[Closed] Car accident advice please.

Not sure in the UK but here in Germany you need a police accident report for the leasing company.

can't quite picture it - google maps? - but from what you said if she had a solid white line (DO NOT CROSS) to her right, he must have crossed it from the left so that seems fairly clear cut.

1. Yes
2. Possibly, she'll have to do the accident report one way or the other
3. Probably - what do your conditions say
4. If it's no fault then you should fight to be in the same position. But you may need to, again may be in your T&C's. Maybe a compromise - you need a big car for the holiday but then will swap it back for a supermini to save cost, etc.

Also - watch out they don't immediately try to farm you to a claims company, and if they do read up on the pitfalls before agreeing. Not saying they are all bad, just be aware.

Yes, contact your insurers first (either you or your wife). Just be very clear on the details as the insurance company will need the exact details in order to apportion liability for the accident. They will want the details of the other driver involved. And then let them sort it all out.

Keep the leasing firm in the loop also.

And I don't think it's unfair to ask for a like for like replacement while your car is in for repair.

If I went down the route of courtesy car or hire car I wouldn't bother mentioning about a dog.
Every company so far has stipulated no pets in the car, when we've asked.
So now, I'd just do it and give it a good clean afterwards.

Call 101 and report it immediately.

Call 101

Why?

Police attended as very busy intersection. Traffic coos comment "it happens here all the time that's why you have insurance" ****!

Coming down on to St auklmunds way in derby from the a6. Left lane wanting to filter right to head in to town not up the a52

Why?

stop
give your own and the vehicle owner’s name and address, and the registration number of the vehicle, to anyone having reasonable grounds for requiring them
if you do not give your name and address at the time of the collision, report it to the police as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case within 24 hours.
Law RTA 1988 sect 170

Rule 287
If another person is injured and you do not produce your insurance certificate at the time of the crash to a police officer or to anyone having reasonable grounds to request it, you MUST

report it to the police as soon as possible and in any case within 24 hours
produce your insurance certificate for the police within seven days.
Law RTA 1988 sect 170

You'll need an incident number for your insurance claim.

Also get your retaliation in first in case the other driver tires to say it was your fault (if the driver doesn't then their insurance company certainly will).

All the above tells me is that if insurance details are shared between all parties involved in the accident there is no need to involve the police.

Well for once I can actually stop all the arguing re the police. Attending traffic officer in unmarked car, stated "you've exchanged details that's the first step, he asked and so did all other officers if children in both cars were ok several times, as in actually speaking to them, he then stated that no further action needed to be taken so no incident number etc etc. Cue his comment about insurance!

All the above tells me is that if insurance details are shared between all parties involved in the accident there is no need to involve the police.

Do it anyway. Though if they attended the scene there may already be an incident number raised.

I can answer the issue of a replacement car from personal experience and an understanding of insurance.

It was not your fault. You have the right to be put back into the same position you would have been in before your wife was crashed into. In this case that means access to a similar sized car. It also means you shouldn't have to go out of your way to get it. I have, in similar circumstances:

1. Insisted the car was delivered to me as the depot was some distance away (and collected afterwards)
2. Charged for my own time to sort things out, once the other side's insurer started messing me about regarding the replacement car. I warned them first and then sent an invoice, which was paid after a couple of reminders

Good luck. Insurers are keen to take your money, but less keen to pay out.

Re. the replacement car issue, I'd check the T&Cs you signed up to on your insurance as I've had different ones in the past with different insurers:

A) One where it was "equivalent" hire car provision - you should be all good to get an estate car but you might be on stickier ground insisting on roof bars as to be fair if they replace with a similar size estate car I think they'll have discharged their responsibilities on that.

B) One where it wasn't an equivalent hire car - in that instance I could choose to upgrade to something suitable for my needs but had to pay the difference myself. Fair enough, I knew that was the case when I took out the policy.

That quote above about "right to be put back into the same position you would have been in before your wife was crashed into" I don't believe is right with regard to a replacement hire car when yours is off the road, it pertains to the actual settlement where you either get your car back, in the same state as pre-accident, or equivalent cash to purchase an equivalent replacement. Hire cars while you're off the road are down to the specific contract you've entered into.

Oh, and that thing about needing to ring the police above is cobblers, even if the police hadn't happened to be there, there were no injuries, so it wouldn't be required.

****ing charming. Spoke to the insurers, they're already stating it could go 50/50 as there are no witnesses to say my wife didn't pull out. What a load of ****ing shite!

wrightyson, sorry to hear that, but if that's their approach, unless you have witness, dashcam or photo of cars in the position they collided it will be difficult to fight it.

For a replacement car, edlong's comments apply to what is covered on your insurance. If the damage is somebody else's fault, you're claiming damages from them, and what's in your policy is irrelevant. Their policy will cover any damages claim you can make stick, as it legally must cover third party. Your insurers may act as your agents in a damages claim, because that reduces their liability. But if they're going 50/50, your insurer will just accept that they pay half, and minimise the time and effort they spend on it. In that case, sorry but you may have to go with whatever your policy says on replacement cars.

