What grieves me is that I've shown for over two decades that I can drive=20 without costing them anything but admin costs, but they still try to=20 screw me royally each year. The RAC wanted nearly =A3550 this year - got=20 it in the end for a tad under =A3300.=20
I reckon they should be paying me to lower their average claim rate.
--=20 Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Phil L" saying something like:
Fuck him, then. Go for the jugular.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home" saying something like:
What a load of baloney. B was in A's lane, cutting across his bows, so htf can A be any way at fault?
Well, if he got there by accident ten minutes earlier and was stuck/broken down or whatever, then quite reasonably the other car could have been expected to have gone round him. Which is presumably what the driver of B will say - or something of that sort.
On an icy road it's probable nothing could accelerate properly without studs (illegal on British roads) or chains (ditto unless snow covered).
It looks to me as if B is at fault for turning across the path of A. But I may be missing something :)
Ice can be funny stuff. Some years ago I had a very close shave as I slid gently up to a car that was stopped at a roundabout. It was apparent that I'd overcooked it, and I was going to hit the back of his car.
Until he pulled away :)
I stopped just behind the white line.
I also had a slow speed impact about 15 years ago. Going down a gentle hill I dabbed the brakes. The wheels locked. so I lifted off again. Nothing much happened. Thinking it through I realise that there was insufficient friction to restart the engine, and it was holding the front wheels locked. It took an awful long time to slide to the bottom of the hill at walking pace (no more!) where this poor lady had got as far as putting her car into reverse to try and get out of the way. I could see her wheels spinning backwards as I hit.
Andy
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Champ saying something like:
He was nervously staring in his mirror and grabbed his chance, possibly.
If B crossed A's lane far ahead of A, but had to stop part way across for some reason, then A kept going without paying attention, and at the last moment braked too late, then it would be A's fault. People do this sometimes.
It does look like B's fault, but then we've only heard A's story. B's account might change the picture fundamentally, there's no way to make a sound judgement without looking at B's point of view as well. We're left with accepting A's interpretation of events.
One thing is for sure though, the hill and ice don't count for anything. One must always drive in such a way as to be able to stop in time.
NT
ICBA to follow it.
TF
But driver B must also consider the hill and the ice and not cut short As extended stopping distance.
Insurance companies say you should never admit liability for an accident, which is probably why the other driver has changed his tune.
Not admitting liability is not the same as lying.
It's one thing to not discuss the rights and wrongs of the incident with the other driver or witnesses at or after the event - that's quite sensible and avoids silly mistakes. Just tell it like it is on the paperwork and on the bit that says "Who do you think was at fault?" say "Me" if it was you.
However, taking those instructions from insurers and reading them as "Lie and twist in order to make it appear you were blameless" is immoral and, more importantly, not what the insurance company wanted in the first place.
That is the gamble you take when you choose a higher excess over a higher premium.
That is a decision that the insurer will make, not you. Again, a higher premium can get you a protected NCB.
I would consider that to be quite improbable. You could, of course, take civil action to recover your loss, but that is also a gamble. How much of a gamble will depend upon what sort of evidence you have.
Colin Bignell
The most annoying aspect is the extra costs caused by these liars. The only people rubbing their hands are the solicitors.
Mind you, when the girlfriend bumped a car not long ago I refused to pay for the damage to the other car as the other driver had no insurance. I probably would have paid but he came to me with a claim of over £500 to put right a small dent on a R reg fiesta.
That and people expecting courtesy cars delivered to their door, repairs to very expensive bodywork and very fancy paintwork done at everyone else's expense. It all adds up, and then they bitch about the cost of insurance.
I hope you dobbed him to the rozzers.
--=20 Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.
Not at all. But he daren't call the police to report me for failing to give him my insurance details.
On Dec 31 2010, 7:00=A0pm, "Phil L" wrote
And there's the weak point of your position -- you failed to call the police so you have absolutely no protection whatsoever because not calling the police is deemed by most insurance companies as being an admission of guilt on your part.
Almost exactly a year ago my wife was stationary in the LandRover on a one-way street when a gritter truck came up the street the wrong way and hit the LandRover. She called the police and two of our older offspring were on the scene within fifteen minutes complete with camera -- got all the details of damage and marks on the gritter etc.
As clear a case as you're ever going to get of who was to blame. And I used to write the small print for a very large insurance company. But I've only just got authority to go ahead with repairs -- it's taken that long to get the other side to admit liability, even in the face of a police report confirming that their driver was not only going the wrong way up a one-way street but had hit a stationary vehicle leaving his vehicle's paint as evidence and having collected some of the LandRover paint on the gritter in the process.
Always call the police. And get a copy of their details. Always document the scene with photos -- even if they're only mobile-phone ones -- better than nothing.
Hmmm, interesting. I thought the cops would not be interested unless there was an injury. What is the "lower limit" for involving them?
It sounds likely that both drivers have already committed an offence under Road Traffic Act 1988, S170(5). I think the police would now be very interested, particularly if one of the drivers is not insured.
OK - so the relevant word is "damage". And the cops are obliged to be interested - good. The lesson here is that if the other party tries to be "pally" about it and requests the non-involvement of the cops you can apologise profusely and say you're obliged by law to report it.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.