You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hi all, looking for some advice on how this would go or if it is even possible. Long story short another driver hit me at the beginning of May, no dashcam footage, no witnesses stopped and no cctv etc. Photos and the damage to both cars is essentially inconclusive, the other driver has refused to admit liability and so far the insurance process has drawn a blank and my insurance company have given me two options 1, claim on my own insurance, usual excess applied, or 2, drop it.
My excess is £500 and the value of my car was judged to be £965 (it was deemed a total loss), so in my opinion not worth claiming on my insurance. My insurance company have given me the other drivers insurance details and the case reference number and said I could try claiming against them directly, I suspect they will tell me to sod off given the lack of an admission of liability.
But I am rather peeved off not least because the lying bar steward who hit me can't just be honest and own up to his mistake, that's the point of insurance in the first place, and i'm left out of pocket. So seeing as I have his details from our roadside exchange I thought perhaps I could just claim against him directly for my losses using the small claims court, so couple of questions if anyone has the answers:
Is this allowable or would the court say jog on use your insurance company?
Could he just forward it to his insurance company and i'd just out gunned by big law firms?
Would the court be able to compel him to tell the truth i.e. sworn testimony or does it not work like that?
So should I give it a go? It would cost me less than £100, but would I be better chalking this one up to experience and putting the money towards a dashcam?
Thanks.
As far as I know
Yes you can take him to court
His insurance will get envolved as that’s what third party insurance is for
The big question is how are you going to prove in court that he is liable.
If you have a good evidence then the insurance might pay up as it’s cheaper than fighting
If you can’t prove it in court then you’re going no where
You could raise a case but, based on your post, I cannot see you getting anything out of it.
Life is too short to chase lost causes.
Move on.
You can take him to court. But the courts care about proof and facts. You have said everything you need to say in your original post. No dashcam, no witnesses, no CCTV and inconclusive photos. Your only chance of a win is if he decides to say it's a fair cop, it was my fault all along. The court process or the threat of it could make him do that.
Also, it only costs you £100 to start the claim, if he defends it (or his insurance company's lawyers do) and you lose you might have to pay their costs too. You can guarantee that won't be cheap.
Move on, buy a dashcam.
I think you need to weigh up whether the stress and worry of prolonging the incident, going to court, and the potential outcome not being in your favour and the continued feeling of injustice, is worth £465. It's not even as if the final payout would be notable if you win.
I would just take the money minus you excess, I'm not sure a small claim like that is going to affect your future premium as much as the fact you've already declared an incident to them.
Life's too short!
If you can't prove who was at fault beyond reasonable doubt, why would you expect to get anything out of a small claims action?
I would be tempted as the cost and risk to you is low
It might be worth contacting their insurers first and if rebuffed tell the - small claims it is. It will cost the insurers more to defend a small claims than to pay you out for your losses
If you can’t prove who was at fault beyond reasonable doubt, why would you expect to get anything out of a small claims action?
small claims is balance of probabilities
My bet is the mere threat will get a settlement
small claims is balance of probabilities
So it is. Is there a possibility the other driver could counter-sue for the damage to his vehicle once he gets notice of OP's small claims action?
Either way, unless OP has some very persuasive evidence, not sure it's an entirely risk-free approach. It may prompt an offer to settle, but that's not certain.
Wouldn't you have to send a letter before actiom anyway? That might at least give you more of an indication of his apetite for going to court. Its the 'his costs' bits that would concern me, not sure how that would pan out but someone up there mentioned it.
If it were just your costs to worry about I'd be inclined to go thorugh with it and see if he showed up.
Is this allowable or would the court say jog on use your insurance company?
Yes you can.
Could he just forward it to his insurance company and i’d just out gunned by big law firms?
He certainly should pass to insurer - that's what they are for. Small Claims makes it harder to be outgunned (and more likely they just settle as they can't claim their legal costs which are probably going to be higher than your claim).
Would the court be able to compel him to tell the truth i.e. sworn testimony or does it not work like that?
If he (or his insurers) want to defend the claim they will probably need him to give evidence. That evidence will be on oath. Thay means he's sworn to tell the truth. People lie under oath every day. Very few are pursued for perjury. Why do you think he will tell the truth now (often people believe their version of the truth - indeed he may well be saying the same about you). You need to convince the court you are a more credible and reliable witness than he is. How good are you at cross examining witnesses to do that?
So should I give it a go? It would cost me less than £100, but would I be better chalking this one up to experience and putting the money towards a dashcam?
Personally I'd probably chalk it up, although I might try at least a letter before action (which you need to do before the case). You may want to consider if you think the car was only worth £965. e.g. evidence that you bought a similar replacement for £1500 would sway a judge more than your insurers statement!
prove who was at fault beyond reasonable doubt,
No the test in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities. You only need to persuade the judge that your version was more likely than not. However the judge might (I don't know the circumstances) think that you contributed in some way - and assign only part of the damages to him. The other big risk is that the other driver (or their insurer) says - OK if you want to play that game - here's our claim for the damage to his car. you'll then need to involve your insurer (or risk being out of pocket if the judge doesn't like your version).
