Insurance company accepting 50/50 liability against my will!!

[Goucho]

Got a weird one here for you guys.

 

In March i had a prang with a neighbour. I was driving out of our cul de sac and i stopped because the woman in the end house started to reverse. She carried on and i sounded the horn continuously, she stopped for a split second then carried on and hit my car.

 

I notified the police as the woman's partner came out of the house and was very aggressive towards her and then myself. He later came to my door as we are neighbours offering me money for the damage but due to the car being leased from Motability i couldn't and my next door neighbour had to ask him to leave as i was getting very stressed and panicky.

 

So the facts are :--

 

My neighbour damaged my car.

Both myself and my wife were uninjured and the whole incident was witnessed by my next door neighbours.

The woman driving the vehicle only had a provisional licence and was alone with a child in the car.

The police are still investigating the matter.

 

Today i got informed by my motability insurers that the other party claims that HE was driving and that I hit him and that because the two other witnesses apart from me and my wife are not independent because they live next door to me!! Even tho we ALL live in a small cul de sac with 9 homes.

 

So my insurers are going to accept 50/50 liability!!

I told them that in no way am i going to accept that and i was told that it didn't matter what i said, they will accept it because it is one word against another lmao.

I have told them that it will affect my driving history and incur a financial punishment if i seek insurance after they accept. I have told that i will not allow any record of any liability to be entered against me on any records but they will not listen to me.

 

I even told them that it was being investigated by the police and that by this guy saying he was driving, it was a serious offence but they said it was my word against his ............. where do i stand on this?

 

 

 

I know it has no immediate effect on me but how on earth can they accept this? Like i could go up and bang into everybody's car in the cul de sac and say it was them and get away with it according to the way this bunch operate lmao.

My argument apart from it being a total joke, is that RSA (my insurers) by accepting 50/50 liability are saying it was half my fault so he gets away with half liability and i get punished because if i seek insurance there will be a claim against me and i will be hit with more expensive premiums.

 

What can i do??

[unclebulgaria67]

Your neighbours are independent witnesses, as they are not related to you.

 

I can see why your Insurers are noting it as 50/50 in terms of the financial position to them. Means both drivers at fault and affects both Insurance policies, until the claim event is resolved, if it ever gets to the stage of Police/prosecution deciding to bring criminal charges. If she had a provisional licence and her partner is covering up an offence, that is perverting the course of justice and very serious, which is why it might never be taken further.

 

Suggest you write to the CEO of RSA at their head office address stating your disatisfaction at how your claim is being dealt with, when your car was reversed into while stationery and you are being told you are 50% responsible.

 

If you could not have reversed out of the way to stop her car contacting with yours, you should make this clear, as otherwise they will say that you saw an accident just about to happen and did not move your car to prevent the collision.

[king12345]

More experienced gurus will be along shortly.

To avoid future inconvenience of this nature I suggest you fit a dash cam.

Since I had mine (after my wife was almost screwed like you) I have been more relaxed knowing that any trickster or bad driver would have some explaining to do if they declare something that doesn't match the footage (i.e. woman driver becomes man)

[barns66]

Is the car insured by Motability or by yourself,if it's insured by them,i would let them deal with RSA and see what they have to say to them..I do not know much about car insurance but i have car through Motability. that comes with car insurance.I hope you soon get things sorted very soon.

[Goucho]

Thanx for the replies guys ...... they even stated on the letter that because i "had no independent witnesses, CCTV/Dash Cam footage" etc etc .......... They don't tell you that you need a dash cam tho do they lol.

 

@King12345 = Dash cam is the answer but i will get motability to pay for it because of this case. If i need dash cam evidence instead of 2 independant witnesses then it should be provided. That is another story lol. I told them this was in police hands but they said it didn't matter --- she (RSA) was right snotty!

 

@unclebulgaria = I didn't have time to reverse - i stopped and applied park plus handbrake, she had plenty of room and had no need to reverse any further. As i saw she was still coming i sounded the horn continuously and she stopped for a split second then carried on into me. - I have started a complaint with RSA and Motability

 

@Barns66 = It is Motability and i have been onto them and they agree with me in principal and are looking into it.

 

 

Thanx for the replies guys.

