Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gemmill

Insurance - Disputed Liability

Recommended Posts

I had a crash a few month back on the A19. Basically I was overtaking this idiotic mackem in a Sunderland Echo van when he just decided to pull into my lane - no indication, no nothing - and knackered the front wing and bumper of my car. I was already in the outside lane etc. and wasn't speeding, so I know that I wasn't at fault.

 

Anyway, just spoke to my insurance company and apparently the third party are disputing liability - presumably the little baldy mackem get has lied on his version of the accident.

 

Does anyone know what happens now? The insurance company say they've got to pass my version of events on to the third party insurers and then go from there. Does this basically mean I'm screwed though and will have to have the car repaired on my own insurance? Or are that lot likely to change their mind when confronted with the truth? How this bloke has managed to make this sound my fault, I don't know. Surely the onus is on him to make sure nobody's in the fast lane before he pulls into it.

 

Just another reason to despise mackems! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had exactly the same problem, with exactly the same damage, with what was a very similar accident; twat in a big van got in a protected right hand turn, indicating right, so I undertook him in the normal forward land and he suddenly changed his mind and moved into my lane. He acted the prick about it, wouldn't take responsability, and drove off. Unluckily for him, I recognised him from the corner shop next to the in-laws house and drove to it to get the insurance details from his very embarrased and apologetic wife.

 

Anyway, without witnesses and a police report (I should have rang them at the scene to be honest) it was eventually senttled as joint responsabilty. The bastid. My premuim has actually levelled off though, didn't go sky high, just lost my no-claims which was a pain in the arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a crash a few month back on the A19.  Basically I was overtaking this idiotic mackem in a Sunderland Echo van when he just decided to pull into my lane - no indication, no nothing - and knackered the front wing and bumper of my car.  I was already in the outside lane etc. and wasn't speeding, so I know that I wasn't at fault.

 

Anyway, just spoke to my insurance company and apparently the third party are disputing liability - presumably the little baldy mackem get has lied on his version of the accident.

 

Does anyone know what happens now?  The insurance company say they've got to pass my version of events on to the third party insurers and then go from there.  Does this basically mean I'm screwed though and will have to have the car repaired on my own insurance?  Or are that lot likely to change their mind when confronted with the truth?  How this bloke has managed to make this sound my fault, I don't know.  Surely the onus is on him to make sure nobody's in the fast lane before he pulls into it.

 

Just another reason to despise mackems!  :lol:

81766[/snapback]

 

They'll put your version of events to him and ask for his response to them. They'll then take a view as to which version is the more plausible on the balance of probabilities (as this would be the standard of proof if it ever went to court) and would then get back to him with their conclusions-ie in essence whether they thought they had a good case or whether conversely they thought the litigation risk was so great (for which read 'youre a lying little mackem shitehawk') as to make settlement the better option (ie admit liability).

 

Ultimately the dispute would be between you and him, not the insurers and therefore if he chose to ignore what his insurer was saying he could still take it to court, though in practice whether this would happen would probably (as with all things) be a matter of money. ie it might be the case that, on the basis of the wording of his policy his insurer would be absolved from funding litigation if they'd made a recommendation to him not to proceed with the dispute. In that potential scenario he'd then have to then fund the process himself.....

 

......and what with you sat there throwing £50 notes about screaming that you earn more in a day than the court clerk does in a year, he'll soon see his arse over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you lose all of your no-claims, SLP? Or does they just lop a year off or something? I should have known this would happen when the little scummer got out of his van and immediately tried to blame me for him driving into the side of my car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally your insurance company will back you, and take them to court. You'll probably have to pay an excess until it's sorted.

 

Wouldn't worry too much, apart from the time it will take. It's clearly his fault, and I don't see which story he can come up with to make it sound like your fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd have thought it being a company van he would have just held his hands up but these mackems are a different breed like.

 

Surely the damage to the vehicles when investiged by the insurance company will prove that this was his fault entirely???

