Goskippy

[Gemma19194]

A white one but that's not it in the satalite view 

[BankFodder]

Also, please could you do a sketch of the parked vehicle – the one that the van ran into – and show precisely where it suffered damage.

You haven't commented on the condition or the age of the van.

[Gemma19194]

The van was fairly new i belive but im not sure . in good condition. 

 

The Van did not run into the parked car. My car bounced from the side of the van and sent my car into the back of the parked car.

[Gemma19194]

I have pictures of the damage to all our vehicles but i don't want to post those on a public thread. Can i do this privately? 

[BankFodder]

No. Please post them on this forum. Everything is in the open. There is no prejudice or disadvantage to you at all.

Also, what vehicle was parked in front of the van? In other words as you are going along, what was the vehicle parked to your left just before the van?

And I don't understand what you've just said about you bouncing into a parked car. There was that parked car?

[BankFodder]

Could this be the same van?  Is that where it was parked - even if it was not the same one?

 

[Gemma19194]

I don't remember exactly what type of vehicle was parked in front of the van, as there was vehicles lined up, parked along my left side. The car that was parked behind the van was MR T's vehicle, if you look at my previous photos i attached, it will explain it better.

 

So as the van pulled out i breaked- the ice skidded my tyers- i quickly tried to swerve to avoid the van ( i swerved in the left direction ) my right side of my car hit the drivers side of his van. The ice skidded my tyers and sent me into the back of the parked car ( mr T's car) 

[BankFodder]

Please post the images of the damage.

I don't understand that if the van was pulling out for your left that you swerved left because that would take you towards the van. I would have thought that you would swerve away from the van – swerve right

[BankFodder]

Hang on, I've had another look at the diagrams. I now understand that you swerved left into the inside of him and then into the parked car behind him.

This means that he must have been extremely prominent into the oncoming flow of traffic. Clearly he was trying to cross the road in order to drive off on the side of the road opposite to you.

Somewhere I saw that he was apparently stationary. Can you tell us more about that please.

 

 

I also asked you whether the image which I posted above might be a photograph of the same van. You haven't addressed that question

[Gemma19194]

The photograph is not the same van.

 

Yes that's right, so as he proceeded to continue to pull out he then stopped his van

[BankFodder]

Thank you. What made him stop?

Also I've asked you on two or three occasions now to post the images of the vehicles with their damage.

I hope you can appreciate that I'm trying to make way on here and I'm trying to do it quite quickly. I think you're going to be surprised with the conclusion that I come up with that you aren't helping by making me ask the same questions repeatedly.

 

You may think I'm being a bit sharp about this – but it is taking a lot more time that it needs to.

Please will you post up the images of the damaged vehicles

 

[BankFodder]

Also, has your insurer paid out for the damage those vehicles? Have you any idea how much they paid out? Have you paid and excess towards the cost of damage?

 

Somewhere, you have said that the van was a Transit van. Please can you confirm the exact make and model – and I also asked you about the age of it and you haven't addressed this question.

 

In addition to the images of the damage which we would like you to post, have you sent off the subject access requests? This is very important. They have a 30 day time limit to produce them – and the quicker you get this underway, the quicker you will get them back.

I think you have a winning hand here but we need help from you

[Gemma19194]

I have no idea what made him stop.

 

I don't know the make model and age of the van. All i know is that it is a transit van.

 

I don't know if my insurance has paid anything out to the vehicles, but i can ask them.

 

Do i just email AX and request a SAR? I think i remember seeing i also need to request one from admirel too? Is this correct?

 

I will now attach the images. The black corsa is my car. The white van driver and the other car is MR T's

[BankFodder]

The SARs should be sent to all insurance companies and also to AX. Even if they turn out not to be useful, there is nothing lost because it doesn't cost anything.

If you follow the subject access request link, you will find a template and also some explanations. Keep it as wide as possible – you want a disclosure of "all data" that they hold on you in any form.

Please try and get that off today/tomorrow. You may find that if you go to the websites of those companies there may be a link for you to make a subject access request – but in any case, you don't have to satisfy any formalities other than to confirm your identity.

It might be worth sending a council tax bill or something to show that you are who you are and at that address.

[BankFodder]

 

Who's is this car? This is the offside rear of somebody's vehicle.

I asked you about the make and model of the van.

[Gemma19194]

I repeat, i don't know the make and model of the van.

 

That image is the van, it is the drivers side front wheel .

[BankFodder]

Okay thanks. I misunderstood the picture. I thought that it was the rear offside of a vehicle.

We definitely need the SARs I think.

 

Here's my assessment of the events leading to the accident:

 

• Firstly, the guy is driving a van. It's very wide. I'd like to discover exactly what make and model it is. We should obtain this information at some point as the result of an SAR.
• Secondly, the van driver has parked facing the traffic flow. This is contrary to Highway code rule 239.
• Thirdly, although the van driver is not on the crest of the bend, he has parked fairly close to it on the inside track of the band so that his vision is obscured by the inside crest of it. Parking on a bend is contrary to highway code rule 243. Once again, the van driver is not actually on the bend, but I think he is close enough to call it into question. I think that parking that close to a bend, in a wide vehicle, facing the traffic flow, puts him in a position where at the very least we can say that his parking was reckless – and of course in the event, we see that he was involved in an accident.
• Fourthly the van driver was in a wide vehicle and he was driving on the side of the kerb because he was parked on the wrong side of the road. He was out of line of sight of oncoming vehicles. In order to acquire line of sight, he would have had to pull out quite a long way so that his own seating position came broadly in line with the driver's position of the car which was parked in front of him in the gap from which he was trying to leave.
• Fifthly Not only did the van driver have to pull out a long way in order to acquire line of sight, it now seems that he was actually trying to pull out and at the same time to cross over the road into the opposite carriageway so that he could begin his journey. This means that not only was he immediately going contrary to the flow of traffic, but he had to carry out a manoeuvre whereby he crossed the carriageway onto his proper left-hand side.
• Sixth you would normally expect a collision with an oncoming car to be on the exposed side of the van – on his left side or else directly into the front of the van. In fact, the van driver had pulled out so far that there was actually a navigable gap on his right hand side so that she took swerving action going to the left into the parking area which he was just leaving. Clearly he was very substantially into the middle-of-the-road.
• Seven you then say that you "bounced" into the parked car behind. It's a shame that you use this word. You actually collided with the driver side of the van. The conditions were icy and then you then slid into the parked car behind the van.
• Eight, the fact that your car was able to slide between the kerb and the van and impact with the parked car – in fact the offside of the parked car – shows how far away from the kerb the van was because there was enough space for your car to slide into and to damage the rear offside of the parked vehicle. I would suggest that if we discover what model the van is, we would be able to discover the width of it and that would give us more evidence as to how far into the road the van was – but it was obviously substantial.
• Nine there was a camber in the road and in fact with her momentum, the impact against the van, and the effect of the ice, you then slid along further than you might otherwise have done because you were assisted by the incline of the camber and into the parked car which was behind the van.
• Ten because he was very close to the inside crest of the bend, he was obliged to pull out pretty far anyway without having a clear line of sight and that would have made him even more vulnerable to a collision with an oncoming vehicle

 

Please have a look at this.

Please comment if you think that there is anything particularly wrong.

Please comment if you think that there is something to add

[Gemma19194]

I have just put his reg in the gov website 

[BankFodder]

Thank you. It doesn't and is the model number but maybe we can find on the basis of what they say about the capacity and the weight et cetera. However, and SAR a gives more information.

I think you said that you did fill out a form for your insurer. I can't remember if you said that you had kept a copy. We would like to see it please in PDF format

[Gemma19194]

Thanks , i will request the SAR from AX, goskippy and admirel. 

 

This is the statement i sent them. It is not fully detailed as i had already explained, in detail, the accident to them around 50 times via the telephone before hand. 

[Gemma19194]

Also i have just pulled out some paperwork that admirel had sent me 25th january . AX told me not respond to them so i never really read it through.

 

I have just seen in section 1 ' a witness' and states a man's name but no address.

