Hi all. Hope someone who knows their way around this subject can give us some guidance.

My wife was involved in an accident a couple of weeks ago. Circumstances were that she was halfway round a mini roundabout turning right when the lady approaching in her car from the opposite direction intending to carry straight on pulled out in front of my wife's car which went into the side of this other car. Wife a bit shook up but they exchanged details etc. and carried on. The lady who was in front of my wife also stopped and confirmed that she had seen my wife indicate to turn right and also seen the other car pull out after my wife before hearing the bang and gave my wife her details in case she needed a witness. We did the usual i.e. phoned the insurance company, filled in the claim form and our car was duly dropped of for repair (getting it back tomorrow). There was one curious thing our insurance company told us while reporting the bump - the other lady did not appear on the insurance policy for the other car. This doesn't mean that she has no insurance but may well be fully comp on another car and thus 3rd party for the one she was driving.

Couple of days later this firm of well known 'ambulance chasers' called us and asked my wife to verify her registration number as their 'client' had given them the wrong one. They then asked my wife if we were intending to 'dispute it'. We were a bit confused but referred them to our insurance company.

Today we recieved a letter claiming damages on behalf of the other lady stating that my wife failed to give way to the other car, failed to drive with due care by not braking, steering etc. Claim is for the usual - personal injury, earnings etc. Surely this is insurance fraud! My wife has 9 years no claims protected so the max we are liable for would be the £100 excess on the policy but as a point of principle we would not like our insurance company to pay one penny of this claim. Can anyone advise what to do or is it better just to let our insurers get on with it. We have heard that if they are worried about potential costs that insurance companies have a tendency to settle 'knock for knock' but would be totally against them agreeing to this.

if your wife was already on or going around the roundabout then she had the right of way, if this lady then drove onto the roundabout whilst your wife was on there, she is to blame (I am a bit confused about your description, it is probably me lol).

I would refuse to talk to any other insurance company, i surely wouldnt be correcting them as to the licence plate. But yes, contact your insurance company and say that you feel that this is a fraudulent claim.

Thanks for that Lula. I did phone the police about 2 hours after the accident to report it but the guy in the call centre said that as nobody was injured it would be a civil matter and one for the insurance companies to sort out. 3 things - 1. Now that it appears that someone is in fact injured (or looking for the big windfall that helps to keep insurance premiums as high as they are!) could I now report this accident to the police? (feel that the other lady's recollection may change somewhat if asked to provide a statement)2. Is it possible to report this as an attempted fraud to the police? and 3. The wording on the claim from the solicitor explicitly states "we are alleging that you failed to drive without due care and attention" - is driving without due care and attention not an offence under the Road Traffic Act and are they allowed to make these allegations?

Can you confirm that the other driver 'entered' the roundabout in front of your wife

Can you confirm that your wife was turning right

Do you now what route on leaving the roundabout the other driver was intending to take

Can you confirm how many lanes there are on the roundabout (2 3) & which one your wife was in nearside, offside, centre???

Can you describe the damage to both your wife's car & the other drivers

I suspect what they are claiming is that even though the other driver had entered the roundabout in front of your wife they are saying the 3rd party was far enough ahead for your wife to take evasive action to avoid a collision if she had been driving competently

In a "your word against theirs" situation, the insurance company will often simply pay up as it is often less than trying to get to the bottom of the situation unfortunately.

A small diagram would be helpful here if at all possible - or even better a photo of the roundabout in question...?

I suspect what they are claiming is that even though the other driver had entered the roundabout in front of your wife they are saying the 3rd party was far enough ahead for your wife to take evasive action to avoid a collision if she had been driving competently

On a mini roundabout, this is highly unlikely - if it is genuinely a "mini roundabout".

However, I am very confused about where "this other car" comes into it. I cannot picture this accident at all....

