# how am i gonna prove this wasnt my fault?



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

some c**k in a huge lorry scraped down my rear quarter passing me in a country lane even though i was blowing my horn for him to stop, obviously carried on regardless, and i was actually stopped at the time!
































































not impressed


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Essentially it's impossible to prove without an independent witness.


----------



## R7KY D (Feb 16, 2010)

Did you get his reg ?

I had someone hit me last year and drove off , I called 999 and told them I'd been hit and the driver drove off , Not expecting to hear much I start getting letters from the police saying the registered keeper has failed to nominate who was driving at the time and that it would be going to court , he got 6 points and a fine for failing to say who was driving , Ok didn't get my car repaired but at least something happened , I never had any witnesses as I chased after him and gave up when he started driving like a male hen


----------



## Spoony (May 28, 2007)

Yep, registration needed. Then it's a police matter, failure to stop


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Just to clarify, i think Bidderman means he just carried on driving at the point of impact, so it dragged along the car.

He has the other chaps details.

As i mentioned to you Bidderman, worth putting in a claim against the other person if you don't want to involve your own Insurers, at worse (in the absence of an independent witness) you will get 50% of the cost of the damages back on a split liability basis.

Do you have any photos of your position on the road after the impact.

Also, was it LHD?


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Yeah sorry should have said they stopped, just didn't want to go into every detail, he never wanted my insurance company details, probably doesn't mean much anyway, but I insisted on theirs, obviously, lol, just annoys me immensely as I was constantly blowing my horn for the idiot to stop but he didn't, it was a British lorry, French driver, now wish I had an in car camera like I wanted! D'oh!


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Trying to go through their insurance is turning into a right PITA, the driver/firm just denying liability and not bothering to fill out any forms or contacting them, insurance company trying their best but they're being a holes,

One thing I noticed today was that the lane has a blie sign at the end saying (along the lines) "unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles" and "single track road with passing places" 

Will this help my claim?


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

bidderman1969 said:


> Trying to go through their insurance is turning into a right PITA, the driver/firm just denying liability and not bothering to fill out any forms or contacting them, insurance company trying their best but they're being a holes,
> 
> One thing I noticed today was that the lane has a blie sign at the end saying (along the lines) "unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles" and "single track road with passing places"
> 
> Will this help my claim?


Possibly yes, get some pics and geotag them, when the guy ran into my car, I took pics on the spot geotag'd them with the reg visible, after that the claim flew through. Good Luck.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

Surely that point of impact can't be made with you moving?

If you were then your entire side would've been scraped?


----------



## jcf1966 (Jul 21, 2012)

I feel your pain mate. You must tell the Police ASAP for you to get any result at all.

This is why I have a dash cam it would tell you your MPH being 0 and the video would show you stopped and the lorry, then the G force meter would say the direction the car was hit.

I hope you get it sorted

James


----------



## andy monty (Dec 29, 2007)

bidderman1969 said:


> Trying to go through their insurance is turning into a right PITA, the driver/firm just denying liability and not bothering to fill out any forms or contacting them, insurance company trying their best but they're being a holes,
> 
> One thing I noticed today was that the lane has a blie sign at the end saying (along the lines) *"unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles" *and "single track road with passing places"
> 
> Will this help my claim?


Unless there is a specific weight restriction then these signs are just advisory.....


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

This seems "interesting", especially a comment from "DeathStar"

http://www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=61079


----------



## Paddy_R (Jan 10, 2007)

As stated the sign is only an advisory however any court in the land would decide that a professional driver such as a HGV driver would use extra care when negotiating such a road. And make judgements based on the warnings given at the start of the road. Quite clearly the road was not suitable for a HGVs as it wasn't wide enough for something to pass a HGV (I.e: he hit you) and any semi competent solicitor should be able to argue this. 

As for the insurance thing you don't really need the other persons insurance details. A registration will he enough for your company (or his) to find his.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Paddy_R said:


> As stated the sign is only an advisory however any court in the land would decide that a professional driver such as a HGV driver would use extra care when negotiating such a road. And make judgements based on the warnings given at the start of the road. Quite clearly the road was not suitable for a HGVs as it wasn't wide enough for something to pass a HGV (I.e: he hit you) and any semi competent solicitor should be able to argue this.
> 
> As for the insurance thing you don't really need the other persons insurance details. A registration will he enough for your company (or his) to find his.


The sign is completely irrelevant. If he's at fault the sign makes no difference, and equally if he's not at fault the sign makes no difference!

It's purely advisory, what is the driver supposed to do if he has a delivery for a new build house 15 miles down an 'unsuitable for HGV' road? Hand carry the blocks and roofing trusses? If he was found guilty of course it could be used as an aggravating circumstance.


----------



## Princy (Dec 14, 2011)

Not to put a dampner on things but where there any road markings i.e. white lines?

If not insurance might decide it's knock for knock as there's no clear definition of road side


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I hate to be pedantic, but "knock for knock" is almost obsolete and not to be confused with "split liability" :thumb:


----------



## Princy (Dec 14, 2011)

Sounds like 2 descriptions for the same thing....starting to show my age


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Hhhhmmmm oh well, can see what everyone is saying I spose, suppose I'll just have to go with the flow and see what happens


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Shiny said:


> I hate to be pedantic, but "knock for knock" is almost obsolete and not to be confused with "split liability" :thumb:


Interesting - if you crash your £50 bangernomics car into a £800k Enzo and write them both off your insurance company would pay out £400k for the enzo and £25k for your car with split liability? In time gone bye your insurance company would pay you the £50 and their insurance company would pay the £800k?


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Spot on. And by the law of averages there should come a day when the situation is reversed, so in theory the cost of damages level out between the two insurers and the costs for pursuing claims are eliminated.

Here's an old post of mine which explains it a bit more - http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=2258364&postcount=7


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

I'm screwed then, lol


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Hopefully your Insurers we be going for 100% liability claim against the lorry driver, but as mentioned, it may end up with split liability in the absence of witnesses. 

The problem is that the lorry driver's insurers will probably be pushing for split liability, as that will mean they will pay less as there is no damage to the truck (i presume).

Split liability may not be 50/50, it may be 70/30, 80/20 etc in your favour. This will mean you claim back 50%, 70% or 80% etc of your excess back from the third party.

The downside is that your NCB will be affected (or loss of one life if you have protected NCB) unless a 100% recovery of all losses are made by your Insurers.

As has been mentioned above, the road was unsuitable for HGVs so he should have driven with more caution etc. You can argue this and it may well win a case, but he could argue that he was driving with caution and you didn't pull over, and there will be no witnesses to prove either way.

It's a crap situation to be in, but fingers crossed it may sway in your favour.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Shiny said:


> Hopefully your Insurers we be going for 100% liability claim against the lorry driver, but as mentioned, it may end up with split liability in the absence of witnesses.
> 
> The problem is that the lorry driver's insurers will probably be pushing for split liability, as that will mean they will pay less as there is no damage to the truck (i presume).
> 
> ...


Cheers fella, appreciate the info


----------



## Princy (Dec 14, 2011)

Shiny said:


> Split liability may not be 50/50, it may be 70/30, 80/20 etc in your favour. This will mean you claim back 50%, 70% or 80% etc of your excess back from the third party.


I stand corrected, obviously they don't mean the same thing 

As above though, good luck with it and hopefully it'll go your way


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

I do hope so, surely they can show the scrape marks to the other sides insurance company to prove that he scraped me, he can't say I hit him though surely as there is no impact dent, or any damage in front of the rear quarter?

