Coop--Third party - no response & other

[misterbe]

Hi,

I'm new to the UK, so not sure what my rights are.

 

Background

Arrived in the UK on 1 Sep, purchased car and took out 3rd party only from Direct Line and my wife was involved in accident outside school on 8 Oct. She was waiting in her lane with her indicator on, which was blocked by parked cars and road very busy around peak school pickup time. It's a school zone with school zone warning lights etc. When oncoming traffic cleared (bus and 6 cars), she proceeded and at this stage a guy came from behind and smashed into her from the side. Apparently he was going quite fast, because the witness which came from the front actually parked his car sideways in his lane, because he thought this guy was going to try and speed off.

We obviously think he is at fault and the witness quite strongly believes so too.

 

The witness's wife works for the police, so the witness helped my wife covering some of the basics, like getting the details, going home and immediately writing everything down, etc.

 

So on the 8th we notified our insurance company (Direct Line) and the 3rd party's (The Coop). We were asked by the Coop to send all the details through, so I emailed a copy of all the details, my wife's summary of the incident, sketch, photos and on the 11th I sent wide angle photos, google maps and a video of the road at the same time on the 11th to indicate how busy the road is and how blocked it is with parked cars at that time of day on school days.

 

The car is drivable with damage on the driver's door and driver sliding door (Chrysler Voyager) and the doors open fine. On 5 Nov the car would not start and had to be towed to a local shop. The problem is fuel line related and can be anything from the injectors to the fuel pump. It is unclear whether it is related to the accident; mechanic says unlikely, but not impossible. I contacted the Coop, on 8 Nov, after having spoken to them at least once a week and asked if we could get the accident damage fixed, while it was in the shop for the fuel problem. They said they will have it assessed, without accepting liability, I can pay and they will reimburse, if liability was established in our favour. They asked that I have the quote sent and also send a copy of the rental car agreement. We got the quote to them by the 12th and that day the Coop indicated that they would have the engineering department deal with it in 3 days. When I phoned on the 17th they promised to respond by the 19th. On the 19th the Coop had not replied and to boot they said they showed no recored of any communication between us apart from 8Oct when we notified them of the claim! On Monday, the 22nd, I sent the Coop an email, in which threatened to sue their policy holder directly, write a letter to Which?, complain to their customer relations department (mentioning the names of everyone that dealt with my claim), tell everyone I know to stay away from the Coop if they are looking for insurance, lodge a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman because they do not communicate with me (more later) and ensure I steer business (I work in the industry on the investment side) away from them where I can. The email stated that I would do all this unless they respond by the 26th. Guess what...no response.

 

Our problems are compounded by the fact that we have only one car. The fuel line problem has not been fixed and the car is going in again on Monday after we had it back this week, in the hope that the Coop would have had their engineers look at the car by the 26th

 

 

Questions

1. 1 The Coop has not contacted us once, despite several promises to get back to us. I have phoned several times and on several occasions asked to phone back because their phone systems are overloaded. My calls have been dropped while holding. Most worrying is that on the last call I was told that they have no record of any contacts apart from the one on 8 Oct when we notified them of the claim. This is very worrying. Can they just deny all the calls and all the info we sent to them?
   
2. 2 The Coop says they have not had a response yet from their policy holder and think he might be sick, have an emergency in the family, etc. Yet we see this guy working on a house close to our school, every day. Can something be done about this from our side?
   
3. 3 He filed a claim immediately after 8 Oct against Direct Line for £22.00 yet the photograph seem to indicate that his left fender was quite severely damaged. Is this significant?
   
4. 4 He denied liability to our insurance company, yet will not answer letters to his own insurance company. Can we sue him the small claims court for holding up the process like this. If only to agitate him to get him moving.
   
5. 5 I would just go ahead and have the car fixed out of my own pocket if I could, but obviously the Coop has to look at the car first, right? Is their anyway to have the car fixed in the meantime without compromising our claim against the 3rd party?
   
6. 6 Is there anything else we should be doing, which we are not?
   

 

Thanks,

M

[unclebulgaria67]

1) No. Companies have to record all calls these days and under FSA rules they have to enter notes onto their policy records after each call is received. So they should be aware of the calls from their system records. As long as you have record of the names of the Coop staff and date/times of calls, they should be able to track these calls down.

