You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yep, to the tune of £2479.84. Apparently when I 'reversed' into the van that 'drove' into me, this is the bill from the van insurers solicitor & what the court order is for.
The damage to our Xtrail?
There again it was a Citroen van. 🙂
Had similar when a lorry wouldn’t admit liability. We ended up in Uttoxeter court both sides hired solicitors. Never even went into the court room. Judge and solicitors settled 50:50 as there were no other witnesses. Complete waste of everyone’s time and money. But shows that if you lie you can minimise your exposure. Doesn’t really help with insurance either.
I honestly don’t understand why people can’t admit that they are wrong when driving a car. Seems like some people think it is a weakness.
Good luck sorting it out
Surely it's insurance company vs insurance company?
You did have valid insurance didn't you?
If your insurance doesn't settle eventually you get taken to court. If you loose and an award is made thats what your insurance will pay out.
I got a summons once because the insurance employee who was handling my case left and didn't pass the paper work onto another person. I sent the summons to them and it was sorted with apologies all round.
No witnesses, i thought insurers just settled 50/50 these days?
Just shows how bad its got now, we all need a dashcam just cover our own ass if nothing else. Hope you get it sorted 👍
So there's no point having insurance then?
I once received a claim from British Rail (as it was then) for damage to 200 yards of brick bridge parapet following a road rally. I suggested they speak to the organisers who a) had public liability insurance, and b) a damage declaration for our car at the end of the event showing 1 cracked rear light lens!
Surely it’s insurance company vs insurance company?
You'd think so but that's not how it works. I'm taking someone to court over £2500 worth of damage to my car from a collision in July 2017. So my insurers (at the time) tell me anyway. I think the other party is resisting the usual 50:50 because I got a wee dent which ended up costing the £2500, they got a clean bit on the side bar of their lorry.
We had similar many years ago (1997?).
On narrow country lane corner, mrs_oab managed to stop easily, yet oncoming car slid down lane, up bank, past our car and stopped about halfway down our car. Minor scratch, bent mirrors and broken glass on our headlight. They had minor scratches down wing and door on one side. It was a few hundred metres from our house, so I was able to go and take pictures that night of one set of skid marks going past a neat line of headlamp glass on the floor.
Car repaired, life carries on.
6 months later we personally are sent bill for written off car, (posh) hire car for a month or so and whiplash claim... Despite it going back via our insurance and arguing, it ended up 50:50 and they got their car written off and the whiplash claim!
So there’s no point having insurance then?
Who do you think will pay the bill if the other side wins ?
Who will pay for the solicitor if the OP needs to go to court ?
Not the OP.
That’s why we have insurance.
I assume that you've passed it to your insurers? There's an entire industry devoted to dealing with this type of thing on behalf of insurers, which says something about society
Madness, quite scary hearing these stories, people are so dishonest, no wonder my insurance is so expensive. My stepfather slightly bumped a parked car, no damaged, just a scuff, then he got a claim which included a new bumper and baby seat!
Yet some people still argue dashcams are a bad thing.
Technically liability insurance would only pay out when a liability has been established i.e. a judgment has been obtained against you. However, in practice insurers quickly realised that allowing their insureds to conduct defence of claims was far more expensive than dealing with them themselves, and so they now actively deal with claims on behalf of their insured - essentially they insure not only the risk of liability, but the costs of dealing with the claim as well.
If the insurers cannot agree on liability then the legal dispute is between the two parties to the accident; the respective insurers simply stand behind the parties and indemnify them for costs and damages if appropriate. <edit> Oh, and usually have claims control too, so they decide whether or not to settle. Most times they will take account of your wishes, but ultimately if you want to be indemnified, they reserve the right to take the overall decision on settlement.
Had to attend court when a leaking pipe in the bathroom caused damage to an office downstairs, even though it was covered by insurance. Damage to an aircon unit, office chair (from the photos looked like it just needed towelling off!) and a bit of plaster and paint came to 12 grand. Goes without saying the office belongs to an insurance company...
The other party's insurer is taking you to court because your insurer (taking your side) has declined to pay for their damage. They hope your insurer will decide it's cheaper to pay up or go 50/50 than fight the case. It's brinkmanship. If it actually gets to court it means your insurer is confident of winning the case and costs.
My insurance company is still waiting to hear back from a solicitor of the person who is claiming against me for driving into the side of them in London (whilst me and my van were in Torquay).
They think its just a case of the wrong registration but they have up to 2 years to respond???
All the while, i have to declare it when it comees to renenwal.
Spoken to insurance and claims management company and it doesnt look like its being sorted anytime soon.
How the hell is that allowed to happen
I thought a rear-ender was always the fault of the person doing the rear-ending, unless they can prove otherwise. Car insurance is one huge scam anyway. But we Brits love our ****ing cars.
Yet some people still argue dashcams are a bad thing.
Dashcams are a bad thing. They are only necessary as so many people act like complete shits.
I've always wondered if you have a dashcam in your car and running are you bound to share the footage?
For instance there are a couple of examples above where others dash cams could really scupper their own claims!
I’ve always wondered if you have a dashcam in your car and running are you bound to share the footage?
For a low level claim how would they know you even had one or hadnt forgotten to turn it on? Exception would be a serious crash where the cops turn up and take it as evidence.
if you have a dashcam in your car and running
eh? Oh, like recording. I see. er, no.
Same here... Was rear ended on the M9 (ouch!) both cars written off, no surprise as he was doing around 45mph when he hit my stationary car at the end of a queue of traffic.
Received a summons to go to court as the Insurance companies were just "booking" the date in case, was sorted about 2 weeks before hand.
The other party’s insurer is taking you to court because your insurer (taking your side) has declined to pay for their damage. They hope your insurer will decide it’s cheaper to pay up or go 50/50 than fight the case. It’s brinkmanship. If it actually gets to court it means your insurer is confident of winning the case and costs.
So very obviously this ^^
And it’s going to get worse as the industry starts to fight more claims..
alibongo001I’ve always wondered if you have a dashcam in your car and running are you bound to share the footage?
Eventually, if it went to court (in E&W at least), and it wasn't a a small claim, then yes - you are obliged by the court rules to disclose any relevant documents which either assist your case or either undermine it or assist the other side's case. Documents include electronic files so would include a video if it showed anything relevant.
If it was pointing the wrong way or was a front cam and you were rear ended, then it may not fall into the above categories and wouldn't therefore be relevant.
Well, what happened was this...me & the other guy 'met' on a petrol station forecourt last April, we exchanged pleasantries etc & parted company. Four weeks later our insurance company phoned me & asked a few questions which I answered truthfully. I also admitted that I hadn't taken any photo's of the van cos I couldn't see any damage, (wish I had though don't I?) I didn't even take the photo of ours until the insurance co. phoned.
Anyway she said she'd check with the petrol station to see if there was any CCTV footage to decide either way otherwise It would probably be 'shared responsibility' ie, 50/50.
& that was it, never heard another thing until we got a solicitors letter about it on November 28th. Then we got the court order last Saturday. Iv'e spoken to the insurance company who also have copies of both & the only thing I was concerned about was the fact that the IC didn't tell me they'd got the solicitors letter!
I've since sent them a photo of the slight scratch on our car & they say theyr'e on the case so fingers crossed.
Good opportunity to use Blockchain Timestamping of incident pictures to prevent "embellishments" after people have left the scene. Makes photographs time stamped and tamperproof evidence.
A work claim went away when I told the chancer that I had pictures of the damage. There was an attempt to get old damage repaired and a full respray. The marks on our vehicle washed off!