 

I had a situation a few years back when my foot slipped off the brake when i wasn't moving and I rolled gently into the car in front. The bitch claimed all and sundry on her insurance when there was no damage at all to her car. But instead of disputing this my insurance company said it would cost less just to fix her car than go through the procedures of challenging them. It didn't effect my no claims so I went along with it.

 

P.S. Sounds like a case for Manc-Mag, he pm'd me the other day, reckons he used to star in LA Law!

Edited by Smooth Operator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'd have thought it being a company van he would have just held his hands up but these mackems are a different breed like.

 

Surely the damage to the vehicles when investiged by the insurance company will prove that this was his fault entirely???

 

I had a situation a few years back when my foot slipped off the brake when i wasn't moving and I rolled gently into the car in front. The bitch claimed all and sundry on her insurance when there was no damage at all to her car. But instead of disputing this my insurance company said it would cost less just to fix her car than go through the procedures of challenging them. It didn't effect my no claims so I went along with it.

81779[/snapback]

 

Thats always the bottom line. Gol's response should really be read in light of that.

 

From a strict legal point of view though, the dispute is always between the individual drivers and hence ultimately its down to them whether they want to litigate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a crash a few month back on the A19.  Basically I was overtaking this idiotic mackem in a Sunderland Echo van when he just decided to pull into my lane - no indication, no nothing - and knackered the front wing and bumper of my car.  I was already in the outside lane etc. and wasn't speeding, so I know that I wasn't at fault.

 

Anyway, just spoke to my insurance company and apparently the third party are disputing liability - presumably the little baldy mackem get has lied on his version of the accident.

 

Does anyone know what happens now?  The insurance company say they've got to pass my version of events on to the third party insurers and then go from there.  Does this basically mean I'm screwed though and will have to have the car repaired on my own insurance?  Or are that lot likely to change their mind when confronted with the truth?  How this bloke has managed to make this sound my fault, I don't know.  Surely the onus is on him to make sure nobody's in the fast lane before he pulls into it.

 

Just another reason to despise mackems!  :lol:

81766[/snapback]

 

They'll put your version of events to him and ask for his response to them. They'll then take a view as to which version is the more plausible on the balance of probabilities (as this would be the standard of proof if it ever went to court) and would then get back to him with their conclusions-ie in essence whether they thought they had a good case or whether conversely they thought the litigation risk was so great (for which read 'youre a lying little mackem shitehawk') as to make settlement the better option (ie admit liability).

 

Ultimately the dispute would be between you and him, not the insurers and therefore if he chose to ignore what his insurer was saying he could still take it to court, though in practice whether this would happen would probably (as with all things) be a matter of money. ie it might be the case that, on the basis of the wording of his policy his insurer would be absolved from funding litigation if they'd made a recommendation to him not to proceed with the dispute. In that potential scenario he'd then have to then fund the process himself.....

 

......and what with you sat there throwing £50 notes about screaming that you earn more in a day than the court clerk does in a year, he'll soon see his arse over.

81775[/snapback]

 

Cheers mate. So it's not a completely lost cause then, although it'll depend on how ropey his version of events is. I'll see what happens then - I would consider taking the little shit to court on principle like, but it might just be easier to suffer the increased premium if he maintains he's not at fault and his insurance company won't cough up. Might be cheaper an'all - cost of repair is around £1200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

P.S. Sounds like a case for Manc-Mag, he pm'd me the other day, reckons he used to star in LA Law!

81779[/snapback]

 

Used me as a body double for the sex scenes tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is gonna take ages can I get my car fixed in the meantime and pay whatever excess is required on that while they carry on trying to sort stuff? Although I suppose I'll have to wait for their engineer to check the damage first.

 

I feel like Milly Molly asking all these questions. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

P.S. Sounds like a case for Manc-Mag, he pm'd me the other day, reckons he used to star in LA Law!

81779[/snapback]

 

Used me as a body double for the sex scenes tbh.

81783[/snapback]

 

Aye for Benny, the retarded bloke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

P.S. Sounds like a case for Manc-Mag, he pm'd me the other day, reckons he used to star in LA Law!

81779[/snapback]

 

Used me as a body double for the sex scenes tbh.

81783[/snapback]

 

Probably why I never usded to wank over it, the lasses were always minging! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

P.S. Sounds like a case for Manc-Mag, he pm'd me the other day, reckons he used to star in LA Law!

81779[/snapback]

 

Used me as a body double for the sex scenes tbh.

81783[/snapback]

 

Sounds about right, they normally didn't last any longer than 30 seconds :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a crash a few month back on the A19.  Basically I was overtaking this idiotic mackem in a Sunderland Echo van when he just decided to pull into my lane - no indication, no nothing - and knackered the front wing and bumper of my car.  I was already in the outside lane etc. and wasn't speeding, so I know that I wasn't at fault.

 

Anyway, just spoke to my insurance company and apparently the third party are disputing liability - presumably the little baldy mackem get has lied on his version of the accident.

 

Does anyone know what happens now?  The insurance company say they've got to pass my version of events on to the third party insurers and then go from there.  Does this basically mean I'm screwed though and will have to have the car repaired on my own insurance?  Or are that lot likely to change their mind when confronted with the truth?  How this bloke has managed to make this sound my fault, I don't know.  Surely the onus is on him to make sure nobody's in the fast lane before he pulls into it.

 

Just another reason to despise mackems!  :mellow:

81766[/snapback]

 

They'll put your version of events to him and ask for his response to them. They'll then take a view as to which version is the more plausible on the balance of probabilities (as this would be the standard of proof if it ever went to court) and would then get back to him with their conclusions-ie in essence whether they thought they had a good case or whether conversely they thought the litigation risk was so great (for which read 'youre a lying little mackem shitehawk') as to make settlement the better option (ie admit liability).

 

Ultimately the dispute would be between you and him, not the insurers and therefore if he chose to ignore what his insurer was saying he could still take it to court, though in practice whether this would happen would probably (as with all things) be a matter of money. ie it might be the case that, on the basis of the wording of his policy his insurer would be absolved from funding litigation if they'd made a recommendation to him not to proceed with the dispute. In that potential scenario he'd then have to then fund the process himself.....

 

......and what with you sat there throwing £50 notes about screaming that you earn more in a day than the court clerk does in a year, he'll soon see his arse over.

81775[/snapback]

 

Cheers mate. So it's not a completely lost cause then, although it'll depend on how ropey his version of events is. I'll see what happens then - I would consider taking the little shit to court on principle like, but it might just be easier to suffer the increased premium if he maintains he's not at fault and his insurance company won't cough up. Might be cheaper an'all - cost of repair is around £1200.

81782[/snapback]

 

Basically mate, just re-iterrate that you were in the outside lane, that you were not speeding and that he didnt indicate (and blatantly couldnt have been keeping a proper lookout if you were already occupying the same space he was apparently so keen on himself). Definitely not a lost cause. Basically at this stage its all talk and seeing how the land lies - his insurer has gone to him and he's said what he's said (perhaps he's waxed it cos he's fucked a works van etc etc-who knows?) but in essence they're gonna at least test the responses they get back.

 

Where it changes though is if/when it gets to court. What you need to stress is, it doesnt matter what the little mackem dickhead is saying now (theres nee recriminations at this stage), ultimately you'd be prepared to put your version down with a signed statement of truth and repeat exactly the same in court-and that youre perfectly aware that to wilfully mis-state anything would be to attempt to pervert the course of justice and you understand that that is an extremely serious offence. He would ultimately have to be able to say the same thing himself-and thats very possibly when he would see his arse.

 

PS hope for Newcastle County Court and not Sunderland County Court. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'd have thought it being a company van he would have just held his hands up but these mackems are a different breed like.

81779[/snapback]

 

Probably on a bonus scheme which involves not being at fault for accidents. I spoke to his boss the day of the crash (back in October!) and he said it was company policy not to admit liability. Sounds about right - company policy for the mackem Echo to talk shite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is gonna take ages can I get my car fixed in the meantime and pay whatever excess is required on that while they carry on trying to sort stuff?  Although I suppose I'll have to wait for their engineer to check the damage first. 