 

2) If you have the 3rd parties name and address details, you should think about issuing a letter before action, which is basically a letter stating that you are holding him responsible for the accident damage to your car and that you will be taking this matter to court if payment is not made within (say) 21 days. Suggest that he passes the letter to his Insurers. To substantiate the allegation in the letter, you should state that you have witnesses to his fault in the accident (but don't name them) and also provide a garage report detailing the damage, likely cause i.e. accident and how much the repair will cost. Also include details of any other costs that you will be including in any court claim e,g hire car and provide a cost of these to date, plus daily rate that you are incurring until the car is back on the road. Send the letter by recorded delivery and perhaps also send a copy to the Coop by recorded.

 

3) Not sure why he is claiming on your Direct Line policy. He may have been told to do this, so that he can argue 50/50 accident.

 

4) How do you know he is not in communication with the Coop ? Sounds like a game is being played here. Under the terms of his policy, it will state that he must report the accident to them and assist them with any matter regarding claims against the policy. Yes you can take him to court, but you need to send a letter before action first (see 2 above).

 

5) If Coop won't inspect, get an independent report on the damage to the car from the AA/RAC, in addition to garage details. You can recover the costs of the report from the Coop, if you are successful with your claim against them. They have had plenty of opportunity to inspect. You could go ahead with the repairs, but I would do this only when you have reports into the damage.

 

6) This is what you should have done. Once you had given the Coop reasonable time to act, you should have gone legal. It seems that their policyholder for whatever reason does not wish to cooperate with his Insurers or a game is being played. Perhaps he is hiding a case of non disclosure from them e.g points on licence, previous claims or does not wish to have a claim against him as this will increase his premium.

[misterbe]

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

 

1. Noted

2. Will do

3. What is a 50/50 accident and should I be doing anything from my side to prevent this; does not sound like a good thing.

4. The Coop told me so. Said they sent first letter had to wait 14 days, 2nd letter and now the 3rd has been sent. I have been on them at least once a week, so I followed that process. The Coop also contacted the witness when I asked them after the 2nd letter to their policy holder has been sent, why they have not contacted the witness. I believe the witness responded.

5. So what you are saying is that if I get the AA to give me a report too, to go with my one from the local garage, then I'm ok to go?

6. Would you mind providing more detail please? With "gone legal" do you mean the writing of the letter mentioned in 2. or something else?

 

Also, how do I handle the "fuel problem" issue. Just leave it out of it?

 

Thanks again!

[unclebulgaria67]

3) 50/50 means you would in effect share responsibility for the accident, but you would only obtain 50% for your losses. If you have witnesses and they have not, then you might get a settlement more in your favour. As they came from the rear to cause the accident in most cases in line with the highway code, they would be held 100% responsible for the accident. If you fight this and are prepared to go to court, if the accident description above is accurate, then you should win I would have thought.

 

5) Just in case Coop argue about what repairs were required it might be advisable to get an independent assessment, but this is your call. Just thinking that if the Coop ever queried the work you had done, you have another report to back up the garages assessment. Perhaps speak to the Coop, tell them you are fe up with this now, will be looking to get the work done and will be taking legal action against their policyholder. Ask them whether they would be happy with the garages assessment of works or whether they want to inspect or require another independent inspection. If they want another independent inspection, the costs of this will be included in the claim against their policyholder.

 

6) I think I would have issued the letter before action earlier and then if no response issued the small court claim. This would have forced the 3rd party to deal with this and to contact their Insurers Coop. Still a bit suspicious as to why they don't want to contact Coop. Something to hide. This is probably what is holding this up and stopping Coop from doing much.

 

Re fuel problem issue, this is where an independent AA/RAC inspection might give a view as to whether this relates to the accident.

[misterbe]

All very helpful thanks.

 

3) I think we have a good case. Also the witness seems quite ticked off. His got a kid that goes to the local school and for some reason he is quite upset with the way the other party was driving.

5)Will speak to the Coop on Monday and get the AA out to do an independent assessment.

6)When I contacted the Coop on 8 Oct the accident was already reported to them. However, after that they could not get the guy to respond to their letter for details about the accident. The Coop also stated to me that they cannot do anything until they have sent their policy holder three letters (each with 14 day response period). So the initial holdup was/is due to their policy holder, but the subsequent inability to get their engineers to ok our quote is the Coop's tardiness.

