MIB advice please

[diablo989]

Hi,

I'm looking forsome advice where the MIB are looking to recover £6825 from me. At no point did they contact me that they will be settling this amount despite me being in touch with them. I contacted them about this and the customer service manager has replied stating that they had sufficient evidence of the damage and injury so proceeded to settle. Is this right?

 

Their site says the following -

Why do you need the permission of the uninsured motorist to deal with my claim?

Even uninsured motorists have the right in law to deal with their own affairs, and the agreement does not permit us to ignore their rights. However, if the uninsured motorist does not co-operate, we will tell you what options appear to be available to progress your claim.

 

I would have disputed the amount although I admitted liability as it was a very very minor rear end bump with no damage to my car and none appearing on the other drivers except scuff marks.

 

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[T.C.]

The fact that the MIB were involved, I assume (and I am not making judgement here) you were uninsured at the time of the crash?

 

When the MIB become involved they in essence become the defendant insurers and assume all rights of the uninsured or untraced party.

 

As a result, there is no obligation to consult you, and they will agree what is regarded as a reasonable settlement with the third party and then go after the uninsured party to recover those costs or at least a substantial part of those costs.

 

You need to contact the MIB and discuss the matter directly with them, but do not hold your breath, they are also in any case something of a law onto themselves anyway.

[diablo989]

Yes, although insured I unfortunately was driving without the right cover for the car I was using at the time.

 

It seems that although I admitted fault, I am at the mercy of the claimant exaggerating the injury and damage and being bled for as much of a payout as possible which MIB are happy to go along with.

 

Is there any way around this ie. disputing the amount or negotiating a settlement?

[T.C.]

Yes, although insured I unfortunately was driving without the right cover for the car I was using at the time.

 

It seems that although I admitted fault, I am at the mercy of the claimant exaggerating the injury and damage and being bled for as much of a payout as possible which MIB are happy to go along with.

 

Is there any way around this ie. disputing the amount or negotiating a settlement?

 

If there is a suggestion that the claim has been falsified by the third party, for example a false personal injury claim, then you can ask the MIB ot flag this up and re-investigate as they can also refer it to the Insurance Fraud Bureau which is run by the City of London Police but covers insurance claim frauds nationally.

 

But you still really need to speak to the MIB and then if you get no joy, then try speaking to the Insurance Ombudsman and get their take on things.

[diablo989]

Thanks for the quick reply. Also you mentioned in your first post that MIB become the defendant insurers and assume all rights of the uninsured or untraced party and as a result, there is no obligation to consult you however the faq says the following -

 

Why do you need the permission of the uninsured motorist to deal with my claim?

Even uninsured motorists have the right in law to deal with their own affairs, and the agreement does not permit us to ignore their rights. However, if the uninsured motorist does not co-operate, we will tell you what options appear to be available to progress your claim.

 

Does'nt this suggest the opposite?

[T.C.]

Thanks for the quick reply. Also you mentioned in your first post that MIB become the defendant insurers and assume all rights of the uninsured or untraced party and as a result, there is no obligation to consult you however the faq says the following -

 

Why do you need the permission of the uninsured motorist to deal with my claim?

Even uninsured motorists have the right in law to deal with their own affairs, and the agreement does not permit us to ignore their rights. However, if the uninsured motorist does not co-operate, we will tell you what options appear to be available to progress your claim.

 

Does'nt this suggest the opposite?

 

This is why you need to speak to them yourself. They have previous for ignoring their own rules, and you can always use this as a stick to get an answer before going to the ombudsman

[diablo989]

Yeah I did but they said that they felt they had sufficient evidence to settle the claim. I have put a SAR through, I'll wait for the info and then contact them further as I feel that they just did as they pleased with letting me know even if there opinion is that the evidence was sufficient.

Thanks for the advice T.C

[dw190]

Thats in the FAQ's because it is a right of the uninsured to deal with the matter by making settlement to the T/P.

 

When you say you had insurance but not the right cover, what cover did you have as insurers would normally deal with the T/P element of a claim.

[diablo989]

Yes I would have settled at an appropriate figure not something as ridiculous as £6825. No I was not covered to drive the car all necessary enquiries were made to this with my insurance company and nothing could bbe done.

[Ganymede]

Hi diablo,

 

Could you tell us more about the accident circumstance please? It might help with understanding the MIBs decision.

 

Thanks.