 

The owner of the car has been summons to Magistrates Court on 1/11/2016 for "Failing To Provide the details of the driver" He will open up a right can of worms if he still says he was driving because thankfully the police and the courts will take written and signed statements from 4 individuals into account. BTW i have asked for all info held on me including todays phone call and let them know that i will not accept any liability as it will lead to financial penalties if i try to buy insurance if they egree to 50/50 liability!

[Mwynci]

The bottom line is the insurers can settle as they feel correct that will be nicely written into the policy, however within that they need to make sure they have taken into account every aspect of the incident.

 

Ask them to pass the claim to a solicitor for an opinion prior to accepting any settlement, make sure you have access to the solicitor to ensure they have all the evidence to hand.

 

The solicitor will take into account any criminal proceedings and if they will add any weight in a civil matter.

[Goucho]

I have lodged a complaint with both Motability and RSA. Nothing else i can do. According to the RSA rep i spoke to, they won't consider anything but agreeing to a 50/50.

 

Thanx for all the replies guys, i will keep you updated

[tezza1234]

Any update on this, what happened at the magistrates court.

[Goucho]

So sorry for not replying i am dealing with so many things at the moment.

 

1. Latest is that following a complaint made by me Royal Sun Alliance have concluded that their agreement to accept 50-50 liability will be upheld!!

2. Also the case against the person failing to supply the name of the driver was some how dismissed??

 

Regarding 1. My next step with this is to again highlight the details and that the only witnesses that could possibly have seen the collision were neighbours in our cul de sac. I will send this to both insurance and motability!

Regarding 2. I will be contacting the CPS to found out how the hell an open shut case got dismissed.

 

Like 4 people saw the driver was a female and signed an official police statement to the fact and the other insurance company still trying to say a man was driving and with all this information a court case gets dismissed and my insurance say i was 50% to blame knowing that fraud is taking place ?"?!$!$!?"%

[king12345]

Typical cock up.

Invest in a dash cam.

I did and I don't regret having spent £100

[Goucho]

I agree with you m8 but this has really angered me.

 

1. i get hit in my cul de sac by female

2. I have 2 witnesses

3. i have 2 witnesses about this guy harassing me not to make it official and he would pay cash

4. i get police involved and they start process by issuing a name the driver order to which he fails to do and then it gets dismissed

5. his insurance says he was driving and that i hit him???

6. my insurance says my 2 witnesses are not independent because they live next door to me and will accept 50/50

7. He is committing a criminal offence by saying he was driving plus another offence of attempted fraud by getting his insurance to pay 50% by saying he was driving and a further offence of attempted fraud by trying to get my insurance to pay 50% PLUS perverting the course of justice by not telling the police who was driving and then going further by saying he was driving.

 

Surely this is open and shut case as in a cul de sac only a neighbour can be a witness??

 

My insurance say it is my word against his because of no camera evidence!!! Motability do not say i must have camera evidence for any/all claims against another party unless i have a dashcam and nor do the insurers but in this case with 4 people say one thing happened and then 1 person says it didn't happen and that in fact it wasn't a female uninsured driver but an insured male driver WTF is going on????????????????????!!!!!!!!

[unclebulgaria67]

I agree with you m8 but this has really angered me.

 

1. i get hit in my cul de sac by female

2. I have 2 witnesses

3. i have 2 witnesses about this guy harassing me not to make it official and he would pay cash

4. i get police involved and they start process by issuing a name the driver order to which he fails to do and then it gets dismissed

5. his insurance says he was driving and that i hit him???

6. my insurance says my 2 witnesses are not independent because they live next door to me and will accept 50/50

7. He is committing a criminal offence by saying he was driving plus another offence of attempted fraud by getting his insurance to pay 50% by saying he was driving and a further offence of attempted fraud by trying to get my insurance to pay 50% PLUS perverting the course of justice by not telling the police who was driving and then going further by saying he was driving.

 

Surely this is open and shut case as in a cul de sac only a neighbour can be a witness??

 

My insurance say it is my word against his because of no camera evidence!!! Motability do not say i must have camera evidence for any/all claims against another party unless i have a dashcam and nor do the insurers but in this case with 4 people say one thing happened and then 1 person says it didn't happen and that in fact it wasn't a female uninsured driver but an insured male driver WTF is going on????????????????????!!!!!!!!

 

I bet the driver of the car is saying that you and next door neighbour have a vendetta against his family, making allegations which are untrue. It is therefore being viewed as one persons word against anothers. Hence why case was dropped in court and this accident is being viewed 50/50.