If your insurers are not prepared to take it further then that's a sign that its not a strong case.
IIRC no costs can be awarded in small claims. thts why the insurance co might well settle - it will cost them far more to defend it than to settle
Can you be found at fault if you lose?
Thanks for the replies everyone, some very sound advice and a few things for me to give a bit more thought to, particularly the risks associated with a failed claim in the court.
IIRC no costs can be awarded in small claims.
Thats correct (at least without special circumstances which you would know about before it became a risk).
Can you be found at fault if you lose?
No, if there's a counterclaim he should involve his insurers, and if found against they will cover it. (More likely if there's a counter claim the two insurers will agree to stop wasting each other's time!). oh but read the small print - you may need to tell them before you start prodding the bear!
actually does your car/house insurance have legal protection. A Letter Before Action from a lawyer is likely to be treated slightly more seriously than one from an individual. A previous employer used to get them a few times a year and part of the strategy for responding depended on the quality of the law firm - one from an individual would have been ignored to see if you could even afford to lodge the claim at court (the cost of settling in full at that point is only about £50 more than doing it before hand). A local "family" type practice would get a "we don't see any merit in this claim" style response whilst an international firm or top 20 UK firm would justify us paying a lawyer to actually respond in detail!
As far as I am aware, The Small claims Court is only there to hasten the payment of known amounts - Unpaid invoices etc... It is not there to decide liability for a road accident.
As far as I am aware, The Small claims Court is only there to hasten the payment of known amounts – Unpaid invoices etc… It is not there to decide liability for a road accident.
No it absolutely can be used to determine either the quantum or a claim or the liability for a claim. It is rarely used for traffic incident claims because either the insurers settle or the case is big enough to fight and then then its too big for small claims - e.g. where there's serious injuries involved.
Really? All that for £65 or whatever it costs these days to file a dispute. How much does it cost?
If you've his home address, make sure to sign him up to every postal marketing service in the UK.
😈
Expect your insurance to go up, even though you're not claiming, they know there's been a bump and now you're a higher risk.
Told my insurance about a minor bump, that was actually settled outside of insurance in the end. Cost me £100 on next renewal.
Move on, life is too short, invest in a dash-cam front & back for if/when it happens again.
How would you expect it to go in court anyway if as you say there's no evidence either way?
Why isn't your insurance company pursuing it? That's what you pay insurance for.
Insurance company '...have deemed it a total loss' so they will, presumably, say it's a write off and settle on a no-fault basis as there is no evidence to prove liability.
OP said his insurers have given him the option to pursue but without any proof of what happened I think that would be a dead end.
Why isn’t your insurance company pursuing it? That’s what you pay insurance for.
He is covered in 2 ways
1. His car is insured subject to an excess. They have offered to pay out on this
2. He is insured third party. That’s to cover the costs of damage he has caused and isn’t needed here
You can insure your uninsured losses, some times called motor legal?. But I didn’t think he has. So I wouldn’t expect his insurance company to do anything more than they have
I think it's be best to chalk this one up to the joy of shedding (assuming you agree with the valuation!) - it was a cheap car you can shrug off and put behind you; plenty of people will lose more value in a car from accident repairs than you have for the whole thing. (I should point out I'm mainly on the shedding team, although I do have something nicer at the moment... I get to maintain/play with/repair my daughter's bashed-up-but-nice-to-drive Corolla instead.) If you've got the space/time/tools, ask to retain the salvage (should be very very cheap) and either repair yourself if not too bad, or break for spares to make some dosh back.
Just have to hope karma comes knocking for the other guy... and splash out on a dashcam for the new shed.
I wouldn’t expect his insurance company to do anything more than they have
I'd expect them to do the legwork. I've driven since 1990, sometimes in an unwise manner when I was young and stupid, and I've never been fobbed off to deal directly with a third party insurer. The OP has no relationship with them.
I had a car hit me more or less head on when i was on my road bike. Driver was at fault as the Police looked at cctv from a nearby house.
He reported it the same day to his insurance company.
However his insurance company went completely silent on me despite repeatedly contacting them.
I sent him a letter saying his insurance company were being obstructive and that i would have to take him to the small claims court for the damage.
Within 24 hrs i received an e mail from his insurance saying they would settle the claim.
I was recently reading a Reddit post about a narrow lane collision which made some excellent points about this type of situation (one party has stopped and the other drove into them front-to-front).
The other party has apparently said "not my fault honest guv" and... that's about it.
It'll end up with liability being shared. Not necessarily 50/50 but something like that. That means you'll pay your excess and have a "fault" claim.
You can take on the other party directly as it were, it just depends how much time and effort you want to put into a claim for a few hundred quid. And if you end up in court, the judge may just decide split liability as there's no "proof".
Sign him up (not the judge) for free condom samples and male incontinence pads.