|
Unfortunately British people these days are not very honest. Remember that 'honesty' programme where they took people of all different nationalities away to a hotel somewhere in Turkey and set them up in various different ways to test their honesty? I think the British came out as most dishonest.
|
Wouldn't this be very like admitting in court that you had previously lied under oath? Lawyer quite correctly asks,"You admit to lying before, but you expect us to accept that you are now telling the truth?".
I think that once you've accepted liability, you should be stuck with it, although some people obviously have no scruples or integrity.
|
|
'I was confused. I was blinded by a reflection.' Etc.
|
My son had much the same happen to him outside a multiplex cinema in Leeds. Driven into by a taxi pulling out, passenger door and rear panel of his car severely damaged. Taxi driver admitted it was his fault and son had 2 "bouncers" from outside a bar who said they would also act as his witnesses. Several weeks later his insurance company told him his car was written off (it was an old Renault 5 but his "pride and joy") and the taxi driver said it was my son's fault and he had 2 witnesses to back him up. They were "bouncers" who had witnessed the whole incident from their post outside a bar. Guess the taxi driver thought a few quid to the bouncers was cheaper than his increased premiums would be.......or am I just too cynical?
--
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
Spoke to my insurers and it turns out she'd never personally accepted liability. Her insurers had accepted liability on her behalf, she's just found out and is now kicking off. It's her insurers who are now retracting liability. I'm still not happy that the inability of her and her insurer to communicate properly at the time could place my ncb at risk - it may hinge on whether my witness can recall the details three months down the line.
|
Her insurers had accepted liability on her behalf,
I really doubt that. They may have agreed to deal with the issue but it is always without prejudice since they are not able to admit liability on someone else's behalf - their insured person could sue them significantly under the right circumstances.
I'm still not happy that the inability of her and her insurer to communicate properly at the time could place my ncb at risk
Not really. The accident did that, whether the fault issue came to light then or now, the ncb position remains the same.
it may hinge on whether my witness can recall the details three months down the line.
I would say it will absolutely hang on that, and that even that might be insufficient. A witness, even an independant one, might not be right.
However, a letter stating her [overheard] comments at the time, stating that you have an independent witness who will confirm the events, and insisting that they now deal with it may shift it along.
Try and put yourself in her shoes; if you were going to maintain it was your fault (if you see what I mean) how would you describe the events so as to reverse that blame ? Having done that, decide how reasonable a version that is (how reasonable, not how accurate) and work out how one might best devalue that version. Having done that, then make sure that your initial letter devalues that version before it is ever made.
Do remember that she probably didn't deliberately cause the accident. As such she probably feels she was driving well at the time of the incident. As such she may truly believe it is your fault and her [restrospective] explanation is accurate.
THere is no pride involved, it doesn't matter what anybody thinks. What you want is her insurer to believe that you're going to be trouble [at least more trouble then their own customer] that you are going to cost them significant money and time, and that they should just pay you to go away.
Also remember that you only need recover your uninsured losses. Once that is done then your own insurer's losses are their problem, and will have no impact on your bonus - although obviously it will often be the same process.
And, as always, don't blink first.
|
Her insurers had accepted liability on her behalf,
>I really doubt that.
Not if the facts were clear cut? Why waste their own time and money processing claim forms if the probability of success is slim? Much cheaper, surely, to convince your client to back down, get over it and move on.
Anyway, I'm only recounting what my insurers told me on the phone this morning. Why would they make it up? Not only did my insurers phone and write within days of the accident stating they'd accepted responsibility, her insurers wrote to me directly saying they were sorry I'd been involved in an accident with their client and would I mind getting my repairs done through them in order to minimise inconvenience to me (and costs to them). I didn't accept their generous offer, btw.
From what you imply, it suggests that the driver has changed her story - apparently with the backing of her insurers. I find the whole thing distasteful.
|
Why waste their own time and money processing claim forms if the probability of success is slim?
>>
they can only go by what thier insured says.
anyway, having read your account of
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=36411&...f
it may have been wise to follow no-fm2r's advice then.
it seems to me you need a good solicitor if your insurer is not up to the task of folowing up your absolute belief in a "clear cut" case.
|
|
|
>>and would I mind getting my repairs done through them in order to minimise inconvenience to me (and costs to them). I didn't accept their generous offer
Ooo, smart move. Bet you wish you had now. If only someone had tried to advise you against such a course of action.
|
>Ooo, smart move. Bet you wish you had now.
>If only someone had tried to advise you against such a course of action.
If only someone had told you, nobody likes a smart alec.[Amended, but I'm sure you're familiar with the original.]
I have to confess that I missed your late post back in November and have only just read it. Informative, yes, but entirely moot given what has happened.
>>They have admitted in writing that they will repair your car- what more do you want ?
For them to not change their minds on liability. The written admission clearly has no value given their current stance.
>>You'll have no issue recovering your excess, no issues with
>>the NCD on your policy, no troublesome admin, all you'll have
>>to do is forward proof to your insurance company that your car
>>was repaired by them. - seems an obvious choice to me.
I had zero admin using my own insurers repair services - no forwarding of proof, no consequential lost post. Nothing. And if the repairs had proved substandard, I'd rather have gone to my insurers who have my and my wife's continued custom to keep, rather than someone who has no incentive at all to answer my calls let alone deliver a decent service.
And, of course, the other possible outcome you didn't identify. The 3rd party withdrawing their admission of liability. They'll be looking to my insurers to settle their client's repair bill as well as mine. So what difference would them repairing my car make in this situation? None. Bye, bye ncd.
Nice try, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A similar thing happened to me. In Nov 2002 I was stationary in a line of traffic (straight road, no visibility problems) when I was hit from behind from someone who had presumably hit the accelerator rather than the brake. Shunted me into the car in front, who then touched the one in front of her.
She apologised and all details were exchanged. My car didn't look too badly damaged but had floorpan damage etc plus several panels would need replacing - so was written off.
Sorted and thought no more of it until a letter arrived more than 2 years later saying that the woman who drove into me was now claiming that I had already crashed into the car in front when she happened to crash into me, so she should not be liable for the damage to the cars in front of me... and my insurers said that if they didn't hear from me in 2 weeks they would assume that this revised version was the truth........
Rang my insurers, reiterated what was on my claim form, gave them (again) the details of the cars in front of me with drivers' phone numbers and was reassured that they would deal with it and let me know.
Heard nothing - rang them up again. New story has now emerged from this woman - that I reversed into her in the first place....
Went through it all again (as patiently as possible).
Still heard nothing and eventually I rang them again and they said that the woman had retracted her claims so it was at last showing on my record as a non-fault accident. Because this was hanging over me, and because of a previous claim in Nov 2000, I have stayed with them as insurers. However, come my next renewal in June I will go elsewhere as I will only have had the one (non-fault) claim in 5 years. I used to have the naive belief that my insurance company would be on my side in dealings with a third party - not any more!
|
|
I think you'll find that insurers insist that liability is not admitted to. This allows them to: "...do our very best to persuade the other driver, or their insurer, that the accident was their fault." - a quote from Direct Line.
|
|
|
|
I had a bump up the back and the driver 2 behind admitted she caused it - then retracted after speaking to the boyfriend.
21 mths later - On the eve of the court case she remembered it was her fault - it is amazing what the thought of giving evidence and X examination can do to clear the memory.
If you have legal expenses cover - get in touch with lawyer - the lawyer's letter threatening action for damages may put "the frighteners on him/her"
|
|
|
|
|
