turn around and say yes you are correct however you should have gone through insurance in the first instance, tough luck.
What are your thoughts people and has anybody had to do similar?

If you take her to court surely she'll just pass it to her insurance company. You can't make her pay out of her own pocket.
Just contact them, let them know what's happened.

[Goatwidcoat]

monthou said:

If you take her to court surely she'll just pass it to her insurance company. You can't make her pay out of her own pocket.
Just contact them, let them know what's happened.

My understanding with the court is that they do make you pay out of their own pocket, but unsure whether that would apply in a car claim situation for the reason you have stated. Their ruling might be simply - attempt to go through insurance even if it is too late to now go through insurance as it is all repaired and never declared at the time.

In future I will always notify the insurer (which also increases your policy cost, obviously) and then I can always fall back on it. Lesson learned for sure. I was just so hell bent on a complete no fault accident not costing me money that I have ended up with the full bill.

[-Lummox-]

Goatwidcoat said:

I do but not sure whether it is still cutting my nose off to spite my face even if I am able to go through her insurance so many months later. It has cost me £550 and adding a non fault claim to a dummy quote put my insurance up £180 just for one year. This is why we both decided it is cheaper to actually just pay for the work outside of insurance due to excess and subsequent insurance hikes, especially as she had no damage (lucky her haha). Although her saying to now go through insurance will cost her more long term, knowing where she lives and the car she was driving I think it is more a case of her not having the money to pay.

It may seem like semantics but if you were to claim directly off her insurance, then when asked if YOU have had any claims in the last 5 years, you can legitimately say no. No claims against your insurance would have been made. Insurers are gits and will increase your premium if you go through your own insurance even though it is a non-fault accident.

I actually did this in the past when I was a much younger driver. A lorry in front of me on the M1 had a blowout, lost its tyre and the carcass hit my car as it was ejected from the HGV. Caused a bunch of cosmetic damage to the front and side of my vehicle, but as I only had TPFT cover at the time I claimed directly off the HGV driver's insurance. It never showed up as a claim against me in the insurer database, because I never could have claimed for it under my policy anyway, being TPFT. I'm sure strictly speaking I should have notified my insurance anyway, but quite frankly I didn't see why I should if they weren't going to pay for the damage and would only use the information to bump up my premium through no fault of my own.

[-Lummox-]

Goatwidcoat said:

My understanding with the court is that they do make you pay out of their own pocket, but unsure whether that would apply in a car claim situation for the reason you have stated. Their ruling might be simply - attempt to go through insurance even if it is too late to now go through insurance as it is all repaired and never declared at the time.

In future I will always notify the insurer (which also increases your policy cost, obviously) and then I can always fall back on it. Lesson learned for sure. I was just so hell bent on a complete no fault accident not costing me money that I have ended up with the full bill.

A small claims court will never make directions about who should pay the bill i.e. say the other driver isn't responsible and chuck out your claim because you didn't sue the insurer. You have suppoorting evidence that they asked not to go through their insurance and offered to pay privately - they are bang to rights. But their insurer is very unlikely to settle a judgment debt if the other driver themselves didn't notify the insurer of the accident. What's probably happened, on the facts, is that the other driver has voided their insurance by having the accident and failing to declare it. So they are now likely to be on the hook personally for the costs.

It would still be worth going through the courts IMO and getting a judgment, then applying for a writ to enforce the judgment and letting the bailiffs deal with it - then it's up to the other driver to have the argument with their insurer about whether they feel like paying or nor, and if not, the other driver will have to pay it out of their pocket (assuming they have the means to do so). It's always a bit of a red flag about people wanting to keep things out of the insurance records that they can't actually afford for their insurance premiums to go up - but based on what you've said, the other driver might just be a delusional idiot who thinks cars can be repainted for a fiver or thereabouts.

[monthou]

Goatwidcoat said:

My understanding with the court is that they do make you pay out of their own pocket, but unsure whether that would apply in a car claim situation for the reason you have stated. Their ruling might be simply - attempt to go through insurance even if it is too late to now go through insurance as it is all repaired and never declared at the time.

The court make an order against the driver. Her insurance pays it.
If you were to contact her insurance and they say 'get lost' or offer a solution you're not happy with you take the driver to court and they pick up her costs - or settle.

