Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Excellent news! Thread title updated. Please do consider a donation in light of the help received here. The help we give is free, but try telling that to our server hosts!
    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
  • 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

Drove into the back of someone


PIXeL_92
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 444 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

Hi All,

 

Posting on behalf of my partner, to ask some questions / get opinions.

 

Partner has rear ended someone and trying to work out if she should accept 100% liability or argue with her insurance she wasn't fully at fault,

 

Short points of event.

 

  • Ford Fiesta was lead car going past junction
  • Audi was at the junction a tiny bit over the give way line but not moving (dash cam shows their wheels stationary leading up to the crash.)
  • Ford slammed on brakes to let the Audi out in a live line of traffic with cars in the live line behind it.
  • Peugeot (behind the Ford but in front of my partner) has gone from a filter lane into the same lane of my partner forcing her to come off the accelerator to maintain safe distance.)
  • Due to it then taking the space in front of my partner it had to slam it's brakes on to avoid the ford that stopped a few seconds after joining the lane.
  • Partner then emergency brakes but ABS kicks in buy car keeps sliding going into the back of the Peugeot at around 5-10 MPH shattering the glass boot and pushing her bumper in a little.

 

The police told her that she was 100% at fault and will be prosecuted for lack of due care and attention after making the statement of "we haven't begun to investigate yet," then when she said she needs to get insurance details of all parties involved she was told she was not to speak to any of them under any circumstance and they will get the details. Just to note nobody has sustained injures just body work damage.

 

Would she be able to argue against the lack of due care and attention with a video showing she was maintaining a safe distance and braked as soon as the other one did along with a witness statement from the car behind her confirming this.

 

Then the last question is there any civil action that could be taken against the car that slammed their brakes on in a live lane becoming an obstruction to let a stationary car out of a junction despite not having right of way.

 

Thanks

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I'm not a specialist and this my opinion based on what I remember from driving school ages ago:

 

100% at fault as default for rear-ending, since you need to keep enough distance with the car in front so that you can stop in time if it slams the brakes, for whatever reason.

 

 

Quote

 with a video showing she was maintaining a safe distance and braked as soon as the other one did

 

I'm sorry but the fact that she rear ended the car proves that it was not safe distance.

IIRC the only time where you're not 100% at fault when rear ending is when the person in front of you brakes with malicious intent, ie to cause an accident, so, not to let someone in traffic.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was having a look into this 100% at fault thing and there have been cases where the end vehicle whilst still being liable, liability being reduced anywhere from 100% to after providing footage 60-80% due action's of the vehicle infront where it hasn't been malicious. 

 

Going off of a still of the video as the car infront braked and she started to slow down she was just less than a car and a half in width away, and about two lengths before the car infront cut into her lane, it's the car sliding on whilst wheels have locked that did it unfortunately. 

Edited by PIXeL_92
Grammer.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PIXeL_92 said:
  • Peugeot (behind the Ford but in front of my partner) has gone from a filter lane into the same lane of my partner forcing her to come off the accelerator to maintain safe distance.)
  • Due to it then taking the space in front of my partner it had to slam it's brakes on to avoid the ford that stopped a few seconds after joining the lane.

 

a.n.other drive crossed a land to be in the same lane as the OP's OH, thus removing the OP's OH's safe braking distance.

 

the critical part here is the timing of each stage.

 

the video evidence is everything here.

 

if the Peugeot moved because they didnt look and see the audi/ford situation....IMHO there is room to dispute this.

 

have the police requested and LOOKED at her dashcam footage??

 

dx

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have requested it. I'm going to get it off the SD Card this morning and forward it too them as my partner recorded the screen of it replaying at first. 

 

The police have now forwarded all the details of all drivers involved on and looking at the front CCTV cameras last night, someone has come onto my property and started poking at parts on the front of my partners car and you can hear a snapping noise in the audio whilst they have been doing something to the front of it.