 

Again, thanks for the input.

[misterbe]

I just thought I will give the other party a quick call to hear what he says. We had a cordial discussion and he said that he sent off the information to the Coop more than three weeks ago.

I will have a quick word with the Coop on Monday and get out the letter before action out anyway.

[unclebulgaria67]

Make sure you keep Direct Line informed. Make sure they are repudiating the claim the 3rd party has submitted to them re the £22, whatever that was for.

 

Before you arrange AA inspection, have a chat to the Coop. You never know, with the witness statement and lack of cooperation from their policyholder they might be ready to soon authorise the garage to do the repairs on the basis their policyholder is 100% responsible.

[misterbe]

So I had a word with the Coop this morning and they informed me that they are going after Direct Line (my insurance company) for all the damages, since they are holding us 100% liable. They informed me that they are mainly basing this on the assertion of their policy holder that my wife was pulling out of a parking spot as opposed to what we are saying which is that she was waiting for oncoming traffic to pass before proceeding. The interesting part is that they said the witness supported their policy holder's version of the story; according to them he is apparently also saying she was pulling out of a parking spot. However, apart from the fact that it is simply not true, it does not square with the witness' original version of the events and he told me again today in response to my explanation of what the Coop is saying that "I said that xxx(my wife) was pulling out from behind some parked cars once the traffic had passed her. Additionally she was indicating all the time and my diagrams shows the positioning of her car both before and after. I am more than willing to stand up in court and give a detailed account of what happened. xxx(my wife) was not at fault."

 

I informed Direct Line and they are now going to speak to the Coop and get the various pieces of information that the Coop has.

 

Anyway, this is obviously a turn of events, so how do I proceed from here?

 

Thanks again for your time and input.

[unclebulgaria67]

This is all down to the witness. If he sides with the 3rd party, you will have a fault claim against the policy and have to pay your own uninsured losses e.g. damage to your car as you only had 3rd party cover and also any hire car costs. If he sides with you, then the claim could be pursued against the 3rd parties Coop policy.

 

Sounds like the witness has changed their mind and made another statement to the Coop. Not much you can do, if DL decide to pay out and not take to court. You could take the matter to court yourself, but the chances are with a witness against you, is that you will lose and incur further costs for making the court claim.

 

If you know the witness, you could contact them to find out if they have changed their mind about what happened.

[misterbe]

Thank you for the reply.

I am in contact with the witness and he has not given me any reason to believe that he is not siding with our version of events. He said that he was quite clear that he thinks their policy holder was at fault and he definitely did not indicate that my wife pulled out from a parked position. However, I think it will be clear from his written statement if his statement indicates differently (I strongly doubt it) or that it can be misconstrued (maybe). For instance I can see that if he says "my wife pulled out from behind parked cars" that the Coop will conveniently construe that as meaning my wife was also parked and conveniently ignore his diagram which apparently clearly indicates that she was not parked.

Anyway, once we have his documents one would probably make a more reasonable assessment of where the Coop is coming from.

 

I suppose the good thing is that Direct Line is now also looking at this.

• 1 However, is the fact that the claim against them is only £22 a factor that could jeopordise the case for me?
  
• 2 Also, do I just stay put until Direct Line is done or do I need to go ahead with the letter before action?
  

Edited November 29, 2010 by misterbe
Not finished

[unclebulgaria67]

Keep in touch with DL and do nothing for now. Perhaps DL would also like a witness statement also, so that they can defend any claim against the policy. This might also benefit you. I would not be issuing any letter before action, until I had seen a clear witness statement.

 

As for the £22 what is that for ? Can't see DL having anything to do with that until they now whether their is any liability on the part of their policyholder.

 

As a by the way. In the UK, often third party cover is not much cheaper than fully comprehensive. In addition having the optional legal expenses cover can come in handy.

[misterbe]

OK great will revert when things have developed a bit more.

DL said they will contact the witness today and the witness confirmed he was contacted.

The £22 is the other party's damages, which he is claiming from me/DL, since they are now contending that we are liable. Just thinking DL might think, what the hell, its only £22...

[Endymion]

Quick question to the OP which will be quite critical to your claim/defence. Did your wife look in the mirror before setting off from her stationary manouevre and if so could she not see the third party coming towards her?