Need to know what I'm up against, lol


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Well, slight update today, my insurance contacted theirs, they (obviously) deny liability, and now I say that I hit them! I mean, WTF?????

Can anyone see from the pics how I could have possiy done that????


----------



## Miglior (Feb 12, 2006)

i had this happen to me last year. the lorry driver carried on. I quickly did a Uturn and followed him. I managed to stop him not far after.

It took over a year to try and get him to cough up. He never did. Insurers sent countless letters etc. Never heard anything!


----------



## Beancounter (Aug 31, 2006)

Clearly you were drifting with the back hanging out on the lorries side of the road  :lol:

Seriously....Call the incurance company back up and tell them you want to meet with someone to talk through exactly what happened as you are not going to be bullied by the other drivers insurance company etc.

I had a similar incident quite a few years ago, but it involved a car driven by an elderly driver. His insurance tried to claim it was my fault. I took the time to meet with my insurance firm and explain everything fully and even offered to give a statement and let them persue it in court as I was 100% not to blame.

Once I'd done that, it gave them more belief to fight for the claim. 2 weeks later, it was resolved with the other driver taking 100% liability - Got to be worth a try :thumb:


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Absolutely, I have said I want to meet an accident specialist or whatever they're called, to show damage and take them to where it happened, and go through what happened there and then, to fight it tooth and nail


----------



## alphaj12 (Feb 17, 2011)

Surely that sign on top of your car means its your fault!!!!!

















Just kidding, I'm one of your gang too


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

lol, also, I don't believe there is any "impact" damage on my car that would even suggest I hit him!


----------



## PootleFlump (Jan 1, 2006)

I had the same issue with a lorry driver who hit me in a similar place while driving round a roundabout. I chased him down and got a load of verbal abuse about car drivers. Got his firms details wrote a letter and heard nothing. I couldn't be bothered and just got a repair done for the sake of £250 I couldn't be bothered with the hassle of chasing them. Your damage looks a bit worse though. Good luck getting them to pay up.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Going through my insurance now, have no choice really, their insurance company says the driver has filled out an incident statement yet despite having a whole week to do it, to55er


----------



## Deniance (Jun 28, 2008)

Feel for you mate, it will be knock for knock, if you dont persue for repairs, your case will be closed, but you will still be entered into the mid database, and trying to get insurance come renewal time you have to declare an accident, just happened to me, 

I was stopped in a lane, car hit me, no witness, no white lines, they held me responsible, then had letter saying case closed, ncb intact, tried to get insurance online, declined because I have been entered onto database for 6 years, added this to online quote, premium goes up, go figure! Been on phone all day, fuming , way it goes apparently

sent from my Nokia 3210 using ticky tacky


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Hence why I feel I have to go for it really, been declared now regardless, so I have to try to follow through. Could this go to court? I still feel 100% that the damage to my car should prove my case


----------



## hoikey (Mar 9, 2011)

Im confused as to how its impossible for that to have happened with the lorry stopped and you trying to go past (not saying you were moving and he was stopped etc....) as the back wheels of a car dont follow the front when turning so it would be possible for you to do that damage trying to drive past a parked wagon. 

Good luck with the claim.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Shiny said:


> Spot on. And by the law of averages there should come a day when the situation is reversed, so in theory the cost of damages level out between the two insurers and the costs for pursuing claims are eliminated.
> 
> Here's an old post of mine which explains it a bit more - http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=2258364&postcount=7


I disagree about situations being reversed one day when you consider people who are less well off. What your actually doing is moving risk and an insurance cost from people who drive greater than average value cars to people who drive less than average value cars.

If you consider someone who is less well off, or people who just want to run bangers for whatever reason. Their insurance premium will take into account the risk of them having a 50:50 which _will_ cost more than an old knock for knock and their premium adjusted. Then consider someone who runs a £50+k car if they have a 50:50 the insurance cost will be less than the old K4K system. Even if 50:50 risks are relatively small they will make an impact and unfairly punish people running bangers....or even people running cars worth under £6-10k


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I don't understand what you are saying with settling 50/50 unfairly punishing people.

If you are 50% to blame, then you meet 50% of the costs, regardless of whether you damage a banger or Ferrari. What can be fairer than that?

The old Knock for Knock agreement that worked on averages & cost savings rather than blame, was the unfair system in effect.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

The following only based on split liability claims

Under Knock for knock: -

If you drive a banger you insure the value of your banger - which is low cost.
If you drive a flash car you insure the value of your flash car - which is high.

Under 50:50: -

If you drive a banger you insure 1/2 your banger and 1/2 of another car which is likely a more expensive car - which is low to medium cost.
If you drive a flash car you insure the value of 1/2 your car and 1/2 of another car which will likely be valued at less than yours - which is medium to high cost.

So risk and cost is being transferred from people in flash cars to people in bangers. I see what your saying that you caused 1/2 an accident so you take 1/2 the costs. But I think if you caused 1/2 an accident you should take your costs and the other party should take their costs - if you drive a flash car you're responsible for paying to insure against the risk of a 50:50.

....but haven written the above and thought about it more, my system would not stand up in court/tort law.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

It doesn't work like at all though, you don't insure half of another person's risk or car. You insure against your own risk (ie damage or theft to your vehicle) and potential third party risks (damage to another car, their property or their person).

Third party risks are kind of the same no matter what car you drive, you could hit any type of car, whether that be a banger or Ferrari. Injury costs are pretty much irrelevant to car type too.


----------



## rob3rto (May 23, 2007)

Don't talk to me about 50/50!!!
6 years ago, was going round a roundabout. Outside most lane (of 3) cos I was taking first exit when some idiot decided he too wanted to take the same exit, through me from the 3rd (inside) lane. After arguing with insurance companies for more than 7 months on fault, they decided on 50/50 as it was on a roundabout, even though my fotos and damage show clearly his fault. And he was driving with flipflops! Why the hell should he get away with paying for all of it!?!
6 years and it still boils the blood!!!


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

I do wonder how insurance companies come to decisions sometimes, especially when it seems clear cut


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

bidderman1969 said:


> I do wonder how insurance companies come to decisions sometimes, especially when it seems clear cut


The go on probably of success in a court of law based on the evidence they have.

If there is an element of doubt, this could potentially incur additional court costs, so they have to mitigate their loss with the best solution depending on the potential circumstances.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

How do you rate my case fella? Judging the damage, and they are now saying I hit them (somehow), etc, is there anything I can insist on? I want an accident specialist to look at the damage, and then I can take them to the exact spot and go through with them what happened to prove myself


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

You can talk to your Insurers and ask them to look at your vehicle and try and determine the point of impact. The third party could still argue though that you never pulled over and gave room, so are still to blame, even if he made contact with you.

Speak to your Insurers and insist you are adamant that you are not to blame. They may well fight your case, but if he is saying otherwise, then unfortunately it will be a case of one word against another and, as above, settlement may end up being based on prospect of recovery.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Well, had an interesting conversation with them, they "seem" to be fully behind me, their insurance company have already offered 50/50 but mine seem intent to go for full recovery. Also had back the estimate for repair....... £2700 odd! When I said I only paid £3000 for it, it seems like it will be written off! Christ, haven't even given it a service yet


----------



## Beancounter (Aug 31, 2006)

Sounds like you had a good conversation. Keep the pressure on them to chase the other side down. :thumb:
£2,700 to repair


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Good sign that the third party went straight in with 50/50, as they are already admitting to 50% liability, rather than saying you are 100% to blame. 