IANAL

[Ninja59]

-Lummox- said:

It may seem like semantics but if you were to claim directly off her insurance, then when asked if YOU have had any claims in the last 5 years, you can legitimately say no. No claims against your insurance would have been made. Insurers are gits and will increase your premium if you go through your own insurance even though it is a non-fault accident.

I actually did this in the past when I was a much younger driver. A lorry in front of me on the M1 had a blowout, lost its tyre and the carcass hit my car as it was ejected from the HGV. Caused a bunch of cosmetic damage to the front and side of my vehicle, but as I only had TPFT cover at the time I claimed directly off the HGV driver's insurance. It never showed up as a claim against me in the insurer database, because I never could have claimed for it under my policy anyway, being TPFT. I'm sure strictly speaking I should have notified my insurance anyway, but quite frankly I didn't see why I should if they weren't going to pay for the damage and would only use the information to bump up my premium through no fault of my own.

If they only asked about claims you would be correct, however no insurer does ask that question.

They ask whether you have had any claims, incidents or accidents in the last X years (generally 5 years), in some cases going as far to add whether a claim was made or not.The OP has to disclose it claim, no claim or information only at renewal.

Finally you cannot categorically say they will or will not for the OP increase the premium or not once disclosed in regards to a non fault.

[Goatwidcoat]

-Lummox- said:

A small claims court will never make directions about who should pay the bill i.e. say the other driver isn't responsible and chuck out your claim because you didn't sue the insurer. You have suppoorting evidence that they asked not to go through their insurance and offered to pay privately - they are bang to rights. But their insurer is very unlikely to settle a judgment debt if the other driver themselves didn't notify the insurer of the accident. What's probably happened, on the facts, is that the other driver has voided their insurance by having the accident and failing to declare it. So they are now likely to be on the hook personally for the costs.

It would still be worth going through the courts IMO and getting a judgment, then applying for a writ to enforce the judgment and letting the bailiffs deal with it - then it's up to the other driver to have the argument with their insurer about whether they feel like paying or nor, and if not, the other driver will have to pay it out of their pocket (assuming they have the means to do so). It's always a bit of a red flag about people wanting to keep things out of the insurance records that they can't actually afford for their insurance premiums to go up - but based on what you've said, the other driver might just be a delusional idiot who thinks cars can be repainted for a fiver or thereabouts.

Her £50 initial offer at the road included compensation lol. She is Hungarian but spoke pretty decent English but she made the motion of a rattle can spray paint and said £10 for the paint and £40 for the problem. She refused to believe it could cost the hundreds and probably thought I was trying to extort money out of her. She never forwarded me any of her quotes so I assume she learned fast what the true cost is. I was so concerned about getting it repainted too but the painter did a phenomenal job. Being a 3 stage red metallic I thought it would stant out like a sore thumb but he has blended it perfectly. Would never know it was done which is good.

[-Lummox-]

Goatwidcoat said:

Her £50 initial offer at the road included compensation lol. She is Hungarian but spoke pretty decent English but she made the motion of a rattle can spray paint and said £10 for the paint and £40 for the problem. She refused to believe it could cost the hundreds and probably thought I was trying to extort money out of her. She never forwarded me any of her quotes so I assume she learned fast what the true cost is. I was so concerned about getting it repainted too but the painter did a phenomenal job. Being a 3 stage red metallic I thought it would stant out like a sore thumb but he has blended it perfectly. Would never know it was done which is good.

If you have her insurance details I would suggest contacting them first and see what they say. They will contact her to verify what you're saying and it might involve some delays whilst they investigate, but ultimately they are likely to pay up rather than letting the matter go to court and then be on the hook for the associated legal costs. It's not your fault she failed to report the accident to them.

That being said, you really shot yourself in the foot by getting the repair done yourself. Their insurer may haggle over the repair cost or say it should have been done by one of their approved bodyshops. You may find that litigation is the best course in any event and let the headache over who pays what be her problem not yours - you can get the judgment for whatever costs you have incurred and then instruct bailiffs to recover it, which will include the court and bailiff fees. You shouldn't be out of pocket, but it will take a while.

[-Lummox-]

monthou said:

The court make an order against the driver. Her insurance pays it.
If you were to contact her insurance and they say 'get lost' or offer a solution you're not happy with you take the driver to court and they pick up her costs - or settle.