 

Suggest you might wish to think about whether it worth you pursuing it any further. Very unlikely to get anywhere, even if you are right.

[Goucho]

Sadly i am beginning to think that way but the police officer at the time was very annoyed with him as he "was so anti police" . How would it work if i went up to him and hit him and the only 2 witnesses were his neighbours with no dna evidence would that be one word against the other ............ heck it would probably be turned into a hate crime because he is not the same race as me ( in my eyes we are all the same ). Geeeeez i am not dropping this one!

 

Will be ring CPS soon and trying to contact the PC again! He told me at the time to contact him any time but after leaving 3 messages a few months apart i got no answer. Maybe i will have to start a complaint against the police that this whole incident was handled very badly.

 

At the end of the day this case linked was one word against the other and both got 8 months in prison for a similar offence!!!

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky-pryce

[king12345]

Unfortunately these scumbags always get away with murder because all authorities and civil individuals don't want anything to do with them.

I don't know if you could ever get any result, but it's worth trying to speak to cps and see if they're willing to review the case.

In my experience ipcc don't want to know and the ombudsman will side with insurance.

Tbh it would have been difficult for your insurance to prove what the cps dismissed, the fact that she was driving and not the other ******.

[Goucho]

Thanx m8

 

I am just flabbergasted by it all. I know without doubt that if i tried it i would be getting meals thru a slit in the door lmao. I will update as this develops or deteriorates further into farce.

[Elebear0612]

I am an ex police officer and I also have a Masters Degree in Criminal Justice Policy. So I know a bit about how these things work. They are hard to read and hard to accept, I know. But there are some things you need to take into account.

 

1. The insurance company are only interested in settling a claim the cheapest way possible. Carrying out exhaustive investigations is not the way they do things. That would ramp up costs and everyones premiums.

 

2. The police themselves are only interested in 'evidence.' I know you said that you had witnesses to the incident and that may well be true, and that they have investigated, but the fact remains is that the insurers do not trust that these witnesses are fully independent and it is what they decide which determines what evidence they have. I have no doubt that they are using that as an expediency to keep down costs. It's a bit like the American plea bargaining system they have in place - only it involves pre-trial negotiations over insurance matters.

 

3. Please bear this in mind because I have found this so infinitely useful. Whenever you are in any disputed situation where it results in a 'he said, she said' situation (never mind who is telling the truth), try to over-ride that with cold hard facts. What are the facts? Those bits of relevant information that form the indisputable part of the story - the bits no one of the parties can dispute. That negates a lot of what is said, felt or believed.

 

The answer is obvious when you look at the 'facts : you have a dispute where one party has said one thing, another has said something else happened. The rest is padding. That equals, in this case, knock for knock as an outcome.

 

Please never, ever confuse 'evidence gathering' and legal justice outcomes with arriving at the 'truth' and the sort of justice that ordinary people call 'justice'. It is simply not the same. These ideals has nothing to do with 'justice', even if it should do. But if it did, emotion would run rampant over rational decision making, and that is not how the legal system or insurance system works.

 

The best 'fact' finding device you can have is a dash cam. No one can argue with that.

 

BTW: I am not being smug at all and I know you are probably feeling furious with reading what I have said. But remember this: I was also involved in a similar situation to yours. Some old codger who, it turned out, was grieving the loss of his wife, backed out of a parking spot and bashed into my car after I had stopped and hooted him to stop too. Just like you had. I got out, just as furious as you were in your situation. Then two women, who sprang out from no-where came to 'HIS' rescue screaming at me that I was at fault and that he was an old man and I should respect the elderly and that they would side with him. Can you believe that? Completely fake witnesses who couldn't possibly have seen what they said they had. I stood no chance. I had no cam, and only one independent witness came to my defense but did not want to be involved further. This meant that I had no official witnesses at all. A classic 'he said, she said' arose and we both resigned ourselves to a knock-for-knock outcome. That is what the insurers would have decided anyway. We both reported the matter and left it at that. What would be point of doing anything else? I ended up paying for my own prang repair which, ideally, HE should have paid for.

 

Facts that legal justice depend on as evidence, has nothing to do with the truth, oughts or shoulds unless it doesn't interfere with these. Remember that and you will find these situations, albeit it slightly, more bearable. Life stinks sometimes, doesn't it?

Edited January 6, 2017 by Elebear0612

[king12345]

Gone are the good old days where you could have just "re-pay" your nice neighbour with a bloody nose and a few stitches...

When are they gonna build a time machine???

[Goucho]

Everything dropped and 50/50 liability entered on my insurance.

 

Wouldn't mind but female driver is still taking driving lessons and the guy has nearly hit me twice by cutting across me at a T-junction (waiting to turn left and he cuts across me as he turns right onto my bit of road from the main part of the T-junction) What a farce this is, i bet if he said i shouted racial abuse at him that they would believe him and i would get done !!! I am sure he didn't reckon that both me and my neighbours are racists and made it all up!

[SuperVillain]

Perhaps invest in a dash-cam.

[BazzaS]

Perhaps invest in a dash-cam.

 

The OP agreed that a dash cam was a good idea, but disagreed that they should have to pay for it......

 

Dash cam is the answer but i will get motability to pay for it because of this case.

 

If insurers / owners of a beneficial interest have to start paying for dashcams to protect their interests, what does the OP expect to happen:

1) the insurer / Motability will just absorb the costs, or

2) the costs will end up being passed on to the end user (& probably with less choice by the end user of which model of dashcam!)

 

So, I agree a dashcam is a good idea, but I don't agree with the OP that Motability should pay for it.

[unclebulgaria67]

It is getting to the stage where people might be advised to carry a video camera with them at all times, not just in a car. The Police all around the country now seem to be equpped with cameras, which are switched on everytime they are in public.

[Goucho]

It was meant that when 4 witnesses are not enough for an insurance company without video evidence then this should be made clear at the start.

 

Through no fault of my own i end up with a 50/50 on my driving record because my insurers insist on dash cam evidence but never disclose this to me the customer. Why should i have to go to the expense of a dash cam when in an age before dash cams sworn statements was deemed enough evidence.

 

It is more about the frustration of the whole thing. An MP was imprisoned on the say of his wife that he asked her to take a speeding fine yet both my word and my wife's word and two other witnesses made statements to the police but that wasn't good enough and this guy can say he was driving to protect his uninsured wife and gets away with it because the two witnesses live next door to me and the only possible witnesses could only be a neighbour as it happened on a small cul de sac. Then my insurance say i was 50% at fault when i was stopped and sounding my horn continuously?!?!? Like if they insist on web cam evidence why not tell me? Plus when did the law change that witnesses are not enough especially if they live next door? The guy committed a criminal offence! If i went up to him and hit him with a hammer and only his wife and 2 next door neighbours saw it and there was no video or other evidence would i get off with it? Nope. If like in this case my wife said it was her what would happen lol

 

 

So in short i feel kind of annoyed by the whole thing. Why should all of us as normal run of the mill drivers now have to buy a web cam because they exist? Like no law changed did it? Yes it is doubtless proof but why should we now have to spend all that money because an insurance company wants to cut costs by not investigating a prang. What happens if i was killed in the incident --- my wife would not get compensation because there was no dash cam footage????

[unclebulgaria67]

Frustrating isn't it !

 

Agree about camera footage issue and that witness testimony should be enough, but in the crazy world we are in, where it is mostly about managing costs, Insurers are not going to be helpful. Of course camera footage and witnesses which provide clear evidence which cannot be argued about, might get the Insurers interested.

 

The Insurance industry has changed over the last 20 years. Companies are less interested in customer service and are more interested in how to reduce costs and make a profit. In the past an internal discussion might have centered on how to provide a great customer service. Now the primary discussion is how can we earn money out of any situation. Many companies have outsourced their clalms handling to outside companies and they have an incentive to reduce claims paid out, as well as keeping costs to a minimum.

[ericsbrother]

they dont employe investigators any more so even having dashcam may not convince them that you were the innocent party if the cost of settling looks less than the cost of fighting a false claim.

[SuperVillain]

You can only rely on a witness so much though.

 

It's not unsual for a claim like this to find its way inside a courtroom up to 3 years after an accident... who knows what your witness will say then. Who knows how well they will hold up to aggressive cross examination. Who knows even if they will want to participate??

 

The human element of relying on a witness convincing a judge that their account of the event is better than the other, is where the litigation risk comes in.

 

Video footage takes the human element out of the situation.

 

A witness is better than no witness (how much better is a case by case judgment call), but will never be as good as a video.