Insurance Company to Small Claims Court?
Discussion
Hi all
New to this forum stuff but thought I would give it a go. I am considering taking my insurance company to court over a rush decision and failure to obtain relevant evidence following a collision. The collision as such was as follows:
I was approaching an open T junction which is often obscured on the left hand side by a number of parked cars (nothing unusual here) and has a wide view to the right. upon checking to the right I could see about 150yards away a white van approaching that began to indicate into my junction (the road it was on swerves to their right and the T is at the bottom of the J if that makes sense?). To my left I could see the usual parked cars and a lowloader which was protruding into the juntion slightly. I treated this as a "peep and creep", or is it the otherway round? I mean this in that as a reached the give way lines I again looked at the right van and could not see any other vehicles heading from that direction towards my junction. It had now slowed considerably and positioned for a turn into the junction about 25-30m away from me, so I crept to the edge of the lowloader and as I arrived I looked left and could see it was safe to accelerate and joint the opposite carriageway to turn right and so accelerated.
However, I had not seen the black saab, which had been hugging the rear end of the white van and decided, I believe unless it drove through the white van protecting my right, to overtake at this point and the front end of my vehicle as it reached the middle markings collided with the front passenger side tyre and all down the side of the car.
Now for the actual question, I believe that I could have done nothing further to comply with the appropriate method of negotiating such junctions and did so in accordance with training received. My insurance company think that because I emerged from a junction that regardless of the overtaking by thrid party at a junction, he was established on the road, he had right of way regardless of breaching Highway Code Rules governing overtaking at junctions.
I would like some objective advice on how some in this forum would have approached the junction as am curious as to the thoughts of the various IAM members on here.
Thanks
New to this forum stuff but thought I would give it a go. I am considering taking my insurance company to court over a rush decision and failure to obtain relevant evidence following a collision. The collision as such was as follows:
I was approaching an open T junction which is often obscured on the left hand side by a number of parked cars (nothing unusual here) and has a wide view to the right. upon checking to the right I could see about 150yards away a white van approaching that began to indicate into my junction (the road it was on swerves to their right and the T is at the bottom of the J if that makes sense?). To my left I could see the usual parked cars and a lowloader which was protruding into the juntion slightly. I treated this as a "peep and creep", or is it the otherway round? I mean this in that as a reached the give way lines I again looked at the right van and could not see any other vehicles heading from that direction towards my junction. It had now slowed considerably and positioned for a turn into the junction about 25-30m away from me, so I crept to the edge of the lowloader and as I arrived I looked left and could see it was safe to accelerate and joint the opposite carriageway to turn right and so accelerated.
However, I had not seen the black saab, which had been hugging the rear end of the white van and decided, I believe unless it drove through the white van protecting my right, to overtake at this point and the front end of my vehicle as it reached the middle markings collided with the front passenger side tyre and all down the side of the car.
Now for the actual question, I believe that I could have done nothing further to comply with the appropriate method of negotiating such junctions and did so in accordance with training received. My insurance company think that because I emerged from a junction that regardless of the overtaking by thrid party at a junction, he was established on the road, he had right of way regardless of breaching Highway Code Rules governing overtaking at junctions.
I would like some objective advice on how some in this forum would have approached the junction as am curious as to the thoughts of the various IAM members on here.
Thanks
Just to clarify things - at the moment of collision, was the other car completely on the other side of the road?
I can see how you might argue that the other drive contributed slightly to the collision, but I would think that you'd be luckier than Lucky McLucksplit the Lucky Poodle to even get a 50:50 result - in which case you're unlikely to gain anything from legal action.
I can see how you might argue that the other drive contributed slightly to the collision, but I would think that you'd be luckier than Lucky McLucksplit the Lucky Poodle to even get a 50:50 result - in which case you're unlikely to gain anything from legal action.
Given the title of the thread I'd suggest you have not come fully to terms with the part you played in this incident. Best thing, I'd suggest is consider honestly (to yourself) what you have learned from it. Then put it down to experience & move on. Unfortunately people tailgate vans. Vans tend to slow down while the driver figures out where he's going. When he does decide, the driver behind reacts; usually by swerving around the slowing vehicle. Crap driving but it happens all the time.
Hi
The OP was completely on the other side of the road at the time. I have images showing exact position of my vehicle after the collision.
It's not really the fault decision that I am looking to have reverted by the legal action, it is the lack of action by the insurance company (to even obtain a written account from 3rd party or request relevant CCTV that shows the manner of driving a few yards from the collision) that has put me into a financial detriment. I have been lied to by the initial staff member who rushed to a decision and they have offered my £50 as compensation for this but that goes little towards the £550 excess or the discomfort of the minor (low level but still it hurt for days!) that was caused by a breach of the highway code by OP. I never expected them to go all guns blazing into a court battle but at least ask the other insurer for an a written account etc! It is in my view a contractual failure, not to even have all or most of the objective evidence before rushing to a decision, as it would be more expensive to the policy holder that way?
