Accident claim

[jackcramerr]

Need advise.

Someone I know has been in an accident.

It happened at a round about where she was taking the second exit straight. A van came in front of her from right (first exist). It was a mini roundabout.

She says she was not overspeedng.

Cops came and knew the van owner. The lady was in a shock  to tell the whole incident. Cops bullied the lady into saying it is her fault.

Witness was there who initially said van was at fault but then changed the statement.

Van owner says car came too fast and when he approached roundabout there was no car on his left.

Now this lady told me the story today after 2 days.... What a shame, I know... how to fix this?

 

 

[jackcramerr]

Car clearly will be a write off. Through out the history of this lady, she has never had a single accident or over speeding ticket. I personally trust her but as always with ladies... it takes days for them to get out of a shock and speak up.

Let me know if any details are required and I will make her type it here. Thanks.

[Ben1001]

It doesn’t sound like there is anything you can do. Witness statement and police statements will be sufficient for her to be apportioned full responsibility. If its 50/50 they will investigate and look at both statements and road layouts, checking against damage to try to establish what happened.

 

[jackcramerr]

What a shame....

The witness also knew the guy and in fact the van owner is popular in area as he drives for council.

Can she say all this now to her insurance to atleast start an investigation? I hate when in justice is done due to corruption.

[Farqui]

Oh dear it doesn't sound good that she was bullied, especially when she was shaken/vulnerable.

I don't suppose she had a dashcam fitted? Video evidence would have clearly over ruled any false statements.

Good luck.

[sorcerer]

Can you link to the location on Google Maps (either street view or satellite view)?

A lot of people seem to have problems with mini roundabouts and don't know what to do but the simple truth is that they are roundabouts and just like any other, you give way to traffic coming from the right. The van driver would be looking to his right and if no traffic was approaching he would have proceeded. Your friend should have been looking to her right where she should have seen the van and given way. Obviously, it won't be that straightforward or there wouldn't have been a collision, which is why it would help to see the road layout.

[Guest]

If you genuinely think the police acted in an inappropriate way then go here: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/complaints

Have a look at the fine print of the policy and you may find it says that admitting fault could invalidate your cover.

If the police effectively pressured her to potentially invalidate her insurance then I think they need a slap.

You might not get more than an apology but it will slow things down and be a good thing to show insurance that you're serious. It might also stop cagney and lacy playing judge dredd at the road side.

Or accept that's how things are (a joke) and move on.



Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[jackcramerr]

Ok posting picture

[Linas.P]

To be honest it is tricky situation... If she already admitted being at fault, then it becomes harder - rule 1 better say nothing, but do not admit to anything especially if it is wrong. However, it is not unheard for people to change statements so there is nothing to stop her to change hers.

She should add all above as circumstances, but avoid "police bullying part" because you need to understand that other police officer will be reviewing the case - instead say she was in shock and under pressure form other driver she admitted it was her fault. You can still separately file for IPCC, because it seems obvious police officer was acting inappropriately even if he had not bullied her into admission. Just by virtue of the fact she was 100% right and van driver was 100% wrong, you don't even need to be police officer to see it - in roundabout you have to let car past from the right  - full stop. Important note - her speed is irrelevant, especially because it cannot be proven... even if it could be proven she was speeding it doesn't make accident her fault it is just another circumstance against her, but not her fault. 

So what I would do:

1. report to insurance as non-fault accident

2. call police and state that after shock came away and she had time to think trough and had reviewed the scene, circumstances and checked the highway code she relised it was not her fault and due to the shock and pressure she mistakenly admitted being at fault and you want to change this statement (bear in mind both will be kept and she will need to explain why it was changed)

3. keep all the pictures etc. like diagram above and quote highway code where necessary. Do not admit to anything which cannot be proven e.g. speeding. If other driver decides to chalenge that it will be up to him to prove it.

[Linas.P]

4 hours ago, Comedian said:

Have a look at the fine print of the policy and you may find it says that admitting fault could invalidate your cover.

