Car insurer threatening daughter with CCJ

Thanks OceanSkipper and Sweaman,

I agree with you; it’s no different from the letter she received 10 months ago. They are just hoping she will pay. It would never get to court, and if it did, that is why she has insurance. If feel a lot better now – thanks again.

I’ve not read every post above, but could it be more basic than even than a shady lawyer trying it on and being an out and out scam? Unsolicited post with a panic inducing short deadline, definite scammers M.O.

I might try and be on touch with the 3rd party insurance if possible to check if it is at all genuine.

I’ve gotten my head around it now. What I knew as the small claims court is now automated unless you contest it. Its a lot eaiser to deal with.

That looks like a genuine letter – it’s a bit too blurry to read the details but it’s either a notice of a claim and you will have a certain amount of time to contest it or it is an actual CCJ – has your daughter not been to a hearing???

Suggest you ring them directly.. Also your insurer. Possibly also a solicitor of your own…

You may also need to fill out one of the forms here if you are disputing it..

https://www.gov.uk/respond-to-court-claim-for-money/respond-to-a-claim-by-post

What I don’t understand here is, assuming that there is a legitimate claim to be had, why they think she’s directly liable rather than her insurer.  Aside from the obvious answer of hoping she’ll get scared and give them free money, of course.

The claim is still in dispute between the two insurers

After ten months?  I’d be setting a fire under the arse of the insurer, saying “see you in court then, bitch” to the claimant and filing a counter-suit for harassment.

It’s a notice of a claim.

Any business can fire these out—their purpose is to collect unpaid invoices or debts. It seems they are trying to shortcut the insurance company in the hope my daughter will pay. Not really the fine, upstanding legal service I naively think we have.

Aside from the obvious answer of hoping she’ll get scared and give them free money,

Exactly that Cougar

It is a notice of claim and is a step on the road to court. Private parking companies use them a lot. Many will be discontinued before they actually reach court. Before any CCJ is issued it will have to be adjudicated on and the person who received the claim will be able to lodge a defence. So it does seem an odd one for an insurance company to be pursuing if there is already another insurer in the mix, the judge would have to be issue a judgement in the claiments favour, and that not be the full amount they are claiming and even then a CCJ won’t be issued unless the person who the claim was issued against doesn’t pay the court judgement.

Either there is something here we’re all missing about the particulars of the claim or the claiment has no intention of going to court and is using (abusing the process) to frighten a payment out of someone. If the lady in this case did lose in court and they haven’t invalidated their own insurance in some way I’d guessed they’d be able to take their own insurer to court  in the same way knowing a court had decided they were liable in which case there is little defence from the insurance for not having already paid out.

Yes, as above…Assuming she was correctly insured,  this should be a matter for her car insurance company… it should never even see a court room for her.

So the (her) defence would be “claim your losses from my insurance company, this appears to be an abuse of the court process, please strike out the case on that basis”… but in more official words.

Has she spoken to her insurance company and explained that a 3rd party is trying to sue her?

Regardless of the specifics of the case, what a **** headache for your daughter. Sorry you’re going through this.

if it shows turn it to be a speculative request for money, does this apply?

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/fraud-dishonesty/legal-threats-solicitor/

they think she’s directly liable rather than her insurer

At law, she is liable. The collision was between two drivers, not two insurance companies. So the case is pursued in the names of the drivers.

This, again, needs to go back to the insurer asap.

By the way, if OP isn’t happy about the way it’s been dealt with, you can complain and potentially go to the ombudsman. But, if it’s the other side that have held things up (which sounds plausible) then not much will come of it.

Not too muddy the waters here op but did you daughter have a “courtesy car” at and point, after the collision?

After ten months?  I’d be setting a fire under the arse of the insurer, saying “see you in court then, bitch” to the claimant and filing a counter-suit for harassment.

definitely don’t do that.  If the other party had been a cyclist and the insurance companies were taking this long over a small claim you lot would be saying – stop waiting for them just issue court proceedings!

this is the other drivers insurer/lawyer putting a rocket up your insurer for taking too long.   Whilst someone 10 months ago said just pass to insurer do not respond – I would still strongly recommend that you do pass to your insurer but write to the court to inform them that you have done so and that you previously did so in response to other correspondence.  She doesn’t want to end up in a bigger mess because the court think this document has been ignored (if the insurer don’t get their finger out).  Courts do not like having their time wasted by parties who should have settled out of court, but they really don’t like parties who ignore official correspondence.