Keep in contact with your insurers and keep pushing for the lory driver being 100% to blame.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Shiny said:


> Good sign that the third party went straight in with 50/50, as they are already admitting to 50% liability, rather than saying you are 100% to blame.
> 
> Keep in contact with your insurers and keep pushing for the lory driver being 100% to blame.


Cheers bud, really will keep on at them, it's actually an agency working on behalf of my insurance company fighting them, and "apparently" specialise in taxi accidents, so fingers crossed

Bit of a pain that they will probably write it off, as the cheapest replacement I can find is £3895


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

"Chief" by any chance?


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Nope, Proximo


----------



## should_do_more (Apr 30, 2008)

2700 seems a lot to sort that out. Any chance you can get a better quote and propose that instead?


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Apparently it's mostly labour charges, and I spose VAT too, they want to replace that rear quarter which means a lot of labour charges, well, I suppose they have to guarantee their work, so I guess that's why they go down that route


----------



## should_do_more (Apr 30, 2008)

I guess. Sorry to see this, esp after all the effort that went into finding it.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

confirmed today that its beyond economical repair. guess im stuffed now, cant afford another car, they only value it at £2100 minus my excess which was £400, could give up and go on benefits!

depending on the council, i MAY be able to buy back and fix myself, but then would be a CAT D, just want this poxy year to end


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

Have they admitted more than 50% liability yet? You don't have to just accept their valuation if you can justify that an equal replacement would cost you more. What value did you put on the car when you insured it? You've only had it a couple months so go back with your invoice of what you paid for it and show them the price of similar cars currently for sale, if there is a big difference between in cost to replace like for like they should up their offer.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

this is still the cheapest like for like

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classif...page/1/postcode/gu322hf/radius/1500?logcode=p

but with half the mileage, just hacks me off that i did some first class bargaining to grab mine, but yes, i only "valued" it at what i bought it for.

this valuation is from MY insurance company, so im not sure why they are under valuing it atm, their insurance company offered a 50/50 settlement straight away, still cant see how they can say i hit them when A) i was stationary, and B) i was going around a left hand before when i stopped, that damage would defy physics if i did hit them


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Bidderman, have a read of this - http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

Find some "for sale" ads of similar vehicles, "completed" listings on ebay can be good as this shows the actual price of the sale rather than what someone wants for the sale. Be wary though, you often find that for every 10 cars you find over the value there are 10 cars under it, so chose carefully and be prepared for a loss adjuster to come back with the lower priced 10 in his defence.

Speak to where you get you car serviced and ask if they will write you a pre-accident valuation.

Speak to your local main dealer and ask if they can put a price on it.

Find some nice post detail pictures.

Get a little portfolio up together of all the above, send it to the loss adjuster with a covering letter explaining how carefully you chose the car, how you look after it etc etc and suggest what you feel is a reasonable offer.

Hope this helps for starters.

Cheers


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

bidderman1969 said:


> this is still the cheapest like for like
> 
> http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classif...page/1/postcode/gu322hf/radius/1500?logcode=p
> 
> ...


You Insurers have to be able to justify their payment if challenged by the Third Party, if they gave you £10k for it, they wouldn't be able to get that back from the other party. However, if you can justify a value, they may well increase their offer if they feel it is justified. :thumb:


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Shiny said:


> Bidderman, have a read of this - http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html
> 
> Find some "for sale" ads of similar vehicles, "completed" listings on ebay can be good as this shows the actual price of the sale rather than what someone wants for the sale. Be wary though, you often find that for every 10 cars you find over the value there are 10 cars under it, so chose carefully and be prepared for a loss adjuster to come back with the lower priced 10 in his defence.
> 
> ...


































































think these show it in a good light to begin with?


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Shiny said:


> You Insurers have to be able to justify their payment if challenged by the Third Party, if they gave you £10k for it, they wouldn't be able to get that back from the other party. However, if you can justify a value, they may well increase their offer if they feel it is justified. :thumb:


cheers fella, why i feel its reasonable to at least pay me what i paid for it, is not only that i made it in better condition than when i got it, but also the fact that it is not a common car really, the one i pointed out was the cheapest for me to replace with what i have now

these 2 show how weird the market is for these cars

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CHEVROLET...?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item25744f6549&_uhb=1

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2009-CHEV...?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item2c693dcafb&_uhb=1


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

and i have only had it for 3 months as a taxi


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

bidderman1969 said:


> cheers fella, why i feel its reasonable to at least pay me what i paid for it, is not only that i made it in better condition than when i got it, but also the fact that it is not a common car really, the one i pointed out was the cheapest for me to replace with what i have now
> 
> these 2 show how weird the market is for these cars
> 
> ...


As always prices that cars are for sales does not indicate selling price or their worth. Prices they sell for is a much better indication. Area, local, demographic & earnings and owners/garages with high expectations or low trade in values will all affect asking price.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

yup, true, although how do you know what cars actually sell for? if you know what i mean


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

More reading for you -

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/22/issue-22-motorinsurance.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org....an-news/66/66-vehicle_valuation_disputes.html


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

anyone have a Glass's guide for the value of it?

126K at present


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

This might help - no idea if it's the right spec but you can put that in your self. Parkers does not adjust for mileage, wise buyers do.

http://www.wisebuyers.co.uk/index.j...=39049&yearplate=2008/58&mileage=126&x=19&y=2

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/prices/used/chevrolet/epica/saloon-2008/39333/?yearplate=88

MOT/Advisory check does not necessarily prove anything but could be used as a minor indicator it is/was maintained in good condition?

http://motinfo.direct.gov.uk/internet/jsp/ECHID-Internet-History-Request.jsp


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

cheers guys, feel like everything is against me at minute, lol


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Bidderman, are you direct with an Insurer or though a Broker? If you are with a Broker, have a word with them and see what they can do to help you, it is what they are there for.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Yup, through a broker and at present dealing with the "legal protection" company that I paid for, as well as the insurance company's representatives as well

Confusing.com


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Have a word with your Broker, they should be able to hold your hand and hopefully recommend something along the lines of what i said earlier.

If they are half decent, they will put the case forward on your behalf to try and get your offer upped.


----------



## devonutopia (May 29, 2006)

This is why I now have a video recorder catching all my driving. Produces the odd little gem of footage too.  Thankfully this wasn't even close to being an accident but I know one day, sadly, it will capture something where the footage it captures will be critical to proving my innocence.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

The other was, can I force them repair it if I don't get a very good offer? What happens if we can't agree a price?


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

You can't force them to repair it.

If you can find a cheaper estimate (a pro-forma invoice will be better which details the final price), you may be able to beg that they give you a "cash in lieu" of repairs settlement and not write the vehicle off. This way the Insurers pay out less and you get to repair the car ar your own expense. Get your Broker to try and negotiate this for you, but you will need a decent repair price to make this worthwhile.


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

devonutopia said:


> This is why I now have a video recorder catching all my driving. Produces the odd little gem of footage too.  Thankfully this wasn't even close to being an accident but I know one day, sadly, it will capture something where the footage it captures will be critical to proving my innocence.


Of guilt in which case it's presence and ability to record will be forgotten :wave:



bidderman1969 said:


> The other was, can I force them repair it if I don't get a very good offer? What happens if we can't agree a price?


No, definitely not. I assume you would come to a deadlock situation then they would tell you to go to the ombudsman - obviously Lloyd will confirm.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Shiny said:


> Bidderman, have a read of this - http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html
> 
> Find some "for sale" ads of similar vehicles, "completed" listings on ebay can be good as this shows the actual price of the sale rather than what someone wants for the sale. Be wary though, you often find that for every 10 cars you find over the value there are 10 cars under it, so chose carefully and be prepared for a loss adjuster to come back with the lower priced 10 in his defence.
> 
> ...


Some very interesting reading there fella. It doesn't seem all doom and gloom


----------



## msb (Dec 20, 2009)

to repair that should be £500 max!


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Had written confirmation today. So annoyed about this, just feels like they are taking the pee more everytime I read it, show me a car "market value" of £2100 exactly like mine, and 4 years old!

To add insult to injury, they say if I refuse their offer "I understand that if I dispute the value placed on my vehicle, another engineer will be required to inspect the vehicle, the cost of which will be my responsibility", bullying b45tards! Guarantee this WILL NOT happen!

So looking forward to writing a letter to them now!


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

When you write it dispute the need for another engineer - your cars condition, although immaculate, is not the point you are raising, you are disputing that you can't find another 'like for like' car of similar age and mileage to replace the one you had. Understandable insurance companies do try screw a most people over.....but we have our selves to blame, price comparison website and need to be top is the reason we are in the current situation!


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Bidderman, did you speak to your Broker? They should be fighting this case for you.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Spoken to the legal extras company that I paid for on top of the premium, and I seem to be doing all the poxy work at the minute! 

The other thing that's getting on my nerves is that they were all set to repair it until I said about how much I "paid" for the car, now they seem to be using it against me instead of what the "market value" is


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

What you paid is irrelevant, the claim should be dealt with based on the pre accident current market value.

Your Legal people probably won't be interested in fighting a battle over the market value, they deal with the uninsured losses, such as you excess, loss of earnings etc.

You really should be speaking to your Broker mate :thumb:


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Cheers bud


----------



## devonutopia (May 29, 2006)

Bero said:


> Of guilt in which case it's presence and ability to record will be forgotten :wave:


The fact it can be whipped out in about 2 seconds is purely a convenience when I want to access the data on it for personal use.... :thumb:


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

trying to write a letter at present in response to their "offer", and proving harder than i thought, i know what i want to say, but putting it into a professional letter isnt as easy as i thought, as im going off track, lol


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Bidderman, pm me some more details abut your quest to find the car and why you were able to negotiate a lower price with the garage.

Also pm me some links (if available) to equivalent models for sale and their advertised value.

What are your plans? Take the money & run (so you can buy another) or buy back the vehicle (if this option is available) and repair it yourself?

Are you still working at present?

I'll have a look at what you have written already and see if there is anything i can add to help.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Cheers Lloyd, will PM you when I get home as I'm out and about at minute, I'm open to either getting another car or buying back and fixing and using for another 6 months at least, as I'm still working with it anyway

The market is a bit erratic at the moment with these cars, certainly can't get one for £2100!


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

big thanks to Lloyd, even if i dont come out on top of this situation, your help sir has been nothing short of top notch, and much appreciated. i owe you a pint sir!


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

No worries mate, hopefully the letter will help, keep us updated with how you get on.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Shiny said:


> No worries mate, hopefully the letter will help, keep us updated with how you get on.


definitely :thumb:


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

As I hadn't heard anything, I rung the my insurance company's people (acting for them) and she looked through the "notes" on her computer and said they are sending out another offer after reviewing my letter and "evidence" of what I value it at, and they are now offering £2500, so I told her to save the postage as I won't be accepting it, so she was going to get someone to ring me back today, that was at 14.30, needless to say they didn't ring, what a rigmoral


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

At least it is going in the right direction!

I would ask them that in light of your letter and evidence, how come they have reviewed the offer to just £2500 as it doesn't reflect the evidence which was sent to them, or the content of your letter.

Ask them to evidence how they can substantiate their offer, especially as you have evidence what you believe the value to be!


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Aye, true, lol

Good point about them supplying some evidence, all she was bleating on about was how I had said the value was £3000 when I took out the policy, however, I went through a broker, the same one I have been using for the past 9 years I think, and I'm fairly sure I never said the value was £3000, after all, how come they were going to authorise repairs up until I (stupidly) said I'd only paid the 3 grand for it, surely they would have KNoWN beforehand what I had said it was "worth"

If I'm right, I'm hoping its a bit more ammo in case I need to go to the "ombudsman"


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Well, they're still not listening, she's still adamant that the value was stated as £3000 and they won't pay any more than that, so I put it to her that if I had bought it for £500 then that was all thud pay, to which she said yes basically, load of pony I think, I then told her that they were all ready to repair it until I said that I PAID only £3K, so I feel they are obviously fibbing somewhere along the lines


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

As we mentioned before, I could have bought a car worth £5k off my dad for £500. The fact i only paid £500 for it is irrelevant to its current market value.

I think the slight difficulty you have is that you bought the car from a dealer for £3k, so there is no real reason why that was way under value. If you bought it under value because it had faults and had subsequently rectified them, then that would be a different matter as you have a case to argue the value.

You will need to be able to justify why the car is worth more than you paid, unless of course the dealer had priced it wrong, or it was old stock losing him money and he was looking to pass it on under value to prevent making a loss on it.

They have been provided evidence of similar cars and their current market value. Ask them if they can provide you evidence of similar cars for sale at their proposed offer.


----------



## A210 AMG (Nov 8, 2008)

So how much did you pay for the car? £3k and how long have you owned it?

and they are probably going to offer you close on £3k

Whats the issue? (sorry I'm not reading the 10 pages of threads)


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

They have been provided evidence of similar cars and their current market value. Ask them if they can provide you evidence of similar cars for sale at their proposed offer.

Think your last paragraph there is the key to me getting a far better offer, she's asked me to yet again email or post to here more "proof" for getting a better price, its getting ridiculous


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

A210 AMG said:


> So how much did you pay for the car? £3k and how long have you owned it?
> 
> and they are probably going to offer you close on £3k
> 
> Whats the issue? (sorry I'm not reading the 10 pages of threads)


Well, no offence, but if you did read it, you'd know why 

Anyway, to sum it up, I paid under value, and used it for 3 months, or just under, and to meet council rules I can't get another for what they are offering, so why should I be majorly out of pocket???????


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Shiny said:


> As we mentioned before, I could have bought a car worth £5k off my dad for £500. The fact i only paid £500 for it is irrelevant to its current market value.
> 
> I think the slight difficulty you have is that you bought the car from a dealer for £3k, so there is no real reason why that was way under value. If you bought it under value because it had faults and had subsequently rectified them, then that would be a different matter as you have a case to argue the value.
> 
> ...


They did have for quite a while as some of the pics had snow in them, lol, so I guess I did get a good deal and they probably made very little on it tbh :lol:


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

bidderman1969 said:


> Well, no offence, but if you did read it, you'd know why
> 
> Anyway, to sum it up, I paid under value, and used it for 3 months, or just under, and to meet council rules I can't get another for what they are offering, so why should I be majorly out of pocket???????


Sadly this isn't a factor. You have to work on what the car would have been worth if you had sold it the day before, not what it will cost to replace to fit council rules, unless of course the car is identical to yours.

Your argument is that you bought the car under value and settlement should be made on the pre accident value, irrespective of purchase price :thumb:


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Yup, I understand what you are saying chap, but I still think its way under value


----------



## A210 AMG (Nov 8, 2008)

How far away are you from what they are offering and what you 'think' its worth,

I don't think you can expect them to pay 'extra' to get it up to council regs? As surely you paid for this over and above the value of the car?

