Further to my fraudulent asshat rtc thread, my insurers solicitor is stating that our witnesses aren’t independent as they are customers of the same business as us. The incident happened right outside this business, it’s not a massive one but there’s a fair few customers and we do not know these witnesses personally.

I reckon this sounds daft, if the incident happened as we left a mcdonalds car park would any McD customers be classed as not independent? Also an ex copper I know has called bollocks on this, reckons the solicitor is just trying to get the case out of the way asap, anyone else have info/input?

A witness doesn’t have to be independent at all, just have to satisfy a court that they are telling the truth. If they are independent, that’s a bonus.

Sounds like a negotiating tactic.

Edit- IANAL but did used to be a claims manager for an insurance company!

Solicitor also seems to be ignoring other stuff and is seriously pressuring us to consent to making an offer, I too get the impression they just want it off their books quickly with no court action. There’s isn’t something daft like a bonus for getting cases settled before court is there? Shirley they want to win cases where possible?

Or would they only go to court for what they believe to be cast iron verdicts?

Sounds like a fob-off to me.

In my old role (traffic cop) we would consider anyone who wasn’t family or friends as independent.

Shirley they want to win cases where possible?

Nope. Allocating blame correctly is expensive, if insurance companies paid for a court case every time there was a shunt with doubtful blame premiums would be thousands.

So they just let 80pc (IIRC) of crashes go blow-for-blow knowing that for every one they unjustly lose there will be one where they unjustly win. The Lawyers lose out on their slice.

As per siwhite’s comment, currently still in role: not family / direct friends – then classed as independent

Sounds like solicitor is trying to bat the job rather than deal with it to me on the info provided

Edit: I’m confusing things. The point is that there’s no legal requirement for a witness to be “independent”. But it affects their credibility/reliability in the eyes of the court, and consequently whether you’d want to rely on them.

So they just let 80pc (IIRC) of crashes go blow-for-blow

I’d accept knock for knock coz as I think I mentioned in the other thread we’ve been shafted by our insurance previously (different insurer). Solicitor currently just wants to haggle about just how much to bend over for what seems to be, in my eyes, a fraudulent claim.

But it affects their credibility/reliability in the eyes of the court, and consequently whether you’d want to rely on them.

This is kind of it, solicitor reckons these witnesses will be viewed by court as biased, hence my question, I know legally they are “independent” just wondering what normally happens in court, does minor stuff like using the same business usually sway decisions or is the solicitor being overly sensitive or are they just using any excuse to pressure us into consenting?

criminal lawyer not civil but this is rubbish the question is not is the witness independent but are they credible and reliable , it is nice to be able to point to an independent witness as an outside view of an incident but not a prerequisite. One certainly does not discount the evidence of a witness with a connection out of hand.

If Im on a train and I see another passenger assault the ticket examiner / guard, does that mean im not an independent witness either? Of course it doesnt!

Sorry but it sounds like BS to me from someone who wants an easy life / doesnt want to earn their money.

I am not Ironside.

stating that our witnesses aren’t independent as they are customers of the same business as us.

Wow I pay road tax * just like all other road users so therefore none of us are independent then

I also buy water – wow you do to – what to your house

What a stupid argument that is

Pwn them with the thread and examples cited here asking them if they bought their legal qualification on the internet etc

* Used just for Graham S and I know I know

The only ever time I’ve needed an independent witness, it was my work colleague, who sat opposite me. Police or insurance had no issue with that.

D0NK – Member
Solicitor also seems to be ignoring other stuff and is seriously pressuring us to consent to making an offer,

ask solicitor what the proposed offer is – if satisfactory to you then surely that will all be fine and dandy – confirm with solicitor what process will be if the other party refuses the offer or wants to negotiate – should be framed in such way that will keep all your options open

my recollection from earlier was that the other party wasn’t very honest in their dealings – if you end up in court then possibility you won’t get anything out of it not even the satisfaction of seeing the other party squirm a bit just their solicitor and a pile of papers – dishonest Joe certainly won’t end up in the stocks

the solicitor is ignoring the other stuff because wants to settle in their best financial interest with a nod to your interests – the “other stuff” is baggage and what ever the outcome the other party won’t turn into Mother Teresa

not a lawyer

ask solicitor what the proposed offer is – if satisfactory to you then surely that will all be fine and dandy

offer is apparently 50/70/100. So no not particularly happy with that. I begrudge the lying ****er getting a penny, but after a chat with the insurance people, I accept understand that due to legal costs the insurance will not go to court if there is a chance of being even marginally liable. It’s depressing to think that bullshitting and threatening legal action is likely to get you a pay out.

Putting in a whippy claim if you’re ever in a bump = good chances of payout
Being honest = higher insurance premiums and the moral high ground*

It’s no wonder so many go for the former

*quite possibly not worth it, the view is, quite frankly, shit.

Do you have a protected no claims discount?

I had a very similar incident when a letter turned up from a no-win-no fee type claims chaser stating that I had hit their clients car with my trailer in a supermarket car park about 5 months previous. They apparently had a witness. I remember the place well as it was very busy and I had to get my partner out to guide me out of the parking spot so I assume had I hit someone she would have seen it. His witness was apparently in a pickup about 60 metres away across the car park which was absolutely full and would have been about 20 cars between us and them. Insurance were not prepared to fight and just wanted to settle ASAP. I kicked up a fuss but they just weren’t interested. In the end I said it was up to them if they wanted to pay but, (in writing) I said it would be against my wishes, without prejudice, and in no way constituted an admission of guilt on my part. I also asked for assurances that my premiums would not rise as a result. To be fair to them (NFU) my premium actually fell the following year and I have never had any comeback on it.