Just had a near death experience :D

I'd stand by the fact it was a no fault claim and that their failure to follow up the case has lead to a situation that is now your word against theirs.

This sort of thing should not affect your no claims bonus because someone at the insurer couldn't be ***** to sort their customers claim out.
 
xs2man said:
Right, for a start, you were IN the doorway surely (well, behind the door)? Strapping your lad in. You were injured, yes? As it says in the original post, regardless of how minor. Did you claim anything for that? Did you take any pictures or anything?

Regardless, the fact you were behind the door means you couldn't have "just opened it right as the 3rd party passed", as if you were exiting out the rear door. Well, you could have, but then you'd be in the road anyway, which means either way, the third party wasn't giving you enough room, since you were on the road. There is a child seat there, do you have any clear pictures of that from the incident? While a child could have potentially opened the door, there are child locks in place for a reason. Do you have a receipt for the meal still (credit card slip or anything with the time?). That would show you were leaving the area, rather than arriving, so why would you be exiting out of the back door in that case?
Click to expand...

No receipts for the meal, I was injured slightly and my lads were shaken up for a while but I never claimed anything, I was just happy at the time that they told me it was non fault. It's looking likely to me that it will go 50/50 unless the witness can be persuaded to give a statement. If that's the case then I will move into rage mode and splash it all over twitter and get in touch with the financial subramanian, can't think of anything else to do.
 
When I worked in disputed claims we used to get cases like this and this was our stance:

If the damage to tp vehicle is on the front that indicates the door was already open.

If the damage to the tp vehicle is on the side, that indicates the door was opened as tp was passing.

This was few years back so there may have been some court cases which proved otherwise which are now.referred to.
 
A friend at work has just had "issues" with his insurance firm.

Around October last year someone drover down the side of his car.
Parked in the Metrocentre, he reported it, had police involved and the CCTV from the Metrocentre. It was confirmed that person "A" hit him, got out and checked, then drove off.

Their reply to the insurance company "wasn't me" insurance back and forth for months. CCTV deleted and of course the insurance company never requested it! they paid out for repairs to his vehicle. so he went to sell it and get a new car, only to be told they would insure him as the claim was still "outstanding" 3rd party had never paid and they wouldn't let him have proof of NCD until the claim was sorted. He's just been thru the ombudsman and won.

I'm beginning to think that if I ever hit anything and there's CCTV proof to just play dumb until the CCTV is deleted :p

sorry to hear about this OP but do let us know how you get on.
Important thing, everyone is ok
 
bainbridge said:
When I worked in disputed claims we used to get cases like this and this was our stance:

If the damage to tp vehicle is on the front that indicates the door was already open.

If the damage to the tp vehicle is on the side, that indicates the door was opened as tp was passing.

This was few years back so there may have been some court cases which proved otherwise which are now.referred to.
Click to expand...


This
 
I had loads of issues with Zenith . Ended up taking them to the insurance ombudsman 3 times over how they handled my case
 
Good luck with the claim, got nothing constructive to add other than my girlfriend had big issues with Zenith in a similar fashion.

My girlfriend was involved in an accident where someone rear ended her as she stopped for a red at a set of traffic lights, we had 2 witness statements, lots of pictures of the damage to both cars etc and despite this Zenith insisted on it going 50/50 because the third party (who tried initially denying they were ever in an accident) were stating it was a green light and my girlfriend randomly performed an emergency stop, 1 of the witness statements was actually from the car in front of her who stated the lights were red.

Zenith just didn't seem to care, just kept repeating the third party weren't claiming responsibility and wanted to go 50/50, we complained etc but nothing came of it so she went to the ombudsman and won, took almost a year though from the accident to it finally being settled and her not being at fault.
 
Hang on a min, somebody hit your PARKED car and now they claim it was your fault?

"**** off" would be my stance here my friend!
 
Scania said:
Hang on a min, somebody hit your PARKED car and now they claim it was your fault?

"**** off" would be my stance here my friend!
Click to expand...

I'd guess they are saying the door was opened with oncoming traffic. So it is the pedestrian's fault.

It's not quite the same as a parked car being hit either.

chaparral said:
Saw what happened in this clip at 2.45 and straight away thought of this thread

[*outube]5RAaW_1FzYg[/youtube]
Click to expand...

3:45 :eek:
 
Last edited:
wtf is going on with Russia, it's terrifying. Do they just apply for a licence and that's it? because they seem to use the roads however it pleases them, or pathways or other pedestrian passageways as seen by the "Stop A Douchebag" movement, and even the pedestrians are mad just running over the roads.

Madness.
 
esoteric said:
wtf is going on with Russia, it's terrifying. Do they just apply for a licence and that's it? because they seem to use the roads however it pleases them, or pathways or other pedestrian passageways as seen by the "Stop A Douchebag" movement, and even the pedestrians are mad just running over the roads.

Madness.
Click to expand...

This ^^

Judging from these videos, you'd need to be absolutely mental to drive in Russia. Most of them probably have a bottle of vodka or two to keep their nerves at bay.
 
Thought I would update for anyone that remembers this. My insurers rang me late last week and said they managed to track the witness down which made the 3rd party back down and claim responsibility, so good outcome and my no claims is unaffected. I will now cash that 100 quid. Check too.
 
I'm glad this came through for you in the end, but I do wish people like the driver in this case who change their story and falsify their testimony would be prosecuted for fraud. Might reduce the amount of this sort of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom