What's happened here then?

First off I'm sorry for the long winded post.

Earlier this year I was involved in a small bump while in my car. Anyway I was pissed off at the insurance company as they put the blame 100% on me but you get over it and move on. I have copied in my original post below.

Anyway today I just saw the other driver and car and its not been repaired. Now I can't understand why they would not have carried out a repair if it was covered by my policy. As I was advised that it would be. You will note from the original post below that we were both insured by the same company and I'm convinced that this has something to do with it. I did not talk to the other driver.

Now has the insurer done wrong here by potentially telling both parties that they carry full responsibility so that the excess contributes to the repair? I paid my £350.00 towards the cost of my repair and it looks as if the other driver did not think it worthwhile to get their repair done. Excess was probably more than their repair. But if they were informed that I was at fault then why not get the car repaired? What am I missing?

Original Post:

The SMIDSY is a real issue on these frosty mornings. Dropping my son of at school a couple of weeks ago and no more than 2 minutes from home, I had to pull out to pass a parked car. I wasn't travelling fast (less than 5mph) and saw a car coming so stopped and engaged reverse as the other vehicle had right of way. Unfortunately as I was reversing, the car heading towards me didn't even slow down. I was reversing and turing back into my own lane, probably 90% there, and this car just ran right into me!!!! When I got out, the girl driver just said she didn't see me. No bloody wonder, she had made NO effort to clear her windows from frost.

It gets worse though.

I took some photos with the phone to send to my insurers. Which turned out to be a complete waste of time because they still reckoned I was still at fault. They argued that part of my vehicle must still have been on the opposite side of the road, also the photos didn't prove anything as I could not prove that they were taken at the same time as the accident and I also couldn't prove I was reversing at the time of the collision. This is my own insurers arguing that despite all the evidence I was going to have to stump up my excess.

Turns out the other driver has had another recent accident and when pressed the insurers admitted that she was also insured by them.

Her excess was probably less than mine!

Despite all this I remained calm and did not raise my voice. Driving a car you see.

On the other hand, if someone even looks like they are going to invade my safety zone when on my bike, I want to rip their throat out! Go figure!

 

2 points here. In the majority of cases most claims technicians do not have the first idea about the dynamics of riding or driving, and when someone tries to tell them the circumstances based on factual evidence they become defensive and turn off because they do not like admitting they are wrong or they do not know what they are talking about.

In injury cases, one of the reasons that legal costs tend to soar in not because the solicitor is spinning things out, but usually because the technicians who handle the claims will not admit liability despite the evidence to support the claimant or whatever, and the longer they deny liability the more costly it becomes.

We have not long settled a case where the evidence was overwhelming in favour of the injured party although in general terms the injuries were not that severe (This case came in before the fixed cost and portal system).

We had video evidence, witness evidence and physical evidence on top of which the defendant failed to comply with the law on several counts. In the end the defendant insurers would not reply to our letters or even take our phone calls, so we had to issue proceedings, get in an independent expert witness and make sure that we were prepared for trial.

Cut a long story short on the steps of the court the defendants decided to settle. This could have been settled inside 18 - 24 months instead of the 48 months it actually took all for a £8,000 compensation claim, but legal costs ran to about £30,000 because of all the extra work we had to do but would not have been required had the other side been sensible.

In respect of the excess to the other side in your case, it sounds like that the the third party vehicle may have been deemed an economical write off (given his previous claim as well) and he has purchased the salvage and not bothered to repair, or he has simply decided against having it repaired because his excess is too high because of his previous claim.

But then as you know, insurance companies are a law onto themselves anyway!