Grr, insurance, grumble, court.

ubersonic · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:00

*Warning, may turn into a rant

Had to go to court today because one of our vehicles was involved in an accident just over three years ago. Our guy was going down a road and was going to turn right, so he indicated and slowed but as he started to turn a couple of chavs flying down the road behind him on scooters tried to overtake and hit the van. Nobody was injured, the scooters were fine, the van was fine, etc. The police turned up and took statements, etc.

And that was the last we heard of it for a while until we received word from our insurance company that the chavs were seeking compensation (not sure if it was for fake damage to their £50 rides or for fake injury's). Ironically they put these claims in the day after the CPS decided not to prosecute them

. Fast forward to today when we went to court and when we arrived we were told no need to go in, our insurance company had decided to go 50/50 on it.

As you can expect im not happy, they were in violation of two separate road laws when they hit our van yet because the was two of them their word is apparently worth more and they say that he wasn't indicating. This is despite the second road law they were in violation of being no overtaking that close to a junction. So now our policy cost will rise because our insurer decided to save themselves a few bob by not contesting a case that the Simpson's lawyer couldn't use, *******'s.

Raymond Lin · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:06

Civil action, insurance company will look after their economical interest, if 50/50 is the best way then they will do that. You don't know the details, the parties could pay their own costs as well, meaning saving thousands in legal fees.

Philz0r · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:08

what the hell!!. Whos ur insurer mate. Im defo going to avoid them. Can you not take this further i thought u had a say in this.

ubersonic · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:10

Were with Trade Direct, needless to say we shan't be renewing this year

Matt82 · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:18

and whose to say "your driver" didnt turn right without indicating, it wouldnt be the first time a van didnt indicate

bledd · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:21

So what if he didn't indicate? They've smacked into him no?

Raymond Lin · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:23

Playing Devils advocate here...

First - are there any other independant witnesses?
Second - if not, it is your words against their's...hence, 50/50.
Third - people are not described as Chavs in Court, even if they are.

Your post is biased and it could easily been written as.

The Defendant of proceeding along X road when the Claimants drivnig down on their motorcycles (registration XYX123) proceeded alongside the Defendant's vehicle when the Defendant's vehicle suddenly turned without warning or indcating etc etc.

The term "flying down" would not be used, and you have no way to prove that unless you get a accident reconstruction expert. And they could be still under the speed limit even if your driver precieved them to be speeding.

As for fake damage, your insurance company would have put them to proof on that so if they got an engineer's report, then that's that.

In terms of injury, there would be a medical report so if there is one, there's that too.

Also, The criminal action has nothing to do with the civil action.

And lastly, as always, no dependant witnesses, without solid physical evidence (i.e. skid marks from the scooters to show sudden braking to indicate excessive speed), then it will settle on 50/50.

Morba · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:29

regardless of indication, if the bikes have hit the van then they are at fault. shouldnt be over taking that close to a junction.

Raymond Lin said:
Your post is biased and it could easily been written as.

The Defendant of proceeding along X road when the Claimants drivnig down on their motorcycles (registration XYX123) proceeded alongside the Defendant's vehicle when the Defendant's vehicle suddenly turned without warning or indcating etc etc.

They were too close then, simply.

Raymond Lin · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:31

Morba said:
regardless of indication, if the bikes have hit the van then they are at fault. shouldnt be over taking that close to a junction.

They were too close then, simply.

And lastly, as always, no dependant witnesses, without solid physical evidence (i.e. skid marks from the scooters to show sudden braking to indicate excessive speed), then it will settle on 50/50.

Morba · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:45

the riders are saying they went into the van as it turned into a junction.
they are admitting fault right there, no?

Raymond Lin · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:50

Morba said:
the riders are saying they went into the van as it turned into a junction.
they are admitting fault right there, no?

Allegedly. According to the Defendant.

We only have 1 side of the story.

Morba · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:52

Raymond Lin said:
Allegedly. According to the Defendant.

We only have 1 side of the story.

What else could they be claiming if not that?
Would be interesting to hear the statements made at the time to the police.

ubersonic · 1 Jul 2011 at 11:54

Morba said:
Would be interesting to hear the statements made at the time to the police.

The statement at the time was that they didn't see the indicator. However after then had taken legal advice this changed to our driver had pulled over then set off again.

It does kinda suck that the odds are stacked against the victim in these cases doesn't it. Anyway were back in court next week for the second chav and our insurance company have said the defiantly will not go 50/50 on this one as he was following behind the first so had no excuse for being unable to stop

Matt82 · 1 Jul 2011 at 12:01

bledd. said:
So what if he didn't indicate? They've smacked into him no?

not really, he has turned right without checking for passing vehicles.

mirror, signal, manouver etc

alx · 1 Jul 2011 at 12:17

Matt82 said:
not really, he has turned right without checking for passing vehicles.

mirror, signal, manouver etc

True, but you shouldn't overtake near/at junctions which you could argue was the more serious error of judgement rather than a lack of checking mirrors.

Matt82 · 1 Jul 2011 at 12:30

but i feel the overtaker would have been able to check ahead for oncoming vehicles etc to decide whether it was safe

the van just didnt bother to loook or indicate, they didnt consider whether it was safe at all.

Morba · 1 Jul 2011 at 12:50

Matt82 said:
but i feel the overtaker would have been able to check ahead for oncoming vehicles etc to decide whether it was safe

the van just didnt bother to loook or indicate, they didnt consider whether it was safe at all.

Highway code:

167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

Matt82 · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:18

Morba said:
Highway code:

167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

yup, and as far as he could see there would be no conflict whilst overtaking, because teh van was not indicating

Kenai · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:24

Both parties have (potentially) made a mistake. They shouldn't have overtaken on a junction, he should have seen them in his mirror before he made any sort of manuever regardless of indicating or not.

Hence 50/50. Both parties made errors that could have led to the avoidance of the accident.

ubersonic · 1 Jul 2011 at 13:27

Morba said:
Highway code:

167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road

Matt82 said:
yup, and as far as he could see there would be no conflict whilst overtaking, because teh van was not indicating

Re-reads it matt, it says not to overtake near a junction, what you can/cannot see is irrelevant. Besides the van was indicating.

Kenai said:
he should have seen them in his mirror before he made any sort of manuever regardless of indicating or not.

He did see them in his mirror, they were behind him hence no threat to his manoeuvre, he didn't realise that they were travelling faster than him and would try and dash around him.