[misterbe]

Hi,

As mentioned the Coop's policy holder maintains my wife pulled out from a parking spot. However, that is not true; my wife was driving and had to stop because there were parked cars blocking her lane and oncoming traffic for which she had to wait before proceeding. The Coop maintains the witness supports their policy holder.

Now, I have been able to see a copy of the witness statement and the only reference to parked cars is that he is saying my wife pulled out from behind the parked cars. The witness was approaching my wife as part of the oncoming traffic (for my wife), so from his point of view she pulled out from behind the parked cars. Of course this is correct, because my wife's way was blocked by the parked cars, "behind" which she had to wait for the oncoming traffic to pass. However, he did not say she pulled out from a parking spot. He also clearly indicates in his sketch the parked cars and my wife's car, by firstly describing them as "parked cars" and showing those up against the curb and my wife's car half a car length away from the curb. He further mentions that the policy holder was speeding and was at fault.

I am obviously biased here, but why do I (a) get the sense that the Coop is stretching the witness' statement here and if so (b) is this normal behavior for insurance companies.

 

Endymion,

Good question and the short answer is I don't know. She says she did look, but I think what makes it different in this case is that it is not the normal check my mirror and go routine. That road is extremely busy at that time of day with school coming out. The road is all parked up, you have kids everywhere and my wife mentioned there was a man with his kid waiting for her to proceed so he kid load his kid into the car parked in front of her. So maybe its a case of the delay from checking your mirror to going was a bit longer than usual and the witness in his statement says the guy was speeding which is also a factor. I don't know, just my opinion. Also, if I was waiting to proceed and had my indicator on and checked my mirror and saw a car approaching from the back I would not think much of it unless I was driving very defensively.

However, she had the right of way, so surely it does not excuse the other guy if one assumes she incorrectly judged his speed?

 

Thanks for the input.

[Endymion]

Hmm, the independent witness evidence does not give your case a lot really. I would say this would be 50-50 if you went to Court. Remember speed is not an act of negligence unless proven and you can only prove speed by a correctly calibrated instrument or investigation. Just because someone says they were speeding will not make any difference to the court.

[misterbe]

I have now been able to have the witness clarify his position and he is of the view that my wife was certainly not parked. So would this then mean we are not in the clear because my wife should have avoided the accident by not proceeding, because she should have seen this guy is coming too fast from behind? Surely you are not allowed to overtake someone in a situation like that?

[Endymion]

I presume the TP will say that he saw your wife stationary at the side of the road and that he did not know she was waiting for oncoming traffic and didn't think she would just pull out. The independent witness evidence will go someway to back him up on this. As such, it is encumbant on your wife, irrespective of whether she was only temporarily sitting waiting to traffic to clear, to ensure that when she moves off it is safe to do so. As she moved off she was (presumeably) hit immediately, then ergo it was not safe for her to pull out.

 

As I have said previously, speeding is not an act of ngeligence in civil law unless you can prove it, which you cant. However, saying that, I think the Court will also find that it would have been apparent that the TP could have seen your wife and if the independent witness can confirm she was indicating, then the Court will probably see that progressing past your wife's vehicle without some more caution is negligent and therefore a finding of 50-50 is likely.

 

These things are definitely difficult to predict. A good barrister on the day in Court can turn a clear case into the most murky and problematic case you can have and if your witness doesn't give oral evidence then his statement will not be given much weight. All problems and why most cases don't go to Court as nothing is clear cut.

[misterbe]

Endymion,

I find your input very helpful, especially because its not sugar coated.

The TP does claim my wife was pulling out of a parking spot, which if it was true, would obviously mean she had to wait for any traffic from the rear to pass.

 

I am 100% sure we can count on the witness to confirm that my wife was waiting for the traffic to clear, that she was indicating, that his overall assessment is that the TP was at fault and for what it's worth that the TP was speeding. I am also 100% sure he is prepared to testify in court. If it was you, would you be comfortable going to court on that basis, if it were to come to that?

 

Lastly the damages, to my layman's eye, indicate nothing close to a 45 degree angle, the impact was more like 10-30 degrees. For me this implies that he was more trying to somehow squeeze past her than driving into her, because she cut him off. Is this relevant?

 

Thanks.