I agree with you; it’s no different from the letter she received 10 months ago.

it is – it’s the next step when her insurer are no further towards settling

They are just hoping she will pay. It would never get to court,

it absolutely will unless her insurer settle it or scare the claimant off; legal costs for fighting a baseless claim could easily run to £5k so it’s surprising that the insurer have not managed to settle it.

and if it did, that is why she has insurance.

correct – you are 100% sure she was insured at the time, for that vehicle and the purpose it was being used for?  There is no dispute from her own insurer about their liability if there is an award made?

At law, she is liable. The collision was between two drivers, not two insurance companies. So the case is pursued in the names of the drivers.

But the insurers are paid to act on her behalf.

definitely don’t do that. If the other party had been a cyclist

If it was then the answer is still the same, I’d expect my insurer (or the MIB) to pay out / tell them to jog on rather than be pursued personally.

this is the other drivers insurer/lawyer putting a rocket up your insurer for taking too long.

No it’s not, it’s scaremongering. If they were “putting a rocket up her insurer” then they would be writing to the insurer rather than to her, wouldn’t they.

“My insurance company is dealing with this, please take any enquiries up with them, kkthxbi.”  If we’re playing the whataboutery game, what if she’d killed someone and the estate was coming after her for millions?  Right you are then guv, let me crack open the piggy bank?

When I got hit by another driver on my way home several years ago, the other driver admitted to me, and to my insurance company that she had indicated she was turning right on the roundabout, then changed her mind and swerved in front of me, between me and the oncoming line of traffic entering the roundabout.

I’d had a hire car, my car examined but decided it wasn’t worth repairing, so I kept it and had a small payment from the insurance company. At the same time her insurance company were continually arguing the toss about it, and occasionally my insurance company would get in touch to say it still hadn’t been settled.

I gave the car away a couple of years afterwards, and never heard anything back about it. AFAIK, they’re still arguing about it!

That’s what insurance companies are supposed to do.

correct – you are 100% sure she was insured at the time, for that vehicle and the purpose it was being used for?  There is no dispute from her own insurer about their liability if there is an award made?

Yes, and daughter has admitted liability. She’s already paid the price by losing her no claims discount.

The other party was claiming for personal injury but has never submitted evidence to date, and in the meantime called a blame/claim firm.

The other party was claiming for personal injury but has never submitted evidence to date, and in the meantime called a blame/claim firm.

Ah, so is this a new speculative claim from an ambulance chaser after the original insurance issue has been settled? I had one of these a few years ago for a no damage parking shunt. My insurance company shut it down very quickly when I forwarded the letter.

But the insurers are paid to act on her behalf.

No it’s not, it’s scaremongering. If they were “putting a rocket up her insurer” then they would be writing to the insurer rather than to her, wouldn’t they.

if the daughter’s insurance aren’t settling the claim after an entire year, the next step to forcing the matter is to take them the daughter to court. There is no other way to escalate it. You can’t take the insurance company to court, and if you take no-one to court the issue will remain unsolved for 6 years (from memory) at which point it times out, and there’s no way of recovering the losses the other party has. Taking the daughter to court is the only way to move things forwards, and whilst its worrying for her, the insurance company will sort it. The insurance company can (and have) ignore a letter, they can’t ignore a CCJ.

often these things get right to the doorway of the court before being settled – there’s lots of annecdotal evidence of witnesses having to show up on the day only to be told to go home (especially for AMC car hire fees). Hopefully for the OP it won’t get to that, but it might.

if the daughter’s insurance aren’t settling the claim after an entire year,

That’s what I don’t understand.  If she’s admitted liability (never do this), her insurers should pay out without further question.  The fact that either they’re still arguing or have closed the claim (which is it?) suggests to me that they don’t believe the extent of the claim.

I’m not seeing a scenario in which the insurer refuses to pay out but the court would rule in the claimant’s favour, unless I’m missing something here?

The argument looks to be about the quantum/extent of the claim – perhaps with no evidence of personal injury, the insurers are understandably refusing that part of the claim. Having said that, I have experience of insurers failing to act on court proceedings and then having to get them to get the CCJ (from unfended claim) set aside. As per Rich_S, get on to insurers and make them aware of the issued proceedings.