 

There wasn't any witnesses as no one was around. How can i investigate this? Also AX has never informed me of any witnesses that the van driver is claiming ? 

 

Thank you for the bullet pointed information, i think these will be useful in my case, however how could i put these farward? 

 

Should i write out an email to AX stating these points ? 

[BankFodder]

Okay there's a number of things.

First of all you say that there are apparently witnesses which the van driver is claiming – this is the first that we've heard of this. Are there any other details that you know of which you haven't disclosed to us yet?

Secondly, you've apparently received instructions from AX not to contact the insurer. AX are not your friend.

Thirdly, you are asking whether you should write to AX and give them information? – AX are not your friend.

You ask how you can put these points forward – we will help you. However don't expect it to be easy or quick.

I'm afraid that things have rather slipped out of your control and you will have to take back control with our help.

Also, let me point out that not all of my site team colleagues necessarily agree with my assessment above – I expect that there will be some contributions and it will be helpful to see what comments and criticisms are made of my assessment above.

I understood that the van was stopped but you are now saying that he failed to give way which now suggests that he was moving and continued moving even though you came within his sight.

I understand that you've been given documents by your own insurer which apparently you've ignored. You say that AX told you not to respond – I don't really know why you are taking advice from AX. They are not your friend – and I can tell you also that your insurer is not particularly your friend either.

You haven't commented on the bullet points that I've made. Do you agree that this is what happened? It's essential that you give us some feedback.

Also, if you want to use stand any chance taking this forward, then you are going to have to engage in a bit more closely and respond to questions more quickly please.

[BankFodder]

Also, I understood somewhere that you had the name and address of the van driver. Is this not correct?

 

Also, at the time of the accident, would you say that there was ice and slush and the middle-of-the-road? Or is it simply in the side of the road between the parked cars? It was late in the day and we can imagine that the passage of traffic would have cleared any ice and snow.

I notice one or two of your images seem to show tarmac with no ice or snow

[Gemma19194]

Iv only just seen that the van driver is claiming a witnesses, i didn't know this other than from 10 minutes ago. 

 

I haven't received any documents from my own insurance , the document i received was from admirel - the van drivers insurance.

 

Yes i have the name and address of the van driver.

 

There was still ice on the road yes. 

 

I will carefully read through your bulletpoints and comment afterwards. 

 

 

[BankFodder]

Well reading the bullet points is essential.

If you think that the bullet points are a correct account of what happened and you are prepared to stand by this account and even eventually sign a statement of truth – in the event that this goes to court – then it is worth going forward.

If you think that this is not a correct account then probably we have to stop.

If you have received documents from the van driver's insurance then it may be correct not to respond to them at the moment – but we would like to know what those documents are.

I'm amazed that your own insurers haven't sent you any formal documents. As I've already said, send them the SAR straightaway.

Also I think that separately you should phone them tomorrow and ask them what's going on and tell them that you want documents relating to their finding that you should be held liable for the accident. See what they say about this. They may say that they are not prepared to disclose documents to you. Once again, I've already suggested elsewhere that you should read our customer services guide and implement the advice there. This is essential.

My prediction is that if you want to deal with this then you will have to sue the van driver in the County Court for negligent driving. This will be a small claim and so the outlay to you would be relatively minor and you would not have to pay the other side's costs in the event that you lost. I would expect that your outlay would be only about £200.

If you won then that would change everything in terms of getting compensation for your car and also in respect of the cost of repairs for the damage vehicles. Also, it would assist on your other thread in dealing with the extortionate price that you been required to pay for the car – which I think we've already indicated is a complete scam.

I think you had better start learning not to trust anyone. You can trust us – but you have to make your own judgement on that score – that there is certainly no one else that you can trust in this.

Would you eventually be prepared to take a small claim in the County Court? If you have no experience of this then talk to 1 or two people but also read up on this website about the steps involved taking a small claim in the County Court. It's straightforward but you need to know the steps in advance. You will not need a lawyer – but if you did decide to get a lawyer then it will be very expensive and you won't get the money back even if you win.