What you mean ... "being at fault invalidates your cover"... that is the point of having insurance at the first place. The only reason why your insurance can be invalidated:

1. not road worthy car
2. driving under influence of... 

Being at fault is just natural condition for half of all people involved in accident (or collision how it is called), one is always going to be right another will be at fault.

[NemesisUK]

He actually said "admitting fault" not "being at fault".

Most policies require that you do not admit anything that may prejudice your or the insurance company's case 

[Linas.P]

Ok I see your point ... so technically regardless what she admitted she potentially invalidated Insurance policy by prejudice. And police officer effectively assisted (if not bullied/pressured ) her in doing so. Fair point...

I tend do believe if your admission was truthful or you made it in circumstances above it should not affect your insurance policy. Still I am amazed how untouchable and fraudulent are insurers in UK... Why on earth they are allowed to erect such arbitrary rule .. ever. It is not their f****** business what person admits to police. Police should be above insurance and tell them what to do, not the other way around and if police are wrong then there are courts to tell police what to do. Insurance should only take premium in the begging of the year and pay the bill in case you have accident ... end off.. 

[sorcerer]

Looking at that picture it would seem to be straightforward with the van at fault. The car was coming from his right so he should have given way.

Having said that, the overarching principle is that if you have right of way, you should complete your action or manoeuvre only if it is safe to do so. I suppose that it could be argued that she wasn't paying due care and attention or she would perhaps have seen that the van driver was approaching the roundabout a bit too fast to stop and was on a collision course with her, so she should have stopped instead.
 

[Linas.P]

Yes but same overarching principle applies to Van driver.... so in result this principle should not apply, because it is equal on both sides. Same goes for due care an attention, both drivers should drive with due care, but who was careless in this case? Van driver cutting in front of other car or the lady driving trough roundabout with the right of way? And that is what is counts - she had right of way and Van driver had not... making him at fault.  

I understand where above principle can be vaguely applied if she was speeding, but that has to be proven first and it is very unlikely. Even if she was doing say 35MPH in 30 zone it would not be contributing factor as it would be ridiculous for van driver to claim that he would have seen her if she would have been driving at 30, but because she was doing 35 he somehow could not see her anymore. The only way I can see she can be legally found to be at fault is if somehow somebody can prove her speed was contributing factor, which is impossible unless she was doing 90MPH on that roundabout.

The only place I consider this applies when you get in a way of say motorbike doing 90MPH in 30zone at say T-junction and then you can claim even though it was his right of way, his speed was contributing factor in the accident as you could not humanly see him coming at you at that speed. 

[is200 Newbie]

3 hours ago, jackcramerr said:

Ok posting picture

Looking at the photo and considering it is a mini roundabout there is a lot of visible "room" to assess the rights of the other road users at each junction. There are no obstacles in the way and there is clear view, looking at the picture of each vehicle from each junction. There would have been no clear right of way for the van as for him to bang into your friends car, your friend would have already been on the roundabout itself.

The only way I can see this happening where the van hit your friends car was if she was speeding but regardless of that, the van if they had the foresight to see the car coming would have had to stop because it was not safe to enter the roundabout.

Another scenario would be that you friend had here indicator on indicating she was turning left at the junction?

dashcam footage is so usefull in these incidents and yes, in agreement with comments above, do not mention the side taken by the police but report it separately. Isn't this what the legal cover on your insurance is for?

 

[Linas.P]

I was thinking the same, the only feasible explanation for van driver why he cut in front would be that car was indicating left.. but I have not seen that mentioned anywhere. As well because indicators are extremely difficult to prove without witness or even with witness that is unlikely to change anything, it was his fault fair and square... 

[Malc]

I would just report it all to the insurers and deny any liability and tell them it was all the van driver's fault 100%.

Explain the bullying aspect and the pressure to admit fault at that stressful time

Pressure her insurers to NOT accept any liability on her part then let them run with it thereafter but constantly denying her insurers and their claims management company the opportunity to accept any fault in any degree, at least for the first 6 months of the claim.