 

When the sun comes up going to see what's gone on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the point of trying to negotiate 50%, 60%, 70% etc responsibilities would be.*

 

If each party in the accident was Insuring their own vehicle, then yes I could see the point. But as Insurance companies will be involved, they won't mess around with percentages of fault in an accident like this. Maybe they would if it were 3 very expensive vehicles. But for a 3 vehicle accident like this, they will look at available evidence to determine the primary cause of the accident. Was it the last vehicle driver in the chain of vehicles that caused the accident or was it the Peugeot driver driving carelessly being at fault ?

 

Most likely outcome is last vehicle driver in the chain being 100% liable, as they may be seen as driving too fast for the road conditions, should have anticipated vehicles filtering in to the one lane and if they had been driving more cautiously, they would have had safe braking distance.

 

Yes some accidents do have 50/50 outcomes, but whatever percentage of fault, it is still a fault accident on a person's Insurance record.

 

*percentages of fault could come into uninsured loss recovery legal claims. But again it still comes down to deciding whose driving was to blame the accident. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never having to make a claim before we weren't sure if % of liability would decrease now increased premiums for her. 

 

The main thing she is worried about is getting prosecuted, she has managed to take a 3 minute clip off the dash cam and forward it to the police to back up her version of events.

 

The whole whole 3 minutes up to the point of impact shows her driving with care and attention, maintaining safe distances and adjusting speed for the car that cut in front from the filter lane at speed. 

 

She is going to take it to the garage to have the bumper taken off to see if its caused any frame issues / radiator damage and at the same time get them to check the brakes as she is addiment that the car kept going after emergency braking and the ABS kicking in despite only going (according to the dash cam) 19 MPH.

 

It is what it is at this point the main thing is no one was hurt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So it's all being dealt with via the insurance however we think one of the parties (one at the front that got tapped by the middle car) is claiming for way more damage than they actually received. 

 

The problem is because the tac ops said to my partner don't speak or approach the other parties as its an investigation they wouldn't let her take pictures but said they would. 

 

We have asked for these pictures but they said they aren't in a position to provide them, can we request these legally?

 

The police also mass emailed all involved with everyone's car details and home addresses, I did go to the address to get pictures of the damage and some of what they are claiming for is not present on the rear of the car. Would these be enough evidence to prove they are making a false claim or because of the large gap of time could they say they have already had some repair work done? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone making claim would have to evidence accident damage.

 

Let the Insurance companies deal with this. Don't try to play detective. It won't help.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi! 

Based on the events you described,

it seems that your partner may have a case for arguing that she wasn't fully at fault.

 

The fact that she was maintaining a safe distance and immediately braked when the car in front of her did supports this argument. Additionally, if there is a witness who can corroborate this, that would be helpful.

 

Regarding the police report, it's important to note that the police report is not necessarily the final determination of fault. Insurance companies will conduct their own investigations and make their own determinations of fault based on the evidence presented.

 

As for civil action against the car that slammed on its brakes, that may be a possibility, but it would depend on the specific circumstances and any relevant laws in your area. It's possible that the car could be found liable for causing an obstruction in a live lane, but this would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

In any case, it's important for your partner to speak with her insurance company and provide them with all the relevant information and evidence. The insurance company will make a determination of fault and handle any claims or legal action as necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@unclebulgaria67 - Shall do, she is just waiting to see if anything comes through the letter box.

 

@Anawilliam850 - The driver behind my partner made a statement (even though she wasn't involved technically) to the police that stated that my partner braked and the car kept going as she was able to react to her brake lights and reduction in speed in plenty of time to not go into the back of her and leave enough of a gap too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Based on the information provided,

 

it seems that your partner may have some arguments to make against being 100% at fault for the collision.

 

The fact that the Ford slammed on its brakes to let the Audi out and that the Peugeot forced your partner to come off the accelerator could be seen as contributing factors to the collision.

 

However, it will ultimately be up to your partner's insurance company and the police to determine fault based on the available evidence, including any video and witness statements.

 

Regarding civil action against the Ford for becoming an obstruction in a live lane,

 

it may be possible to make a claim for contributory negligence if it can be shown that their actions contributed to the collision.

 

However, this would likely depend on the specific circumstances and would need to be evaluated by a legal professional.

 

It's important for your partner to fully cooperate with their insurance company and provide all available evidence to support their case.

 

If they disagree with the determination of fault, they may be able to appeal the decision or seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...