Unless you had an agreed value for this additional work and this was stated on your policy. I appreciate you should not be out of pocket. What does the getting it ready to council regs cost / entail?


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Well, seeing as I had less than 3 months usage before the accident, why should I not have like for like? I even quoted them the very lowest that I could replace it for, not the best I can "get away" with, had a new meter fitted, £250, plated up, another £100, 12 months tax paid on top of the car price, so another £195 ( for 3 months useage ) and the fact the original price was around £3800 before negotiating them down


----------



## A210 AMG (Nov 8, 2008)

^ I honestly cannot see how you can get the money for the meter and the plate back unless this was stipulated as part of the value of your car on the insurance certificate? The tax disk is also running cost of the car? same as you could have a full tank of fuel? 

With my own car, I specifically told them about the upgraded OEM alloys and a Brabus 'box of tricks. This is listed on my policy as a upgrade.

I would 'guess' and I don't know... that if my car was a right off I would get the market value plus a bit more for the extras I have declared.


I think you need to scan autotrader and similar and find cars same spec / year / model as yours and send the insurance company some comparables to go on?


Does your car have an agreed value in the policy?


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Adverts have already gone off to the Insurers. :thumb:

Bidderman won't be able to claim the costs of the radio fitting, plating etc from his own Insurers, however, he may be able to claim these from the third party (or a portion of the costs if it ends up split liability).

The total loss value will only reflect the pre-accident value of the car.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

A210 AMG said:


> ^ I honestly cannot see how you can get the money for the meter and the plate back unless this was stipulated as part of the value of your car on the insurance certificate? The tax disk is also running cost of the car? same as you could have a full tank of fuel?
> 
> With my own car, I specifically told them about the upgraded OEM alloys and a Brabus 'box of tricks. This is listed on my policy as a upgrade.
> 
> ...


All this has really been covered in the thread, and no disrespect, but I'm not going over it again, but feel free to find me a like for like for £2500 :thumb:


----------



## A210 AMG (Nov 8, 2008)

good luck then dude....


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

A210 AMG said:


> good luck then dude....


Cheers dude


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

well, they apparently arent budging on their "offer" of £2500, even though they have given me one shred of evidence in regards to how they have valued it, twice now, so im giving it one more try then will rethink my strategy, lol, so far had an interim payment, so i can go about trying to get my excess back...........


----------



## Bero (Mar 9, 2008)

bidderman1969 said:


> well, they apparently arent budging on their "offer" of £2500, even though they have given me one shred of evidence in regards to how they have valued it, twice now, so im giving it one more try then will rethink my strategy, lol, so far had an interim payment, so i can go about trying to get my excess back...........


Good luck, I find it effective to be very succinct in these situations, don't tell them a multitude of things and ask various questions as they can avoid the one or two main questions and waffle around parts.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

If you are still not happy, you can present a case to the ombudsman for them to consider -

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Cheers Llyod, definaately going to make a case up, and feel I do indeed have a case, because now there are some cars coming in for that amount now, but that's only because its coming to the turn of the year, so they are now getting cheaper, will tell to hold out until March or later on so they can offer me less, lol

Cheapest now seems to be in Newcastle, lol


----------



## WopaDoBop (Nov 9, 2009)

I cant understand why everyone doesnt have an in car camera fitted.... For £250 it seems bonkers not to have one when it could save you ten times that.


----------



## andy monty (Dec 29, 2007)

WopaDoBop said:


> I cant understand why everyone doesnt have an in car camera fitted.... For £250 it seems bonkers not to have one when it could save you ten times that.


you can get basic units much cheaper than that now :thumb:


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I'm now running a £30 camera, must post up some pics / videos when I get a chance.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Yup, will be good to what quality you can get for your money

Had a phone call from my insurance company yesterday saying about probably going for 50/50 and I'm afraid I kinda lost my temper with them, lol, stopping short of saying that they were bone idle *******s that haven't even taken the time to analyse the damage to see I'm in the right, so told them that I don't see why I should burden half the blame for something that wasn't my fault, and yes I know that's what a lot of people feel and that's how these company's work but I'm livid that the damage is so blatant that they don't have the balls to take them on in court, I'd love to go and put it a court what happened and show them the damage and ask them to defy the law of physics and split the blame!

When I asked him what their client said, he basically said what I have said, but in a defensive way, saying he was doing 10mph and took "evasive" action, lol, at 10mph???? Blokes a cok but there you go, even told my insurance chap that he has admitted going round my car!

So we'll see I suppose, just feel like I'm doing all their work for them so far, with them doing nothing for me and trying to screw me over on valuing my car too, hope to avoid these idiots come renewal time


----------



## WopaDoBop (Nov 9, 2009)

bidderman1969 said:


> *Hope to avoid these idiots come renewal time*


Good luck with this, they're all the same. Sorry.


----------



## zedzedeleven (Jan 16, 2009)

Don`t give up mate. I got knocked off a motorbike by a German tourist, wrote off the bike but i managed to get off injury free. Anyway, despite him apologising for causing the accident, once he got back to the fatherland he denied all responsibility for it. I got a call from my insurance company and a girl suggested I accept an offer 75:25% fault, me being largely to blame (Note, this is NOT a misprint, my insurance company actually suggested accepting this). I turned it down flat. A few days later another guy from my insurance company (their overseas department) rang me and he was completely different, suggested I stuck out for total recompense and by god he got them to admit liability. The only thing that I lost out on was my no claims bonus, but it soon built up again. Hope you can get such a good result.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

DVR thread updated http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=3849996#post3849996


----------



## iansoutham (Aug 4, 2006)

Tell them that, as the client, you are not authorising them to accept for anything less than 100% fault on the third party side. Instruct them to pursue through the court if required.

I had this with a motorbike that went down the side of my stationary car at a set of traffic lights. The bike tried to filter but timed it wrong with the cars coming the other way and found me. 

My insurance company tried to go 50/50, 75/25 etc... and they were told to go to court by me for the exact same reason as I stated above.

It took them over 12 months to get that far, and I went 6 months without any form of communication between my insurance and theirs. 6 months and 1 day in, I rang my insurance company instructing them to reinstate my no-claims bonus as required by law due to lack of communication for a duration without liability of claim agreed. 3 days before the claim was due to go to court, the other insurance company admitted 100% liability as they had discovered by then that their insured had no tax or MOT on his bike and had literally just left hospital for a biopsy and had been instructed by the hospital NOT to work any machinery for 24 hours (and a bike is a machine) due to the medicine he had been given for the pain relief (reason for the biopsy I believe).


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

iansoutham said:


> Tell them that, as the client, you are not authorising them to accept for anything less than 100% fault on the third party side. Instruct them to pursue through the court if required.


He can't do that, Insurers have "Subrogation" rights under the terms of the policy. He can ask them to reconsider, but can't insist on a course of action if the insurers feel that there is little prospect of success.

50/50 will be probably the likely outcome if this went to court, so the Insurers will be looking to settle 50/50 and keep costs to a minimum.

If Bidderman is totally against this, then he can always request that the claim is withdrawn and take the Third Party to court himself, but he could then risk being responsible for any Third Party payments should he lose the case (ie not succeed on a 100% liability basis).