[diablo989]

Yes, below is the letter that I sent to the MIB customer services manager which would give you an idea as to whats gone on. Essentially, I have bumped into the rear of a vehicle on the motorway, we both pulled to the hard shoulder exchanged details and taken photos. There were only light scuff marks to the vehicle with no damage to mine either. The driver also was fine with no complaints of injury. After finding out I was not insured MIB got in touch and the rest the letter explains -

 

I write to you in reference to a letter I received from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) on 27/03/12 regarding a collision which occurred on 20/02/12 whilst I was driving my car. The reference number to this letter is. After subsequent contact with the MIB, it was arranged for a claims inspector from Ravenstone UK to attend my home address, interview me and obtain a statement detailing the incident. The statement was completed and I was informed by the claims inspector that MIB would be in touch with me soon after with an update.

Approximately two weeks passed with no contact/update therefore I phoned MIB only to be informed that the matter was still being investigated. I placed another call approximately two months later only to be informed of the same. I left the matter at this point believing MIB would contact me and update me of their findings and allow me to present supporting evidence and contest any matters/findings that may arise which I deemed unacceptable. I was informed by the MIB call handler that I would be given this opportunity as part of MIB policy when having placed the call after providing the statement.

On 22/02/13, approximately one year later from the date of the incident, I have received a letter from Weightmans LLP stating that MIB have paid the total sum of £6582.75 to the claimant and they have now been instructed to recover this outlay from myself.

I am shocked to say the least that not only a year has passed since the incident without contact from the MIB but they have deemed it acceptable to pay a huge sum of money to the claimant over a very slight collision which resulted in no injury or damage. The claimant’s vehicle itself was still operable whilst I was at the location for approximately 45 minutes and could still be driven after the collision with the proof being the fact the car had to move into the hard shoulder or cause a major traffic jam on the M6 during rush hour. My own vehicle had no damage whatsoever nor did I suffer any injury.

Inadvertently but certainly unintentionally I was driving uninsured which only came to light when I contacted my insurance company, Admiral only to be informed that I had no cover for the vehicle that I was driving at the time but for another vehicle I owned.

 

I refer to the MIB FAQ on its website -

 

Why do you need the permission of the uninsured motorist to deal with my claim?

Even uninsured motorists have the right in law to deal with their own affairs, and the agreement does not permit us to ignore their rights. However, if the uninsured motorist does not co-operate, we will tell you what options appear to be available to progress your claim.

MIB have unilaterally taken the decision that I am liable for this claim arising from the accident without having consulted me or having provided a breakdown of. This claim and any legal action concerning liability of injuries or damages at the time would have been staunchly defended had any been instigated however I was deprived of this opportunity nor provided the courtesy of any form of contact before payment was made. MIB effectively, have stepped into my shoes without my authorisation of a legal claim brought against me for any possible damages/injury alleged to have been incurred by myself.

I fully assisted MIB in this matter from its first correspondence letter, to the interview with Ravenstone and from thereon it was I who instigated phone calls to MIB for an update as detailed above. There would have been no issue for MIB to contact me as I have retained the same contact number and reside at the same home address since the incident. Unfortunately, since MIB failed to contact me to establish the true facts surrounding the incident and provide me with the opportunity to defend myself, it appears to me that they have paid out a large sum of money against what must have at best been a tenuous claim, at worst a fraudulent claim which is all too familiar in my professional experience.

The outlay requested is to myself, an obscene amount for what has occurred nor something that I can possibly afford to pay off due to the majority of expenditure going towards family care. I refuse to pay for something which was very minor in which there were no witnesses, police involvement and with myself and the claimant having agreed that there was no damage or injury present. I am prepared to defend myself in court should this matter proceed. I have contacted my local MP regarding this and will be looking into complaining to other relevant consumer bodies. Once again and I am very vocal on this; I find it hard to fathom how MIB has paid out such a large amount without consulting me.

I have retained all correspondence from MIB and Ravenstone including a copy of the statement that was made. I also have retained photos of both vehicles showing no damage, save for scuff marks and a report from an approved technician from BMW supporting the fact that no damage could be caused at such low level impact.

I request all information collated by MIB to which I am entitled to under the Data Protection Act 1998 (Subject Access Request) regarding this matter to be provided to me and posted to my address above. I expect this request to be responded to within 40 days. I have enclosed a cheque of £10.00 for this request.

I shall be informing Weightmans LLP that I have written to the MIB and will solely be dealing with MIB regarding this matter. Once informed, contact with Weightmans LLP will thus cease.

I hope this matter is thoroughly investigated with a positive outcome and look forward to your reply.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

[T.C.]

I think you have covered everything very well and puts forward a reasonable argument.

 

I would certainly be interested to know what the MIB's response is because given that they are using monies collected from our premiums (like tax payers money), they usually tend to go the other way and try and pay the minimum, where this is the flip side and they appear to have given away money that was not deserving.

 

Interested to know whether they also deducted the standard £350 excess which is the norm on the damage part of an MIB claim.

[diablo989]

I agree. MIB did reply back stating that they felt they had sufficient evidence regarding the injury medical report and damage report to proceed to settle at a cost that they felt that a court would agree to. Thats their opinion ultimately, they did not contact me prior to settling irrespective of what they thought was sufficient and without looking at my photos and dispute the evidence they obtained.

[T.C.]

I agree. MIB did reply back stating that they felt they had sufficient evidence regarding the injury medical report and damage report to proceed to settle at a cost that they felt that a court would agree to. Thats their opinion ultimately, they did not contact me prior to settling irrespective of what they thought was sufficient and without looking at my photos and dispute the evidence they obtained.

 

A question probably worth asking is what was the proportion of the settlement in respect of damage v injury?

 

If the damage reports were that detailed and given the evidence available, it would suggest that the injury payment has taken the lions share of the settlement, but again given the evidence that you are able to produce, had they investigated properly (which by right they have 3 months to do from date of letter of claim) it suggests that they did not investigate very well and have taken everything on face value.

 

This could suggest negligence on the part of the MIB, but it would certainly in my opinion be worth asking the question.

[Ganymede]

I think you will struggle with this one.

 

The Claimant will have an independant engineers report addressed to the Court valuing the repairs to the car. They will also have a medico-legal report from an independant medical expert addressed to the Court detailing the injuries sustained on the balance of probabilities. You cannot dispute these without paying for your own reports. An engineers report will be around £100 and a medical report around £300. Add to that around £1500 for solicitors costs for the Claimant.

 

Your photographs prove nothing as damage could be internal. As for the injuries, they are not always felt immediately and it is generally accepted by the medical profession that they can take up to 48 hours to begin.

 

Did the other driver have any passengers?

[diablo989]

Yes, I will wait for the information I receive from the SAR and take it from there. I just cannot imagine how they could charge such an amount for such a low level impact, I know people take advantage of 'whipcash' and can complain of such an injury days or weeks later but the amount being asked for, plus damages if indeed the amount covers damage is unbelievable for what has occurred at such a slow speed (I was in a slow moving traffic queue btw). Surely there would be damage on my car and damage such as a dent on the claimants but from the images there is no such thing. I shall see how things go anyway.

[diablo989]

btw no, no passengers.

[Ganymede]

Ok.

 

Find out what the breakdown is the and then update your thread. Not much you can do for now.

[dw190]

I'd like to bet that over 60% of the figure is solicitors costs.

[diablo989]

Ok will update as soon as i receive the info. Thanks for the advice.

[Ganymede]

I'd like to bet that over 60% of the figure is solicitors costs.

 

 

Solicitors costs are fixed to a maximum of £1350 plus VAT, unless Court proceedings were issued that is...

[diablo989]

Solicitors costs are fixed to a maximum of £1350 plus VAT, unless Court proceedings were issued that is...

 

As far as im aware court proceedings were never issued

[T.C.]

I'd like to bet that over 60% of the figure is solicitors costs.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, this would have been a fast track claim and so unless proceedings are issued, then only fixed costs of £800 are payable to the claimants Solicitors (and the claim is dealt with through the portal system) and even then if it goes to trial costs are limited at £1400.

 

Given that this case clearly did not go to trial, then fixed fees of £800 would have applied.

[Ganymede]

As mentioned elsewhere, this would have been a fast track claim and so unless proceedings are issued, then only fixed costs of £800 are payable to the claimants Solicitors (and the claim is dealt with through the portal system) and even then if it goes to trial costs are limited at £1400.

 

Given that this case clearly did not go to trial, then fixed fees of £800 would have applied.

 

 

 

Don't let small things like facts get in the way of ignorant comments.

[diablo989]

Hi, I received the documents from the SAR today, nothing new in there that I did not already know. No medical or damage report nor breakdown of costs.Would I not have received them as part of the SAR? Any advice on where to go from here?