IANAL

I'm not a lawyer either, but I work for a Chambers in debt recovery (having previously been a paralegal in a solicitors firm that also dealt with commercial debt recovery) and am involved in suing for money owed quite often, so I have more experience in the area than most people.

I don't think you should make the automatic jump from getting judgment against the driver, to her insurer *having* to pay it. The Court cannot force the insurer to pay, and there is no automatic mechanism in place that means once you get a judgment, you 100% will be paid. All a judgment really is, is a legal document saying that the Court agrees that person owes you the sum you were claiming. You then need to enforce that judgment, one way or another.

The insurer have a legit argument that the other driver should have notified them of the accident at the time, and depending on the terms of her insurance, she may have invalidated it by trying to hide the accident from them. That being said, it's not your fault she chose to do that - and the insurer may well pay out your costs anyway - but if they don't, she should - hence the value in getting the judgment, and instructing bailiffs to deal with it. Once you have a judgment they do all the donkey work and the longer it takes to get paid, and the more costs that rack up, they all fall on the other driver, not you.

[monthou]

-Lummox- said:

monthou said:

The court make an order against the driver. Her insurance pays it.
If you were to contact her insurance and they say 'get lost' or offer a solution you're not happy with you take the driver to court and they pick up her costs - or settle.

IANAL

I'm not a lawyer either, but I work for a Chambers in debt recovery (having previously been a paralegal in a solicitors firm that also dealt with commercial debt recovery) and am involved in suing for money owed quite often, so I have more experience in the area than most people.

I don't think you should make the automatic jump from getting judgment against the driver, to her insurer *having* to pay it. The Court cannot force the insurer to pay, and there is no automatic mechanism in place that means once you get a judgment, you 100% will be paid. All a judgment really is, is a legal document saying that the Court agrees that person owes you the sum you were claiming. You then need to enforce that judgment, one way or another.

The insurer have a legit argument that the other driver should have notified them of the accident at the time, and depending on the terms of her insurance, she may have invalidated it by trying to hide the accident from them. That being said, it's not your fault she chose to do that - and the insurer may well pay out your costs anyway - but if they don't, she should - hence the value in getting the judgment, and instructing bailiffs to deal with it. Once you have a judgment they do all the donkey work and the longer it takes to get paid, and the more costs that rack up, they all fall on the other driver, not you.

As I understand it it's pretty difficult for an insurer to get out of paying any third party claim. Even if you drink and drive your insurer is still on the hook, which is a few orders of magnitude worse than not telling them about a minor bump. Whether they then claw back from a policyholder because they've not adhered to Ts and Cs is something else.

But, again, IANAL. Maybe someone will clarify.

[KungFuPanda]

Just be aware of s.151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. You have to give written notice to the insurer of the third party if you intend to issue proceedings against their policyholder.

[-Lummox-]

KungFuPanda said:

Just be aware of s.151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. You have to give written notice to the insurer of the third party if you intend to issue proceedings against their policyholder.

All the more reason to speak to the third party insurer first if you have their details, but make it clear that you're out of pocket through no fault of your own and happy to use litigation if necessary to recover the costs of rectifying what their insured did to your vehicle.

I couldn't see anything in that section though which actually says you have that obligation before issuing proceedings though? What if you had the personal details of the other driver but they'd refused to give you their insurance details, in an accident scenario where they were at fault? You would be entitled to sue them for the damage, and you wouldn't be able to notify their insurance because they hadn't given you the info. I think you might be referring to S.152:

152 - Exceptions to section 151
(1)No sum is payable *by an insurer* under section 151 of this Act—
(a)in respect of any judgment unless, before or within seven days after the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment was given, the insurer had notice of the bringing of the proceedings;

However this doesn't mean you can't bring a claim - it just means you can't recover from their insurance in those circumstances. I don't see how this would prevent you from a) bringing a claim against the other driver or b) instruct bailiffs to enforce a judgment obtained against the driver personally rather than expecting their insurance to foot the bill.

The other driver probably won't respond to the claim or at least won't be able to field a decent defence to it, so prospects of getting a judgment would be good, then it's just down to enforcing it. Which isn't something you need to get personally involved with - that's what HCEOs are for. Takes AGES but as said before, once a judgment is obtained, you can pass it over to bailiffs to enforce and it becomes the other driver's problem not yours to figure out how the judgment is going to be settled.