[Endymion]

If it is going to be a small claims matter i.e. less than £5k then I would go to Court everyday of the week as there are no real costs penalties for losing or a finding of contributory negligence. If it was over £5k then I would settle on best terms.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that there was an impact and I think you will have to go a long way to persuade a Court that your wife looked in her mirror(s) and in her blind spots and pulled off from her stationary position when it was safe to do so. I just cannot see a Judge concluding that your wife was completely free of fault in this matter as the impact occurred as soon as she pulled out from her position. The TP's car must have been obvious due to the very short time delay from manoeuvre to impact.

 

She can use the 'I thought he would stop' argument, but then so can the TP by saying 'I though she wouldn't pull out' - again a 50/50 stalemate.

 

The independent witness evidence may well help, but then this will be only of an aid to you if this evidence persuades a Judge that the situation you describe i.e. waiting for stationary traffic, was inherently evident to the TP - bearing in mind he was driving behind and had not experienced the same set of circumstances as the witness and your wife, but in any event, your wife still pulled out when unsafe to do so, so it may not do you any good anyway!

 

Courts make weird, wonderful and downright bizarre decisions every day. You could go to Court and win outright, you could also lose outright and of course come come away with a split liability decision. No-one can give you a cut-and-dry gaurantee of what will be the outcome.

 

If you want to win it, you need to concentrate in your wifes witness evidence that she checked all her mirrors and blind spots etc and also try and get the independent witness to comment on whether the TP's car would have been evident to your wife - if they can both truthfully say such a thing. If you don't do this then TP's barrister will have a field day with your wife in Court and you will have a mountain to climb as they will suggest that you have just made it up and how could you remember this x months/years down the line. Get a signed statement of truth from your wife and the independent witness asap to combat this - but don't lead the witness...

 

Hope this helps.

[misterbe]

It definitely helps, thanks. Damages looks to be coming in under £2k (bodywork and rental car), so small claims court it is. Will get a signed statement of truth; thanks for the heads up.

[misterbe]

DL concluded that my wife as at fault, because in their opinion the other party was already in the flow of traffic when my wife started her maneuver. It is noteworthy that the Coop dropped any claims for damages and our policy is third party only, so incentives might have played a role.

 

Ok, that is all fair and well, but what I don't understand is the following,

 

Firstly, How come I feel it strains logic to say that a user behind me can have the right of way if I'm waiting for oncoming traffic to clear and I am indicating to go. What gives the user behind me the right to go before me? It does not make sense to me.

Secondly, since I'm new to the UK I thought I will take a quick look at your highway code and section 167 seems to apply to my wife's situation.

 

direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314

 

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 (my underlining and this happened before a junction from the left)

where the road narrows

when approaching a school crossing patrol

between the kerb and a bus or tram when it is at a stop

where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works

when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down

at a level crossing

when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled (my emphasis)

stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left

when a tram is standing at a kerbside tram stop and there is no clearly marked passing lane for other traffic

 

So when does the following not apply? when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled

 

Thanks.

[Endymion]

Unfortunately, 168 is your answer

 

168

 

Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.

 

As I thought earlier, your insurers consider that the TP was the road user who had the right of way and your wife would be classed as stationary and therefore as the TP went past or was about to, your wife moved and so technically in breach of rule 168 as your wife has technically obstructed the TP.

 

The highway code has two different meanings. Do Not is advisory and can be disregarded (albeit with great criticism if you do) whereas Must Not means you are not allowed to do this and would be breaking the law if you did not comply with the rule. Confusing I know, even to us locals.

 

Personally, I would say that a 50/50 would be a more even result as the TP can be criticised as you rightly point out that he has disregarded rule 167. I would challenge DL to try and get a contribution from the TP.

[misterbe]

Gotcha.

 

Please explain how I go about challenging DL and what do you mean by getting a contribution?

[Endymion]

Call up DL and tell them politely that they are idiots and that there clearly has to be some contributory negligence on behalf of the TP as you have independent witness evidence that confirms that your wife was indicating to pull out as she was waiting for traffic to clear, hence the TP should have appreciated the self evident situation, should have not tried to overtaken or have slowed down to a speed that would allow him to stop or take such action as to avoid an accident.

 

Although saying this, if DL have admitted liability, then you are stuffed as you, when signing the policy of insurance, pretty much give them carte blanche to do what they want - within reason.

[misterbe]

..and with DL having done that it puts me one a very bad footing going to the small claims court?