Roundabout on a T Junction. Not quite a mini as there is a roughly 1m diameter slightly raised circle in the middle. Bar of the T heading north/south with other leg heading west. My wife was heading south intending to turn west(right). Other car was heading north intending to carry on north. Witness car in front of ours heading south intending to continue south. At the entrance to roundabout south heading road splits into 2 lanes with the left lane for those continuing south and the right for those turning right(west). My wife moved across to the right lane and as there was no car approaching from her right(west) started to turn right around the roundabout.There are no hazards in the middle of the roundabout to limit visibility of all entrances/exits. As she reached the apex of the turn the other car pulled out without warning heading north and my wife was unable to avoid crashing into the side of the other car doing quite extensive front end damage to our car and damage to the side of the other car. The witness was travelling south also but intended to continue south so moved into the left hand lane and as my wife pulled alongside her to her right moved onto the left hand side of the roundabout. She has told us that she saw the other party's car stopped as both she and my wife pulled away and she also saw my wife indicating to turn right. I cannot think of any circumstances in which this other person can claim she had entered the roundabout first save that she either purposefully stopped just after entering the roundabout or broke down. The claim alleges my wife failed to give way but as the other party's path did not cross in front of my wife this seems very strange.

So:

- The car she hit was the car heading north and intending to carry on north.

- This is the same car that is claiming.

Correct?

In that case I fail to see what the hell they are wittering on about. If they are saying your wife failed to give way, give way to who????? IT sounds as if they are treating it as a standard junction as opposed to a roundabout!

Actually Steve - I am from near Newcastle - care to mention exactly which roundabout it is as I may know it?

I agree with Mr Shed the 3rd party is in the wrong........period

I really do think they are trying it on & are trying to claim that because you wife t-boned the 3rd party that 3rd party was 'established' & that your wife should have taken avoiding action.

To explain, the law is such that having 'right of way' is not a complete defense. If I see another vehicle enter the main road from the left & even though it may impede my progress I can't just hit it.

If I have time to avoid it, irrespective of who is at fault. I should avoid it

Don't want to reveal the exact location MrShed - never know who's lurking. JonCris - wife reckons she had no chance of stopping as other car came out too fast and without any warning. Have been to the roundabout and tried to retrace my wife's path as fast as possible to see if it was possible for us to be in the wrong so to speak but only managed 10mph at the point of impact due to the tightness of the bend which would have given any car moving straight over ample time to be clear of my path unless they were driving an HGV or something similar and don't for the life of me know how this lady managed to sustain these injuries at such low speed of impact. Probably suffering from a ruptured purse or broken piggy bank! In general I am against these type of claims and the solicitors that seem to chuck them round like confetti. Just means the rest of us have to pay and in general viewed as a victimless bonus for the inconvenience of having a crash in the first place.

Forgot to mention the 3rd part probably claimed your wife turned without warning & they are relying on this

Phoned insurance co. & told them about this claim letter. The person on the other end just laughed and told us to forward both the letter and the scary questionnaire citing Road Traffic Act this & that all over it which I would imagine they expect to be returned. One other unusual thing I noticed - in the section headed Funding it states that the solicitors are obtaining an 'After the Event Insurance policy' and to advise them if we know that their client had a 'Before the Event Insurance policy'. WTF is that all about?

"After the event" v "before the event".

These are effectively types of legal expenses insurance.

Before the event is often sold at the same time as the motor insurance policy to the motorist and costs about £10-£15.

After the event is sold later, after you have had the accident. Typically by, via or to the solicitor who has formed a view of your chances of success. Much more expensive and the cost is often part of the legal costs charged against the claimants. The court will usually allow a set amount before challenging it (I forget exactly how much but I think it's about £250 ish).

Wow, so many questions on this one.

First off - After the Event (ATE) Insurance is a type of legal expenses insurance policy that provides cover for the costs incurred in the pursuit or defence of litigation. Basically, the other party didn't have legal cover in place to cover the cost of persuing a claim for injuries, so they arrange it 'after the event' in the hope they win damages.

Secondly don't worry about the legal jargon used on the letters you have received, it's legal speak and isn't actually an accusation that could or would lead to charges been brought.

Thirdly, best course of action is to do what your insurers have advised and send all the paperwork off to them and let them deal with it.

From what you have said it looks like an 'opportunist' claim, in that the other person or persons acting for them sniff compensation, it's getting more and more common but the good news is that insurers are getting more and more resilient in their handling of such.

Without a sketch and road map of the actual place of incident I wouldn't be in a position to comment on likely arguments or liability splits, but then again I don't have to, you have your insurers acting for you.

I'd seriously advise letting them deal with it and only posting back if you need something explaining.

Mossy

(PS It wasn't a duplicate post I started typing this reply up went for a coffee and came back, finished it and Bernie had already answered some of the questions)

Mossy is correct the jargon is simply a standard template used when submitting a claim to the other party.

Unless I'm missing something I feel the discussion about before or after insurance is irrelevant to the OP

I too think it's an opportunist claim as I suspect she only had 3rd party cover & if she can't claim off you then she's buggered.

It's almost certain that she's claiming "the other car came from nowhere" (wish I had a quid for every time I have heard that) implying your wife didn't indicate but as you say you have a witness she did so the 3rd party is stuffed. Just make sure you give that witnesses details to your insurer

Forgot to mention the only reason for the 3rd party solicitor to mention the insurances is because if their client already has BEI & they take out AEI they won't get paid.....so best to check

Unless I'm missing something I feel the discussion about before or after insurance is irrelevant to the OP

Like answering the OP's question, perhaps?

I like others did answer the OP question. Perhaps you should read the thread.

My point is how the 3rd party is funding their action is irrelevant to the OP

I like others did answer the OP question. Perhaps you should read the thread.

That's neither necessary nor helpful. Of course I read the thread

My point is how the 3rd party is funding their action is irrelevant to the OP

But that wasn't what you said. What you said was

. . . I feel the discussion about before or after insurance is irrelevant to the OP

And what I said is that the relevance is that it was answering a question posed by the OP!

I entirely agree that it potentially matters not one jot to the OP's case how the TP is funded but the OP asked for an explanation of some terminology.

Then don't make sarcastic remarks bernie

Anyway I agree what you say but the explanation was given when asked

Then don't make sarcastic remarks bernie

 

Anyway I agree what you say but the explanation was given when asked

No sarcasm intended. I simply thought that perhaps you missed the fact that it was the OP who asked the question!

To flesh out a few extra points:

Ambulance Chasers are effectively a sort of low cost no-win-no-fee personal injury solicitor. Insurance companies have seen TPI (Third Party Injury) payouts go through the roof the last few years due to the popularity of these companies and the difficulty in establishing exactly what went on. Problem is that these days so many people try to commit fraud (yes OP you are right that this is fraud) by trying to claim difficult-to-prove injuries such as whiplash. This alone probably adds about 20% onto your motor insurance premium alone (so if your premium is about £200, then £40 of what you pay is to cover people who try this on, which makes me pretty angry and should make everyone else angry too!).

When you enter a claim, even if you believe that it is not your fault, then the claims team will set a reserve. This is setting aside a pot of money to pay the claim as a sort of worse case scenario. Then the insurance company will either increase or decrease this amount based on new evidence. For example if you broke your legs and needed physio and had to be off work for 3 months they'd set a reserve to cover 3 months of wages, but if the operation to fix it went wrong and you needed 6 months off then they'd increase the reserve. Generally decreases are caused by a change in liability. So say there was an accident they thought was 50/50 then your insurance company would pay half and the other one would pay half. If it turned out that the other person was driving dangerously (say speeding) then they would renegotiate the liability.

The challenge is that without strong evidence (ie a witness or video) then these sort of collisions are very difficult to prove as being 100% liable to one person because it becomes your word vs theirs (and insurance companies have to assume that you are telling the story in a way that is favourable to you). Now say this argument from the other person cannot be refuted (and I hope that it is because it sounds ridiculous) then your insurer might accept to settle at, say 10% liability towards you rather than argue it out. Additionally extra claims such as whiplash can force the payout to be higher, and even 10% of this is more than nothing.

The difficult thing is that the third party might not even be the main force behind this, as these ambulance chaser companies can be very aggressive, and most likely have written a whiplash claim to her own insurance company to try and get more money off of them as well. You are doing the right thing by letting your insurer deal with this all, as they are best placed to help you, so this was more as extra information than advice as such.

Wulfyn sorry but I keep reading this rubbish quoted ad infinitum on the basis I assume that if you repeat a falsehood often enough people begin to believe it

This nonsense has been perpetrated by the insurance industry ably assisted by the media looking for headlines for almost a decade & it's not true despite what is read in the papers.

Claims of all kinds & particularly personal injury have dropped 10% since 1997. This research has been conducted by both the government & perhaps more importantly the insurance industry.

Unfortunately but to the delight of the insures this fact has not been widely reported then I suppose 'Compensation Culture' & 'Ambulance Chaser' has a better ring to it never mind it if it's not true