+1

Yes, it's unfair, but life's unfair at times and you won't change it - better to suck it up and move on IMHO, part of 'the cost of motoring'

I think that the police "no case to answer." indicates that the insurer will go 50:50.

It's he says, she says. Unless you have witnesses.

wrightyson - Member

* charming. Spoke to the insurers, they're already stating it could go 50/50 as there are no witnesses to say my wife didn't pull out. What a load of * shite!

I had this told to me by swiftcover when a woman reversed into my stationary car in a car park.
But, it ended up going 100% her fault. So don't assume that 50/50 is the best you'll get.

Spoke to the insurers, they're already stating it could go 50/50 as there are no witnesses to say my wife didn't pull out.

Predictable. Push back, hard. Tell them it absolutely wasn't her fault as someone changed lanes into her and you're not prepared to accept a 50:50 offer.

Are you shure a passing cyclist did not witness the entire thing?

Its amazing how insurance companies often manage to find witnesses...

Cougar - Moderator

Predictable. Push back, hard. Tell them it absolutely wasn't her fault as someone changed lanes into her and you're not prepared to accept a 50:50 offer.

I should have said in my post above - this is what I did....
Told the person at Swiftcover that it was in no way might fault, my car was stationary when reversed into & I had my hand on the horn to warn her she was about to hit me.

I used a combination of google maps satellite images overlaid with shapes drawn in Word to show the chain of events & path of the cars prior & up to the collision.
I don't know if it made much difference, but I went to a lot of effort making a detailed summary of the incident from my point of view.

* charming. Spoke to the insurers, they're already stating it could go 50/50 as there are no witnesses to say my wife didn't pull out. What a load of * shite!

It's the argument for dash cams. I was debating getting one a while back, think I might pull the trigger now.

Are you shure a passing [s]cyclist[/s] bike forum did not witness the entire thing?

😉

I think that the police "no case to answer." indicates that the insurer will go 50:50.

Why is everyone going on about police? Have I missed something here?

As far as I can see the police weren't involved, don't need to be involved, and won't want to be involved.

wrightyson - Member
* charming. Spoke to the insurers, they're already stating it could go 50/50 as there are no witnesses to say my wife didn't pull out. What a load of * shite!

I had this a few years ago when someone went straight on on a bend on a dual carriageway. They said I came across (though I simply stayed in my lane), I pointed out that the impact was in the passenger side door, so I was clearly ahead, so it was incumbent on their driver to keep an adequate look out, which plainly they failed to do. Their insurance accepted liability within a few days of the incident.

There is a witness - your wife. I would not take that and push your insurers as others say.

I know its too late for this for your wife however if you or anyone you know is involved in an accident tell them to take photos (if safe) before cars are removed (even if other party had moved there car your wifes car would still have been clearly seen on her lane) . Also regards to hire car my car is due to go in for repair shortly and I have told them I would be okay with a small van as my car gets used mainly for mtbing taking the dog out and commuting (when I can't get my arse out of bed early enough to cycle in). They are okay with that as they reckon it would not be that much dearer than a large estate with towbar for bike rack.You might get a Kombi van off them if you ask and explain its for your holiday, also dependant on damage done could your car be repaired after holiday?

Yes, it's unfair, but life's unfair at times and you won't change it - better to suck it up and move on IMHO, part of 'the cost of motoring'

If its going to drag out get a independant claims company onboard to send you a hire car, the costs will ensure the insurnace companies stop playing silly buggers and get it sorted quickly.

He literally apologised to the wife saying sorry I've hit you etc,

Be sure to tell your insurer that he admitted liability at the roadside then. They love that.

The only claim I've made was 100 % the fault of the guy who ran into the back of me (accepted by everyone involved).

My insurance still went up afterwards and I needed to declare it for 5 years, so unless you have no claims to keep (if they're unprotected?) I would resist the 50/50 a bit, but eventually just move on.

Life's too short to ague over it when unfortunately it'll make little difference to your future motoring costs.

That said, hope you get it sorted out.

Thanks for that brilliant advice.
You don't run up 17 years of no claims with the attitude of sod it it doesn't matter.

I don't mean sod it as in don't reject that first answer of it going 50/50, but be prepared that unless you are prepared to do a heck of a load of work it's not entirely in your hands, and you could spend ages for no benefit in the end (and even if you do benefit it may be marginal in real terms).

Weigh up against using your protected NCB, it's what it's there for. And don't get angry because people don't say what you want to hear, you came on for advice.

I've so far spent 4 hours of my time (quiet work day thankfully) ringing and gathering information. My insurers it would appear were happy to just roll over and accept the 50/50 from the off which would probably save them time and money and having to give a toss.
However there are still some good people in the world it would seem, and his insurers have been in touch and he has accepted full responsibility, a great result and the right one. But it just makes me ever so more angry towards my shit insurer who were all ready to take the repair excess off me first thing this morning.
As Jamie said up there ^^ I will be fitting front and rear cameras to hopefully stop any of this stress in the future. Thanks for all the positive advice.

