ChatterBank1 min ago
Going to Court over car accident
After some info about how things might go and what / if i can get my own evidence as my solicitor is ****.
She is saying it was my fault and is also tryin to claim personal injury. Basically she drove accross the front of my car and scratched my bumper!!!! i let my ins comp know but didnt claim as the repairs to mine were only �100, My excess is higher than that. However they wrote her Dawoo Lanos off coz there was summit wrong with the front wheel.
She has been given a statement from a relative of hers sayin he thiks i hit her but didnt acctually see!
She is claiming in her statement that she was stationary, which is untrue, i was the stationary vehicle and gerneral people mentioned about the damage to my car about the damage undoubtedly proving something moving across the front of my car and not damage from an impact as she states!!!!!!
Can i collect my own evidence? , i was going to see some accident specialists and get a statement on the type of damage on my car and the likey cause of it etc? and also get that off the guy who repaired my car? Can i dig in to anything medical to try and prove there is hardly any chance she would have sustained wiplash from the accident?
My insurance has been trying to force me to go 50/50 which i previously offered and she refused, so now if for some complete mis carrige of justice they find me at fault i will have gone down fighting\!!!!!!
One more thing, she is my dads neighbour and her parents and my dad have had an ongoing fieud for about the last 15 years they really dont like each other !!! Think this might get messy!!
Sorry this is so long but tried to fit everything in, if you can help me at all on what to do next???????
She is saying it was my fault and is also tryin to claim personal injury. Basically she drove accross the front of my car and scratched my bumper!!!! i let my ins comp know but didnt claim as the repairs to mine were only �100, My excess is higher than that. However they wrote her Dawoo Lanos off coz there was summit wrong with the front wheel.
She has been given a statement from a relative of hers sayin he thiks i hit her but didnt acctually see!
She is claiming in her statement that she was stationary, which is untrue, i was the stationary vehicle and gerneral people mentioned about the damage to my car about the damage undoubtedly proving something moving across the front of my car and not damage from an impact as she states!!!!!!
Can i collect my own evidence? , i was going to see some accident specialists and get a statement on the type of damage on my car and the likey cause of it etc? and also get that off the guy who repaired my car? Can i dig in to anything medical to try and prove there is hardly any chance she would have sustained wiplash from the accident?
My insurance has been trying to force me to go 50/50 which i previously offered and she refused, so now if for some complete mis carrige of justice they find me at fault i will have gone down fighting\!!!!!!
One more thing, she is my dads neighbour and her parents and my dad have had an ongoing fieud for about the last 15 years they really dont like each other !!! Think this might get messy!!
Sorry this is so long but tried to fit everything in, if you can help me at all on what to do next???????
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Siandyxxx. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
NIghtmare situation - from your desctipion of the incident, I assume you were looking to pull out of a minor road, and the other party was established on the main road?
If this is the case, and you admitted that a collision occurred, the courts (who have no clue whatsoever about insurance claims) will most liekly rule in the other party's favour.
In regards to whiplash, we are told to treat the claimants on a ''eggshell skull'' basis - ie they could be extremelely vulnerable to injuries. This incident is waht is called a Low Velocity Collision, and since the other party will be armed with medical reports, the best you'd be looking at is the court awarding her less compensation that your insurers would have offered, but don't hold your breath.
In regards to tengineering evidence, if both vehicles had not been repaired (or if images of the pre-repair condition exist), then a suitably qualified engineer would be able to comment on what vehicle was stationary at the time - however, unless you have images of the vehicles post-accident, this may simply suggest that the incident did occur, and since you would appear to have been over the white line of the assumed junction at the time, it's going to go against you.
Don;t mean to put a negative spin on this, but I deal with bent claims all day long, and these are nightmares to prove
If this is the case, and you admitted that a collision occurred, the courts (who have no clue whatsoever about insurance claims) will most liekly rule in the other party's favour.
In regards to whiplash, we are told to treat the claimants on a ''eggshell skull'' basis - ie they could be extremelely vulnerable to injuries. This incident is waht is called a Low Velocity Collision, and since the other party will be armed with medical reports, the best you'd be looking at is the court awarding her less compensation that your insurers would have offered, but don't hold your breath.
In regards to tengineering evidence, if both vehicles had not been repaired (or if images of the pre-repair condition exist), then a suitably qualified engineer would be able to comment on what vehicle was stationary at the time - however, unless you have images of the vehicles post-accident, this may simply suggest that the incident did occur, and since you would appear to have been over the white line of the assumed junction at the time, it's going to go against you.
Don;t mean to put a negative spin on this, but I deal with bent claims all day long, and these are nightmares to prove
hiya from what you have said if you have previously offered her 50/50 whats up with doing that now?. let the insurance company deal with it - they have the experience after all and that is what you pay them for. What is the point of "going down fighting" wen you could end up with a big bill/big problems and the alternative is just to let the ins co settle?
I have had a letter of my solicitors today basically saying that they will be offering 50/50 to the other party regardless of what i think and will only go to court if the other party requests.
The accident happend at a cross roads, with all single track roads, it happened where 2 small roads meet another road (still single track) the 2 small roads merge before meetign the main road, she was on the road to my right. I had stopped and was checking to see if i could pull out when she just tried to pull straight out on to the main road without looking in front of her, hence the collision.
thanks for your help. Im just so angry.
The accident happend at a cross roads, with all single track roads, it happened where 2 small roads meet another road (still single track) the 2 small roads merge before meetign the main road, she was on the road to my right. I had stopped and was checking to see if i could pull out when she just tried to pull straight out on to the main road without looking in front of her, hence the collision.
thanks for your help. Im just so angry.
You pay your insurance company so they can sort these things out. If they are offering 50/50 that's because they have considerable experience in these matters and that an offer of anything less than 50% could be thrown out. They wouldn't pay out their money if they didn't feel they should pay it. From your description of the circumstances I think 50/50 is a reasonable outcome- certainly more reasonable than a claim it was 100% the fault of the other party.
What is it you are wanting- for it to be 100% against the other driver?
What is it you are wanting- for it to be 100% against the other driver?
1 to 6 of 6