 

I feel like Milly Molly asking all these questions. :lol:

81786[/snapback]

 

You can always do that and claim it back after if it's decided he's liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a crash a few month back on the A19.  Basically I was overtaking this idiotic mackem in a Sunderland Echo van when he just decided to pull into my lane - no indication, no nothing - and knackered the front wing and bumper of my car.  I was already in the outside lane etc. and wasn't speeding, so I know that I wasn't at fault.

 

Anyway, just spoke to my insurance company and apparently the third party are disputing liability - presumably the little baldy mackem get has lied on his version of the accident.

 

Does anyone know what happens now?  The insurance company say they've got to pass my version of events on to the third party insurers and then go from there.  Does this basically mean I'm screwed though and will have to have the car repaired on my own insurance?  Or are that lot likely to change their mind when confronted with the truth?  How this bloke has managed to make this sound my fault, I don't know.  Surely the onus is on him to make sure nobody's in the fast lane before he pulls into it.

 

Just another reason to despise mackems!  :mellow:

81766[/snapback]

 

They'll put your version of events to him and ask for his response to them. They'll then take a view as to which version is the more plausible on the balance of probabilities (as this would be the standard of proof if it ever went to court) and would then get back to him with their conclusions-ie in essence whether they thought they had a good case or whether conversely they thought the litigation risk was so great (for which read 'youre a lying little mackem shitehawk') as to make settlement the better option (ie admit liability).

 

Ultimately the dispute would be between you and him, not the insurers and therefore if he chose to ignore what his insurer was saying he could still take it to court, though in practice whether this would happen would probably (as with all things) be a matter of money. ie it might be the case that, on the basis of the wording of his policy his insurer would be absolved from funding litigation if they'd made a recommendation to him not to proceed with the dispute. In that potential scenario he'd then have to then fund the process himself.....

 

......and what with you sat there throwing £50 notes about screaming that you earn more in a day than the court clerk does in a year, he'll soon see his arse over.

81775[/snapback]

 

Cheers mate. So it's not a completely lost cause then, although it'll depend on how ropey his version of events is. I'll see what happens then - I would consider taking the little shit to court on principle like, but it might just be easier to suffer the increased premium if he maintains he's not at fault and his insurance company won't cough up. Might be cheaper an'all - cost of repair is around £1200.

81782[/snapback]

 

Basically mate, just re-iterrate that you were in the outside lane, that you were not speeding and that he didnt indicate (and blatantly couldnt have been keeping a proper lookout if you were already occupying the same space he was apparently so keen on himself). Definitely not a lost cause. Basically at this stage its all talk and seeing how the land lies - his insurer has gone to him and he's said what he's said (perhaps he's waxed it cos he's fucked a works van etc etc-who knows?) but in essence they're gonna at least test the responses they get back.

 

Where it changes though is if/when it gets to court. What you need to stress is, it doesnt matter what the little mackem dickhead is saying now (theres nee recriminations at this stage), ultimately you'd be prepared to put your version down with a signed statement of truth and repeat exactly the same in court-and that youre perfectly aware that to wilfully mis-state anything would be to attempt to pervert the course of justice and you understand that that is an extremely serious offence. He would ultimately have to be able to say the same thing himself-and thats very possibly when he would see his arse.

 

PS hope for Newcastle County Court and not Sunderland County Court. :lol:

81801[/snapback]

 

Reet cheers mister. I'm a bit more chilled about it now. I was livid earlier when I first found out cos I thought that was that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a crash a few month back on the A19.  Basically I was overtaking this idiotic mackem in a Sunderland Echo van when he just decided to pull into my lane - no indication, no nothing - and knackered the front wing and bumper of my car.  I was already in the outside lane etc. and wasn't speeding, so I know that I wasn't at fault.