But it just makes me ever so more angry towards my shit insurer who were all ready to take the repair excess off me first thing this morning.

Name and shame!

Direct li(n)e.

[quote=wrightyson ]However there are still some good people in the world it would seem, and his insurers have been in touch and he has accepted full responsibility, a great result and the right one.

Like. I suspect that's actually the result in the majority of similar cases though (provided you can persuade your insurer not to just accept 50/50), as even for somebody dishonest there's little to gain in disclaiming responsibility - it makes no difference whether you're 50% or 100% responsible. I'd certainly happily admit my mistake in that case.

But it just makes me ever so more angry towards my shit insurer who were all ready to take the repair excess off me first thing this morning.

It does seem to be standard practice - presumably it makes business sense for them. I'm not sure the identity of the insurer is that important - they'd all do it.

Good result.

my mate used to work for a broker; according to him if you consider all the cases each year (or longer) of each insurer against another, and the efforts of preparing and arguing the toss for those cases where claims are in their world minor (ie without personal injury, etc.) - they just accepted half shares on the basis that over time it'd even up where each pays out 50% as often on cases where they shouldn't have as they avoid paying 100% on cases where they should. The nett result's the same to them, and avoid actually paying people to deal properly with them.

Like I said, it's not *right* but it's the way it is.

It would appear they are "all in it together" , apologies for taking the hump earlier (I rarely do it on here) but it just really pissed me off when I know my wife was 100% in the right when virtually stationary and not moving over due to the solid white line.
Good result as I say but sour taste from my first ever dealings with car insurers in 20 years of paying.

But it just makes me ever so more angry towards my shit insurer who were all ready to take the repair excess off me first thing this morning.

If it was obviously the fault of the third party then I'd be claiming directly off their insurance and only informing my own of the incident. If they accepted that it was their customer's fault there would be no excess for you to pay, they would provide a courtesy car, etc.

It does seem to be standard practice - presumably it makes business sense for them.

I'd have thought so. I expect it'll be the default response unless someone complains - it's faster (and thus cheaper) than getting dragged into a "he said / she said" argument with three other parties. That's why I suggested pushing back, they've probably not even looked at it properly, let alone come to any ruling over it.

[quote=theotherjonv ]they just accepted half shares on the basis that over time it'd even up where each pays out 50% as often on cases where they shouldn't have as they avoid paying 100% on cases where they should. The nett result's the same to them, and avoid actually paying people to deal properly with them.

There's even more upside to it for them than that - they get to take the excess off both parties and make both parties pay increased premiums, which wouldn't be the case if they allocated responsibility to one side or the other.

oh they will get increased premiums ....

wrightyson can no longer click the box " no accidents in last 2-3-4-5 years" because he has- albe it by proxy.

IdleJon - Member
But it just makes me ever so more angry towards my shit insurer who were all ready to take the repair excess off me first thing this morning.
If it was obviously the fault of the third party then I'd be claiming directly off their insurance and only informing my own of the incident. If they accepted that it was their customer's fault there would be no excess for you to pay, they would provide a courtesy car, etc.

In the incident I referred to above, my own insurer wouldn't give me a courtesy car (as apparently I'd already made a claim that year - I hadn't) and I got the admission of liability from the TP's insurers, and they offered a) a courtesy car and b) to repair my car at their cost.

My insurers got a flea in the ear, and TP's insurers got my business come renewal.

His insurers are dealing fully with the claim, **** direct line! Courtesy car, full collection and repair service and an email from the lease company being adhered to stating only genuine parts used via fully authorised garage etc etc. Now awaiting time and date for damage assessor to visit our house/car. Regarding the courtesy car, they're trying to find me a big estate with roof bars. I said I'd happily accept a vw transporter especially as it'll help me fit in on my Cornish holiday...

Glad you've got the result you fully deserved wrightyson.

I had a very similar experience a good few ago now. It was only my persistence of refusing to settle for a 50/50 claim that it ending up going to court.

It went in my favour and I'm glad I pursued. The insurer was all too happy to settle for 50/50.

[quote=wrightyson ]His insurers are dealing fully with the claim

Makes business sense

Back when I used to do this " loss of no claims bonus" was an element of the claim against the at fault driver,paid for by his insurers.

Direct line via a car hire company will offer you a matiz or even fiesta, they did with me, after a bmw rammed me.

I had a van off them after telling them i needed a van, got it for 6 weeks,ast they made slow repairs, Direct line where very good, but expect hike in insurance costs as youve made a claim.

A question on named drivers having accidents, presumably at renewal time the op has to declare a claim (even if non fault) and also has to declare the named driver has been involved in an accident. Does this get treated differently to if op had an accident as they could then declare one claim/accident?