Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

car accident- not my fault, but losing my no claims


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5435 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I was in an accident last week which wasn't my fault, but my insurance company have rung to say that they want to settle 50-50 with the TP's. I was driving along and wanted to park in parking space on right side of road. I indicated, slowed right down, and then started to turn. As I turned a 4x4 overtook me so I was turning into her. As soon as I realised what was happening, I turned my wheel back. My car wasn't damaged, but she had a dent in the side, although not so bad that she couldn't open and shut doors easily. She told me that I wasn't indicating. I was. Now she is saying that I pulled away from a stationary position without indicating which is an outright lie. There are no witnesses. It makes no sense that I would have been parked on the left. It is a narrow road and there are double yellow lines on the left and parking spaces on the right. Is there any way I can fight this, so I don't lose my no claims bonus? I am so cross.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and Welcome, milly.

 

I'll move this thread to the appropriate Forum.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in an accident last week which wasn't my fault, but my insurance company have rung to say that they want to settle 50-50 with the TP's. I was driving along and wanted to park in parking space on right side of road. I indicated, slowed right down, and then started to turn. As I turned a 4x4 overtook me so I was turning into her. As soon as I realised what was happening, I turned my wheel back. My car wasn't damaged, but she had a dent in the side, although not so bad that she couldn't open and shut doors easily. She told me that I wasn't indicating. I was. Now she is saying that I pulled away from a stationary position without indicating which is an outright lie. There are no witnesses. It makes no sense that I would have been parked on the left. It is a narrow road and there are double yellow lines on the left and parking spaces on the right. Is there any way I can fight this, so I don't lose my no claims bonus? I am so cross.

 

Sorry to hear about your problems, im not gonna beat around the bush but it does sound very tricky and people like the lady in your case will lie to protect there own shes probally been told what to say by her insurance company !

 

Theres also a chance that the lady is covered by the same or underwritten by the same insurance company as you, in simpler terms they will say 50 /50, the company doesnt lose out but the customer does in a way.

 

I would challenge it and exaust the companies complaint procedure, also try to get a witness ;) this will help you a great deal, with a witness one of the many Accident Assistant Companies would take this on for you and also provide you with a like for like car, whilst yours is repaired or the claim settled, i would reccommend Enterprise Rent a Car.

 

Also if your no claims bonus is protected you will not lose your no claims bonus !

 

Hope you get things sorted soon.

The retailers worst nightmare !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it is a no-claims bonus, not a no-fault bonus. Therefore even if the accident is deemed to be 100% not your fault (which obviously it is not deemed to be in your case), you will still lose out if you make a claim. It's an absolutely disgusting practice but unfortunately almost all insurers do this as they try and convince you using meaningless statistics that you are more likely to cause an accident in future if you have been the victim of a non-fault accident.

 

You may be interested in this thread talking about a petition urging the govt. to force insurers to stop this practice of increasing the premiums of innocent accident victims. I think the petition has now closed (not sure though) but it's an interesting debate anyhow.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/141040-stop-car-insurance-companies.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to liability, it is a matter of proof. If there is not enough evidence to secure a win, then an insurer will go for partial liability.

 

The NCD aspect is as Tom said. Most people think it is a no blame discount, and I am sure that the problem lies in sales staff being too general and stating that if the accident is not your fault, you won't lose your discount. That's true so long as the insurer makes a full recovery. But as the victim of any "hit whilst parked" by unknown TP will attest, you will lose NCD.

 

When I worked at Direct Line, I put a proposal through which recommended the inclusion of a leaflet with all policy books explaining how insurance works in terms of excess, liability, NCD - probably the three most common areas of complaint. I was told it was a definite no because people would believe it would put people off buying insurance from them and they would go elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is case law to state that the driver of a vehicle overtaking a vehicle turning right is 100% to blame. Challoner v Williams as I recall. Sorry I don't have the full citation to hand.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you make a claim, and 100% of the cost is covered by a third party then it is a no fault claim, as opposed to a fault claim. Almost all insurance products will not penalise you in the case of your first no-fault claim (it is in their interest to assess your risk correctly, as if they overstate your risk they will lose the business to someone else). It is common practice to ignore any rate loadings for up to 2 no fault claims. After that and the judgement is that there is something about the way you drive that makes other people hit you ;)

 

 

So there is a very strong chance that you will not be penalised in your NCD if you can get the blame removed from you. Sadly it is common practice (in order to speed up claims to reduce expenses, and to lower legal expenses) for many insurers to have agreements with each other that over the course of a year they will have equal number of claims against each other, so let's just call everything 50/50. Terrible practice imo, and I hope it gets banned soon.

 

 

Definitely put up a fight to start with. If it comes to court then think carefully - even with judicial precedence blame allocation can be a lottery in the courts. But exhaust the complaints procedure / FOS routes first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't get banned. Otherwise the courts will be chocca again with claims that people have no reasonable chance of winning.

 

It's a simple matter. If there is no reasonable chance of success then an insurer will settle. The courts also expect it as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 50/50 is very fair. You turned without ensuring that it was safe to doi so. It doesn't matter whether she should or shouldn't have overtaken you there, it matters that you see her. A child is worng to lay down on the motorway, you are more wrong to drive over them!

 

Sorry, I don't think you have any case at all and I am a not surprised by the 50/50 as I think you were both at fault. Her for not seeing your indication, you for not seeing her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that the OP turned when it was not safe to do so. We do not have enough facts to make that assumption. That is why the issue of 50/50 has been raised in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to Britain's worst driver: I do not think that what you have said is right, if I have slowed down and indicated and positioned myself to turn and nothing is coming towards me from the other direction, it is not my responsibility to check that no one is overtaking me before turning. I have right of way on that side of the road. If I am wrong please let me know.

 

If a child was lying in the motorway and I was driving I would obviously try to avoid that child but I do not think that a court would feel that it was my responsibility, because a child should not be lying on the motorway in the first place, and reasonably, a person cannot be expected to be looking out for such hazrds in the normal course of events! I would say that the parents would be more at fault for not ensuring the child's safety! It is of course hypothetical, but my point is that one cannot predict other people's dangerous behavior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you turn right without bothering to look, then obviously it is your fault.

If you follow correct procedures and manouvers, made sure it was clear etc, and the TP cam zooming up behind you trying to overtake knowing you were turning right, then it is the TPs fault.

 

Its just not terribly easy to prove what happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...