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

well, to say im fuming is an understatement, they sent me a copy of their clients statement of what happened, and can honestly say that if i was a solicitor, i could rip that knobheads statement to bits, and my insurance company want to settle 50/50!!!!!!!!!!!

key points, he claims i was doing 50 mph, yes, 5-0 mph!!! in a bumpy country lane!!! so, now he's an expert on speed..........

says the road conditions were dry, another bit of BS, it was wet, it had been raining that morning, thick drizzly stuff, the sky was overcast but not raining

he wanted to report me for dangerous driving, as i was driving far too fast for this sort of road, "specially round a bend", ok, so i was alledgedly going so fast round a left hand bend that i managed to stop, he went around me "at 15mph" and manage to get back onto the road clipping the rear of my car? hhhhmmmmmmm

the best bit, his diagram, and this is where he would really fall flat on his ass, he has pictured his lorry, taking up the whole of the road, and me allegedly driving into the front of his lorry, and somehow getting damage to my rear quarter!!!!!!

in fact, its such a joke that i think i will scan his diagram in tomorrow just to show you all just how big a joke this really is.

Lloyd, can i ring you tomorrow chap, i would like to discuss what i can do, just infuriates me as to see how ridiculous this whole thing is, and how little my insurance company reall want to do


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Ill pm you my mobile no mate as I'm not in the office until Monday. 

Saturday is spent running the kids around and cooking for my sister's family, so I'm in an out the car, so if I don't answer leave me a message as ill be driving. 

I'll be about Sunday, but not too early, Saturday night is a Christmas get together with my chums of many years, so Sunday morning will most like a write off as ill be beyond economical repair .


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Shiny said:


> Ill pm you my mobile no mate as I'm not in the office until Monday.
> 
> Saturday is spent running the kids around and cooking for my sister's family, so I'm in an out the car, so if I don't answer leave me a message as ill be driving.
> 
> I'll be about Sunday, but not too early, *Saturday night is a Christmas get together with my chums of many years, so Sunday morning will most like a write off as ill be beyond economical repair* .


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

shall give you a bell at around 11 - 12 ish sunday morning if thats ok then, might have calmed down a bit by then too,


----------



## Tsubodai (Oct 20, 2012)

Not entirely similar - but I'd parked my car up about half a mile from work, came back that evening to find the entire driver's side stoved in from the drivers door forward. 
There was a note under the wiper blade from the cafe opposite which had seen a Liverpool Boat Company Lorry come out of a side street, swipe my car and carry on (it is possible he didn't know as the lorries are huge, they carry massive barges etc); they even had a reg number. However - apparently a customer took the reg number, and although it tallied up with a LBC vehicle they claimed there was no damage or sign of collision on that rig. I was never able to make contact with that customer so I had to bear the brunt myself as there were no witnesses.
Good luck with this mate, I hope it turns out in your favour.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

cheers mate, just seriously believe the guy has shot himself in the foot basically, but will try to upload pic tomorrow


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

as promised, this is the diagram they drew of what happened...........










:lol:

thoughts?


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

remember, according to that diagram, this was the result


----------



## init6 (Mar 28, 2012)

So he vaulted over the front of your car and hit the back?

Might be worth trying to find a weather report for that area on that day. If you can show it was raining and he said it was dry, then it chips away at his statement. Give me a shout if you need a hand with that.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

init6 said:


> So he vaulted over the front of your car and hit the back?
> 
> Might be worth trying to find a weather report for that area on that day. If you can show it was raining and he said it was dry, then it chips away at his statement. Give me a shout if you need a hand with that.


already done it :thumb:

accident was at 07.45, the weather at 07.20 was rain, at 07.50 it was light rain

thats with the nearest weather station when i put in my town (where the accident was


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

thankfully, i got some pics on my phone at the time, thankfully, and i now suspect that the driver hasnt actually made out that statement at all, will reveal why later, gotta go out now


----------



## Tsubodai (Oct 20, 2012)

No way does that drawing match up to the damage.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Tsubodai said:


> No way does that drawing match up to the damage.


I know, and my ins comp want to go 50/50 ffs


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

I really feel your pain here but without independent witnesses it seems there is no way to prove it wasn't your fault. I don't see insurance company going to the expense of trying to prove otherwise due to the cost and risk of it not coming good.

The diagram doesn't mean much... we don't all have art degrees. If you can prove it is a deliberate misrepresentation I still don't know if it'll get you any better than 50/50.

I'd concentrate on getting a realistic value for your car as I expect it will be a long shot to get anything more than 50/50.

Good luck whatever you decide.

FYI I just bought an in-car camera for less then £15 inc postage on e-bay partly because of the threads on here like this one. If it's any good I'll buy another for the Mrs car and possibly another two so I can get rear views in each car too.


----------



## should_do_more (Apr 30, 2008)

I had similar damage done when a red car hit my car when it was parked. No witnesses. The insurance company seriously accused me if doing a handbrake turn into a post box. In a Saab 9000. In London. Awesome.

That drawing still doesn't explain how your car has a dent on the back of it, forget whether he has drawn a good pic or not, it's physically impossible. Plus if you we're doing 50 as suggested, the damage would have been a lot worse.

Good luck with it but if your company is not on your side, as they will be factoring how much effort this is costing them, then you're not going to get too far no matter how unfair. Keep pushing though!


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Good job it's not a murder, lol


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

well, heres a couple of pics i took on the day, didnt think they'd be needed at all, but it kinda shows the conditions weren't DRY as they stated at all, and also, note the chap freely taking his time taking pictures when i was supposed to have "sped off" before he had time to get my insurance details.............. such a creditable chap and accurate statement!



















can see why the road was advised as "not suitable for heavy goods vehicles

p.s., the car isnt where it was hit, i had started to reverse up and was going to turn round and give chase as it seemed he wasn't going to stop at the time


----------



## nick.s (Dec 21, 2009)

Sometimes I feel you really have to fight insurers to do the job. Granted there are good chaps out there (limited to Lloyd by the sounds of things and maybe my broker), but when it's plain what happened, why is there so much reluctance to do the right thing?

Statistics? Monthly targets?


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Was good to speak to you Bidderman. Just to go over what we said and what has been said here.

To breakdown the claim, this will be going on – 

Your Insurers will have an outlay (or at least when they make a total loss payment for the car) and despite general perceptions, they would like to get that back if they can, as it affects their profitability. The problem is that they have to weigh up the potential costs and prospects of success of taking this to court. Country lane, no witnesses, one word against another etc, the most likely outcome will be 50/50. It is most likely they will do this on a “without prejudice” basis, which means that you will still be able to pursue the matter in court.

The second part of the claim will be your uninsured losses, which I understand is the hands of your Legal Expenses people. This will be for your losses such as your excess, loss of earnings and so on. Just because the Insurers have decided to settle on a 50/50 basis does not mean that your Legal Expenses people will do the same. However, they also have to weigh up the prospect of recovery in a court before they will take things that far.

Finally, there may be a claim coming in from the lorry driver for damage to their vehicle, so your own insurers are faced with a counter claim. Again your Insurers won’t be wanting to pay this, but have to weigh up the costs of repudiating the claim against settling on a 50/50 basis.

I would recommend that you speak to your Insurers and ask them to not settle on a split liability basis as you have some further details for them. Then you need to deconstruct the lorry driver’s statement making written comments on each part that you feel is wrong. Back up your comments with the photographs and make it very clear that the damage was caused due to the lorry coming back on the road and hitting the side of your (stationary?) car. Reiterate the road is unsuitable is HGV’s and, judging by the size of the thing, if he was approaching a blind right hand bend, he should have being doing this at a suitable speed to be able to brake immediately. He has driven a vehicle of that size round a bend without even checking that his path was clear. Send in the photos to confirm it was wet, the photo of the damage to your car to show the point of impact and how this contradicts his diagram/statement. As has been mentioned though, sometimes diagrams are not that great and his doesn’t actually show any point of impact, but it is still a point worth arguing. Send this all to your Insurers. They would normally then send this to the Third Party Insurers for their client to comment.

Next off, speak to your Legal Expenses providers and check they are looking for a 100% recovery of your losses. Send them a copy of all the stuff you are sending to your Insurers so they can build their case too. As mentioned, if your Insurers do settle out of court, there is nothing stopping your Legal Expenses provider taking the matter to court.

If the Legal Expenses people are looking for a 100% recovery and are prepared to take this to court, ring your Insurers again and explain to them that your Legal people are OK with taking it to court. Your Insurers may liaise with them to pursue their own recovery, or they may even just sit back and see what the outcome is. They may also still go ahead with a 50/50 settlement on a without prejudice basis. Best to try and find out what they propose to do if your legal people take it to court.

Ultimately, due to the circumstances (ie single track road, no witnesses etc) they may still end up settling on a 50/50 basis and your Legal people may also consider 50/50 the best option, but if this decision has been made, then at least you have provided all the evidence you can and fought the case. Cost is sadly always a factor in cases like these and prospect of recovery + court costs vs settling out of court often means claims are settled on an actuary decision rather than a moral/liability decision.

Hopefully that makes a bit more sense, but is basically what I was trying to cram into our phone call!


----------



## nick.s (Dec 21, 2009)

Lloyd, I applaud thee for assisting where others would not, in your own time and so on and so forth. *scurries off to another thread with this in mind*


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

It all part of forum life. I ask questions about cameras, computers and polishers, and people help me.

I know a little bit about the wonderful world of insurance, so it is nice to be able to contribute and help people as others have helped me. :thumb: :argie::argie:


----------



## nick.s (Dec 21, 2009)

Shiny said:


> It all part of forum life. I ask questions about cameras, computers and polishers, and people help me.
> 
> I know a little bit about the wonderful world of insurance, so it is nice to be able to contribute and help people as others have helped me. :thumb: :argie::argie:


This is very true, but honestly, there are more vampires with hearts and souls than insurance industry employees 

Mr Bidderman sir, fingers crossed that this all comes to a happy conclusion:thumb: Sorry for hijacking your thread


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

nick.s said:


> Lloyd, I applaud thee for assisting where others would not, in your own time and so on and so forth. *scurries off to another thread with this in mind*


He has been great, definaately owe him more than one pint regardless if I win or not

Sorry I had to cut you short yesterday Lloyd, typically had a customer just when you don't need one

I did ring them after and had a good conversation with them and they "seemed" quite interested in the video I made, and definaately wanted the pics of the day of the accident, thank god I took some tbh, didn't think I may need them at the time


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

nick.s said:


> This is very true, but honestly, there are more vampires with hearts and souls than insurance industry employees
> 
> Mr Bidderman sir, fingers crossed that this all comes to a happy conclusion:thumb: Sorry for hijacking your thread


Ah don't worry about hijacking my thread fella, kinda feel like I have a good bit of support really in a difficult situation, and to be honest, if it was front corner to front corner, then I could settle 50-50 as there is even less evidence to suggest who would be to blame

If only I knew if he would be travelling along there again………


----------



## andy monty (Dec 29, 2007)

Dont know what shiny thinks but when we hit a brick wall following this i never did get round to updating it since it dragged on so long...

http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=75759&highlight=insurance+focus

we went to the underwriter....

The end result was we got liability from 100% fault to 100% none fault for my mother but only after we side stepped the Insurance company and took it up with the underwriter (most broker type companies are not really bothered from experience and hand it on to their clames management companies that get paid on a resolution basis.. and therefore want it all done and dusted as quick as possible but since its the Underwriters money they do tend to look at it with more care and with a fresh set of eyes... :thumb:


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

andy monty said:


> Dont know what shiny thinks but when we hit a brick wall following this i never did get round to updating it since it dragged on so long...
> 
> http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=75759&highlight=insurance+focus
> 
> ...


how did you about going to the underwriter fella? be interesting to look down that route


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

A small handful of Insurance companies outsource claims to claims management companies who are not the actual insurer. I think this is what Andy has experienced and where it was referred back to the Insurers they then had an input on the decisions being made by the claims management company. A decision like this would normally be made by someone in a senior position in the company who overseas claims, rather than an actual underwriter.

Generally speaking an underwriter underwrites a risk (ie decides on the acceptance, terms, conditions and premium for a risk) and has little or no involvement in a claim. If an underwriter is involved in a claim, this is usually to check policy terms and conditions and if a claim should be paid purely from an underwriting perspective of meeting the policy conditions. eg if someone was burgled, the underwriters wouldn't be negotiating on the replacement cost of a TV, but they would have an input if there was a concern about the door locks meeting policy requirements.

Insurers generally have their own claims department and their own legal eagles who make the decisions on how to proceed with a claim or prospect of recovery etc when deciding liability.


----------



## gregb (Feb 1, 2009)

I had someone reverse into my parked car when I was at work and car unattended. Someone kindly left a note on my screen with these tails of car that hit me. I advised mt insurance and police and the insurance company did very little to follow up. When I took my car to a body shop that was recommended to me they put me in touch with a company that would follow up try claim without involving my insurance company . I advised my insurance company I would be claiming on my insurance as they had already advised I had to take my car to an approved repairer which I'd heard don't do a great job. This other company provided a hire car for the duration of the repair and all costs were paid by the culprits insurance, didn,t even pay my 250 access. I have no idea how this works but or what this company make from it but I do know it cost me nothing to get a quality repair on my car with as litte inconvenience as possible. It appears to have had little if any effect on my insurance with a 20 increase on my premium this year. 
Not sure if this is the same thing Lloyd is referring to.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

This is different, that kind of claims management company are the type that would normally deal with an uninsured loss claim, such as excess, loss of earnings etc.

If they have the TP details and have a good prospect of recovery, they put you in a hire car and can also sort out "credit repair", whereby they repair your vehicle and then pass the costs on to the third party.

Some of these firms have been under the spotlight recently as they have been known to encourage personal injury claims.

What i was referring to is that some Insurers do not have their own claims department, so when a claim occurs, they outsource it to a claim handling company who act on behalf of the insurers. This is just a case of outsourcing work and different to companies that deal with uninsured losses (accident management firms).


----------



## gregb (Feb 1, 2009)

Shiny said:


> This is different, that kind of claims management company are the type that would normally deal with an uninsured loss claim, such as excess, loss of earnings etc.
> 
> If they have the TP details and have a good prospect of recovery, they put you in a hire car and can also sort out "credit repair", whereby they repair your vehicle and then pass the costs on to the third party.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clarifying, maybe this route is no good for the OP.
Not sure if the company I used have been in the spotlight but they would have struggled oh the personnel injury claim in my case as I couldn't even see the car when the accident happened :lol:


----------



## andy monty (Dec 29, 2007)

Shiny said:


> A small handful of Insurance companies outsource claims to claims management companies who are not the actual insurer. I think this is what Andy has experienced and where it was referred back to the Insurers they then had an input on the decisions being made by the claims management company. A decision like this would normally be made by someone in a senior position in the company who overseas claims, rather than an actual underwriter.
> 
> Generally speaking an underwriter underwrites a risk (ie decides on the acceptance, terms, conditions and premium for a risk) and has little or no involvement in a claim. If an underwriter is involved in a claim, this is usually to check policy terms and conditions and if a claim should be paid purely from an underwriting perspective of meeting the policy conditions. eg if someone was burgled, the underwriters wouldn't be negotiating on the replacement cost of a TV, but they would have an input if there was a concern about the door locks meeting policy requirements.
> 
> Insurers generally have their own claims department and their own legal eagles who make the decisions on how to proceed with a claim or prospect of recovery etc when deciding liability.


This was RIAS you ring them to make a claim and they pass you on to another company doing the claims management i've forgotten who.....

Once they decided they said it was case closed and wouldn't listen

saw on certificate who was the underwriter so googled zurich motor insurance and spoke to them only then did we make progress


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Well, unsurprisingly, had this email……

Having reviewed the images without the sight of any independent witnesses we do not feel a 100% recovery is likely. We therefore will be looking to except the third party insurer’s 50/50 offer.

We hope you understand our discussion.

Hhhhhhmmmm, not really, so basically telling the truth gets you no f***ing where, if they think I'm ever going to tell the truth again, they can f*** off as far as I'm concerned, always boils down to having a witness apparently


----------



## danwel (Feb 18, 2007)

Yeah it terrible mate I feel for you but like you say witnesses are always key but not always possible


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Try not to get angry Bidderman, i know it's a crap situation, but unfortunately the way these situations often go. 

The lorry driver may be convinced he was in the right, in which case he isn't deliberately lying, but mistaken. I often see this in claims. 

Have your Insurers said they are settling on a without prejudice basis? Have you spoken to your legal expenses people to see if they are still prepared to push for a 100% recovery of your uninsured losses?


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

I literally copied and pasted what was in the email, I shall send another one stating that it better be, as you say, "without prejudice"


----------



## sean20 (Jan 17, 2011)

My girlfriend was involved in a accident back in June, she had only just had the car after passing her test a year earlier and only then could afford the insurance she was driving for 2 weeks then had a accident and has given up driving 

Basically she was at a junction pulling out with her dad and friend in the car and the road was clear next thing a car came speeding up the road swerved into her way and drove up the bus lane on the opposite side of the road ( to him) and the front end of her car just scraped the side of his car. 
It was a 30mph road and he was going at least 50mph on his phone at the time, he was going so fast he stopped at about 300 yards up the road.
When he came back down to swap insurance details My girlfriend seen that he had a clip bored in his hand and he was a estate agent and on the clip board was a 11 o'clock appointment at a street just up the road and this happened at 20 past 11 so he was obviously late for the appointment and was speeding

The insurers held my girlfriend reliable as she was pulling out of the junction even tho we had witnesses the insurer told us they mean nothing cos they was in the car so they wouldn't even fight it 
Luckily all that was wrong with her car was a broken numberplate and a small scratch on the bumper. His car was a company car with a scrape up the side and a very small dent in the door and he also claimed whiplash.

from that iv really thought about getting one of them on dash cameras for my car 

Bidderman i know how you feel with theyr decision however i do hope you can push it further and it all works out for you


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Feel for your girlfriend fella, just always seem to be the ball shtters that seem to benefit all the time, so this experience has taught me "tell the truth at your peril", and they wonder why so many people do lie?


----------



## Nanoman (Jan 17, 2009)

Sorry to hear this. I haven't tried my new dash-cam yet but for £13.99 I'm well impressed with the quality.



sean20 said:


> Basically she was at a junction pulling out with her dad and friend in the car and the road was clear next thing a car came speeding up the road swerved into her way and drove up the bus lane on the opposite side of the road ( to him) and the front end of her car just scraped the side of his car.
> It was a 30mph road and he was going at least 50mph on his phone at the time, he was going so fast he stopped at about 300 yards up the road.
> When he came back down to swap insurance details My girlfriend seen that he had a clip bored in his hand and he was a estate agent and on the clip board was a 11 o'clock appointment at a street just up the road and this happened at 20 past 11 so he was obviously late for the appointment and was speeding
> 
> ...


Reading your post... it sounds like a fairly straightforward right of way violation and your sister would be found at fault regardless of any in-car-camera. I think the only thing that might have helped out (which you might have tried) is involving the police as he was on his mobile at the time. Even having him charged it might still only get you towards 50/50 rather than entirely his fault due to the ROW violation.

Also, it's VERY difficult to judge the speed of an oncoming vehicle with any degree of accuracy.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

well, it seems to have finally gone 50/50 split liability claim, great, still disputing the car valuation and will be lodging a complaint with the insurance ombudsman tomorrow hopefully, and to top it off, the cheapest renewal is with these clowns! only plus side is that my insurance has only gone up around £200, which seems a little strange


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Started a complaint procedure against the insurance company through the Insurance ombudsman today, was a good chat, he needed to know policy number, reg number, and the underwriters address, straight forward really? Well, no, the brokers didn't want to tell me the underwriters name or address insisting that they themselves were the underwriters, until I said "is it Alpha Insurance?" Then when he confirmed it, wouldn't give me the address, and instead said "I have a number for them, 0844, something or other, so I rang it, turns out to be their own legal team number, so asked again for the address, they asked why, then I explained I was making a complaint through the IO to which she tried to find the address and had to ring me back when she had found it.

When she rang back, she gave me an address in Denmark, but I'm sure the IO said it had to be an office in Uk, but anyhow, she then went through my "file" and asked what I wanted for the car, so I told her, and explained why, to which she said "leave it with me, and I shall see what I can do and let you know Monday"

Hhhhhhmmmm, what is it that the Insurance Ombudsman have over these companies that make them more co-operative?

Shall see what they "offer" me Monday then.........


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

well, strangely enough, had to paste part of the email i received today...........

*The engineers have returned and have agreed an increase. The new Pre Accident Valuation placed on your vehicle is £3270.

Retention Calculation

£3270 Pre Accident Value

£752.10 Less 23% Salvage Value

£400 Less Policy Excess

£1700 Less Interim Payment

£417.90 Balance Due

Please confirm if this offer is accepted and payment can be raised for you today*.

i knew the car was worth more than their "absolute" last and final offer of £2500


----------



## Overdoser (Oct 25, 2010)

Well done mate, It's a shame you had to go through all that malarkey to get them to raise the offer to a realistic amount.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Cheers fella, but yeah, they should have done this in the first place, feel I have wasted the IO time now, have to ring them back and explain what's happened now


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Only just spotted something that someone might be able to help with

Originally, the "final offer" was £2500, and the "salvage fee" was 16%, with this offer, it's gone upto 23%, when I questioned them on the phone he said "ah yes, it falls into the next category", when pushed, he said its the agreement they have with Alpha Cars (convieniently almost the same name as their underwriters, Alpha Insurance) but I can't check it anywhere as its a business arrangement falling under "business law"?????? But he said that the categories were 1-2500 @16%, 2501-5000 @23%, 5001- something or other was 28%, and it just doesn't sound right, and it seems to me that they are trying to claw back what ever they can, however they can, anyone know if this is true, or should I ask the Insurance Ombudsman ????


----------



## iansoutham (Aug 4, 2006)

That is correct, they have these bandings for their salvage values.

All insurance companies do the same


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Surely I should know about the category's, or be able to check them somehow though


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

I don't think there is a set price guide Bidderman, from what I can tell insurers set their own scale based on salvage yard values, but even salvage yard values will differ from yard to yard. 

I had a good look at the ABI guides on salvage values and couldn't find any set values, so you are at the mercy of the insurers to a certain degree. You could only really challenge it if their salvage value was considerably different to salvage yard values, but as they tend to be around 20% or so, the rate offered sounds about right.


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

Ah, well, thanks for trying to find out anyway, guess its about time this claim was "put to bed" then, so to speak


----------