Malc

 

[Guest]

What you mean ... "being at fault invalidates your cover"... that is the point of having insurance at the first place. The only reason why your insurance can be invalidated:

1. not road worthy car
2. driving under influence of... 

Being at fault is just natural condition for half of all people involved in accident (or collision how it is called), one is always going to be right another will be at fault.

You actually changed my words and then argued with the words you made up. You nutter.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

... and if she made any explicit statement, she need to change it... again explaining all the circumstances.

If she did no make a statement and just verbally agreed, then there is no reason to worry.. the van driver and witness statements will have to be "proven beyond reasonable" doubt in court which is basically impossible. As such simply highway code rules going to apply, based on which van driver is at fault.

[Linas.P]

6 minutes ago, Comedian said:

You actually changed my words and then argued with the words you made up. You nutter.

How did that happened? Can you explain please? 

Edit: I guess you refer..  admitting vs. actually being at fault.... but again neither should invalidate the cover... that was my point. The only thing which can invalidate your cover are 2 circumstances I mentioned.

[Guest]

It may vary but I'm loath to spend long reading insurance small print. I have other frivolous demands on my time :D . I seem to recall most policies have something about admitting fault and it might turn your insurance into 3rd party or something. It doesn't mean you broke any law etc. Regardless, admitting fault is foolish, I am sure we can agree on that. They decline about 50k claims a year so people are doing something wrong.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[jackcramerr]

She did not have the indicater on as she had to go straight on.

She uses this road quiet often and she is used to it.

She says she saw the van when she was on round about. The Van cut infront, she tried to avoid the accident buy turning right but the van driver instead of braking, accelerated. The car thus hit the rear of the van. 

Van ended on the pavement accross the road with 180 degree spin.

Very clear from location of van that it was speeding and did not bother to stop seeing the car.

Van driver had admitted to lady she did not see her car. But when cops  came he changed statement saying she came too fast.

[Linas.P]

11 minutes ago, Comedian said:

It may vary but I'm loath to spend long reading insurance small print. I have other frivolous demands on my time :D . I seem to recall most policies have something about admitting fault and it might turn your insurance into 3rd party or something. It doesn't mean you broke any law etc. Regardless, admitting fault is foolish, I am sure we can agree on that. They decline about 50k claims a year so people are doing something wrong.

I completely agree on that... you should never admit in such situation, but I appreciate that lady was in shock and following guidance from police made this admission. Foolish but not wrong..

I never said that condition you mentioned does not exists.. quite opposite I am almost certain you are right in saying that some policies might have this (ridiculous) condition. For a long time I was saying that insurance is fraud or at very least uses questionable clauses and practices which makes no sense, but for them to increase profits. I understand that there are many fraudsters around, but instead of trying do something about fraudsters they just add some ridiculous term to catch out motorists making legitimate claims. Which may relate to 50k claim being declined... after every declined claim is free money for insurers to wash via shady offshore structures pay 250 mln to CEO's and share holders and then report financial loss in the end.

[peachy]

Come on jack, are you sure this she you keep referring to isn't actually you? 😅

[Guest]

I completely agree on that... you should never admit in such situation, but I appreciate that lady was in shock and following guidance from police made this admission. Foolish but not wrong..
I never said that condition you mentioned does not exists.. quite opposite I am almost certain you are right in saying that some policies might have this (ridiculous) condition. For a long time I was saying that insurance is fraud or at very least uses questionable clauses and practices which makes no sense, but for them to increase profits. I understand that there are many fraudsters around, but instead of trying do something about fraudsters they just add some ridiculous term to catch out motorists making legitimate claims. Which may relate to 50k claim being declined... after every declined claim is free money for insurers to wash via shady offshore structures pay 250 mln to CEO's and share holders and then report financial loss in the end.

It's all a joke ;)

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk