Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I'm new to this forum but I have a serious question that needs answering. I guess the title will give you a hint. Please can someone read my story and provide a little bit of their expertise. I really appreciate it. I hope this is the correct forum for my case.
The background:
I was involved in a car accident on 26/10/07. It wasn't my fault.
I instructed an accident management company to take my case on a "No Win No Fee" basis. They arranged a firm of solicitors to deal with this case. I was also given a hired vehicle for the duration of the claim by another vehicle management company.
My solicitor chased the third party's insurance as to the whereabouts of their client several days after the accident. It took about 4 months for the insurance to respond and admit liability.
I was paid out in full for the repair to my car as well as injury costs on 24th April 2008. My vehicle went into the garage for repair on 25th April 08 and returned on 14th May 08.
I returned the hired vehicle on 14th May 08.
The situation now as it stands is that the Third Party's Insurance is not willing to pay the outstanding costs of hire of £56,000.
As far as I'm concerned it would appear that I have been settled for the repair of my car as well as my injury costs. What further involvement do I have in this case with regards to the hire?
The Third Party's Insurance have issued a "part 18 - Request for further information". The case has not even got as far as the court. Do I have to supply them with this information? What are my legal duties? What will happen if I don't?
Why would they be asking for this information?
Are they looking for a way out for not paying the £56,000 hire charges?
The questions they have posed are a deep intrusion into my financial affairs. Is this relevant to the case? Are they trying to prove that I had enough funds to repair my own car EVEN though I was not at fault?
I haven't heard of a case where someone who is not at fault should have to fit the bill for the repair to their own car.
Please can someone advise on the part 18 request and where do I stand in legal terms. The case has not as yet proceeded to court. I'm worried about the outcome of this, especially if it proceeds to court even though I'm not at fault.
I can't say I am surprised they are refusing to pay as you are supposed to keep your losses to a minimum, £2k per week on car hire is far from that - or have I misread something ?
I forgot to mention that I'm a chauffeur and I drive an E-Class Mercedes. So to replace my car (on a hire basis) would cost around £225 + VAT per day. Later this car was replaced by an S-Class Mercedes for about 4 months (charged at £275 + VAT per day).
My solicitors instructed me to stay in credit hire until my vehicle was repaired, which I did. I only followed their advice.
Sorry I was so amazed at the figure I forgot to answer the question.
Yes they are entitled to ask for a part 18 as if this went to court part 27 would not apply as be on multi-track. You should reply to it then you can't be accused of not assisting.
Even better option would be to give to your solicitor to deal with as it was part of the claim and they will know the terms of settlement.
I think the Third Party's Insurance is trying to prove that I had enough funds to pay for the repair of my own car i.e to mitigate my losses. Unfortunately, as it happens I did not have enough funds (proven through bank statements) before, during or after the hire until I was paid by the Third Party's Insurance on 24th April 08.
So it seems like this; my solicitor thinks they can win this case and as you mentioned 'make more money'.
But why am I being questioned for part 18? Surely the other party is trying scare tactics with me by asking detailed financial information from me or asking me to admit information from which they think may find a weakness to my case.
I suspect as you needed a similar car to yours for work then they can't argue.. You followed advice from your lawyer and that's all you can do.
I presume you were only covered third party then ?
I would keep detailed discussions of a pending court case OFF the board - and not send any PMs about it either. Lots and lots of people scan the board, some of them do it to look for things that can be used against posters.
But as to why they need all my financial information I don't really understand what they are trying to get at.
part 18 questions are used to trap people. I would guess in this case they are trying to establish that you had enough money or credit available to fund the repairs. Be careful that you answer truthfully because you will have to swear that the evidence is true. They may well think they know something
You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.
If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.
If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales
Having had a fairly major accident myself a couple of years ago, I am amazed no repairs were started until liabilities were admitted and paid as you are fully comp.
Usually if that is the case repairs can be started immediately authorised and paid for by your own insurer as irrelevant of whose fault it is you are entitled to a full repair. Your insurer then usually pursues repayment from the 3rd party insurance. All things being equal, they normally can have this resolved before your repair is finished and if it isn't they pay for the repair (minus your excess which you pay) whilst they continue the claim. When it is repaid by the 3rd party you also get your excess back.
I can't help wondering if this became too complex and time consuming, (not to mention costly) just because you involved an "accident management company"?
I have never needed to use one and fail to follow what they are supposed to do for you that your own fully comp insurance company couldn't.
My own insurance would only supply a hire vehicle for 14 days ONLY. After that period it is up to me to pay for hire until my vehicle was repaired. Clearly I couldn't afford to do that so I went to this "accident management company" who informed me that I could stay in hire until my vehicle was repaired.
Part 18 Request for further information
- Request for further information". The case has not even got as far as the court. Do I have to supply them with this information? What are my legal duties? What will happen if I don't?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by HD1080P