 

Anyway, just spoke to my insurance company and apparently the third party are disputing liability - presumably the little baldy mackem get has lied on his version of the accident.

 

Does anyone know what happens now?  The insurance company say they've got to pass my version of events on to the third party insurers and then go from there.  Does this basically mean I'm screwed though and will have to have the car repaired on my own insurance?  Or are that lot likely to change their mind when confronted with the truth?  How this bloke has managed to make this sound my fault, I don't know.  Surely the onus is on him to make sure nobody's in the fast lane before he pulls into it.

 

Just another reason to despise mackems!  :mellow:

81766[/snapback]

 

They'll put your version of events to him and ask for his response to them. They'll then take a view as to which version is the more plausible on the balance of probabilities (as this would be the standard of proof if it ever went to court) and would then get back to him with their conclusions-ie in essence whether they thought they had a good case or whether conversely they thought the litigation risk was so great (for which read 'youre a lying little mackem shitehawk') as to make settlement the better option (ie admit liability).

 

Ultimately the dispute would be between you and him, not the insurers and therefore if he chose to ignore what his insurer was saying he could still take it to court, though in practice whether this would happen would probably (as with all things) be a matter of money. ie it might be the case that, on the basis of the wording of his policy his insurer would be absolved from funding litigation if they'd made a recommendation to him not to proceed with the dispute. In that potential scenario he'd then have to then fund the process himself.....

 

......and what with you sat there throwing £50 notes about screaming that you earn more in a day than the court clerk does in a year, he'll soon see his arse over.

81775[/snapback]

 

Cheers mate. So it's not a completely lost cause then, although it'll depend on how ropey his version of events is. I'll see what happens then - I would consider taking the little shit to court on principle like, but it might just be easier to suffer the increased premium if he maintains he's not at fault and his insurance company won't cough up. Might be cheaper an'all - cost of repair is around £1200.

81782[/snapback]

 

Basically mate, just re-iterrate that you were in the outside lane, that you were not speeding and that he didnt indicate (and blatantly couldnt have been keeping a proper lookout if you were already occupying the same space he was apparently so keen on himself). Definitely not a lost cause. Basically at this stage its all talk and seeing how the land lies - his insurer has gone to him and he's said what he's said (perhaps he's waxed it cos he's fucked a works van etc etc-who knows?) but in essence they're gonna at least test the responses they get back.

 

Where it changes though is if/when it gets to court. What you need to stress is, it doesnt matter what the little mackem dickhead is saying now (theres nee recriminations at this stage), ultimately you'd be prepared to put your version down with a signed statement of truth and repeat exactly the same in court-and that youre perfectly aware that to wilfully mis-state anything would be to attempt to pervert the course of justice and you understand that that is an extremely serious offence. He would ultimately have to be able to say the same thing himself-and thats very possibly when he would see his arse.

 

PS hope for Newcastle County Court and not Sunderland County Court. :lol:

81801[/snapback]

 

Reet cheers mister. I'm a bit more chilled about it now. I was livid earlier when I first found out cos I thought that was that.

81807[/snapback]

 

 

No probs. That'll be £5,000 please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manc Mag, I'm up on an Arson Charge shortly, fancy defending me? If you do I'll then go and burn the Mackems house down for Gemmil.

 

Then everyone's happy. :lol:

81809[/snapback]

 

Sounds like a fair deal. My courtroom style is quite theatrical though (I enter to the sound of Prodigy's Firestarter), but as long as you're okay with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like a fair deal. My courtroom style is quite theatrical though (I enter to the sound of Prodigy's Firestarter), but as long as you're okay with that.

81815[/snapback]

:lol: If boxers (and now darts players) can have 'ring-walk' music why shouldn't the rest of us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like a fair deal. My courtroom style is quite theatrical though (I enter to the sound of Prodigy's Firestarter), but as long as you're okay with that.

81815[/snapback]

:lol: If boxers (and now darts players) can have 'ring-walk' music why shouldn't the rest of us?

81826[/snapback]

 

I think "I Am What I Am" is mancy's current choice when entering a ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×