I would love to have recognised the risk behind the van, but couldn't see it only due to how close (as the CCTV showed) the other party was and their position behind the van. Regardless, as the van was still turning into the junction it was protecting me and was a factor in moving beyond the imaginary giveway line at the end of the obstruction. Hindsight is glorious
I appreciate your quick responses and am happy for more thoughts.
The OP was completely on the other side of the road at the time. I have images showing exact position of my vehicle after the collision.
It's not really the fault decision that I am looking to have reverted by the legal action, it is the lack of action by the insurance company (to even obtain a written account from 3rd party or request relevant CCTV that shows the manner of driving a few yards from the collision) that has put me into a financial detriment. I have been lied to by the initial staff member who rushed to a decision and they have offered my £50 as compensation for this but that goes little towards the £550 excess or the discomfort of the minor (low level but still it hurt for days!) that was caused by a breach of the highway code by OP. I never expected them to go all guns blazing into a court battle but at least ask the other insurer for an a written account etc! It is in my view a contractual failure, not to even have all or most of the objective evidence before rushing to a decision, as it would be more expensive to the policy holder that way?
I would love to have recognised the risk behind the van, but couldn't see it only due to how close (as the CCTV showed) the other party was and their position behind the van. Regardless, as the van was still turning into the junction it was protecting me and was a factor in moving beyond the imaginary giveway line at the end of the obstruction. Hindsight is glorious
I appreciate your quick responses and am happy for more thoughts.
ubermonkey said:
The OP was completely on the other side of the road at the time.
With the low loader and parked cars to your left, that's exactly where you'd expect someone approaching from your right and continuing past the junction to be at that point isn't it? Or have I got the wrong picture in mind? Either way...7db said:
it sounds like you pulled out of a junction into traffic. My advice would be not to do that in future.
... wot he said.Hi
Not sure that the question appears clear, it was about the methods used and taught by IAM on negotiation of restricted view junctions and thoughts on the creep and peep method.
The lowloader was parked on the end, but petruding into the junction, of car parking spaces and the left side of the carriageway allows passing without venturing onto the wrong side of the road, abit like room for three lanes although one is used for designated parking. The imaginary give way lines were at the end of this lowloader and there was still a lane worth of distance travelled beyond before the impact on white lines of carriageway.
So for advanced driving forum I am a little concerned that the view seems to be focused on apportioning blame rather than how to negotiate the junctions, much like the insurance company.
I am interested in views on the above but don't really find the "don't pull out into traffic" contributory or even funny to the question and suggest that if they certain people want to troll threads to make comments that make them chuckle that's up to them. Sad, but upto them.
Not sure that the question appears clear, it was about the methods used and taught by IAM on negotiation of restricted view junctions and thoughts on the creep and peep method.
The lowloader was parked on the end, but petruding into the junction, of car parking spaces and the left side of the carriageway allows passing without venturing onto the wrong side of the road, abit like room for three lanes although one is used for designated parking. The imaginary give way lines were at the end of this lowloader and there was still a lane worth of distance travelled beyond before the impact on white lines of carriageway.
So for advanced driving forum I am a little concerned that the view seems to be focused on apportioning blame rather than how to negotiate the junctions, much like the insurance company.
I am interested in views on the above but don't really find the "don't pull out into traffic" contributory or even funny to the question and suggest that if they certain people want to troll threads to make comments that make them chuckle that's up to them. Sad, but upto them.
ubermonkey said:
Not sure that the question appears clear, it was about the methods used and taught by IAM on negotiation of restricted view junctions and thoughts on the creep and peep method.
One of the things you can do to aid creep and peep is wind the windows down and turn down fans and the radio so you can creep, peep and listen.For all we know, your creep and peep technique with respect to the obscured view to your left could have been textbook perfect. It wasn't a hazard from the left that caught you out.
ubermonkey said:
I am interested in views on the above but don't really find the "don't pull out into traffic" contributory
But it's the right answer. You collided with a vehicle that was coming from your right - the direction in which you had a clear view up the road. Creep and peep sounds like the right way to handle the obscured view to your left - you just chose the wrong time to do it.I don't see what it is about this incident that's led you to question creep and peep.
Edited by SK425 on Wednesday 21st August 15:54
ubermonkey said:
Hi
So for advanced driving forum I am a little concerned that the view seems to be focused on apportioning blame rather than how to negotiate the junctions, much like the insurance company.
I am interested in views on the above but don't really find the "don't pull out into traffic" contributory or even funny to the question and suggest that if they certain people want to troll threads to make comments that make them chuckle that's up to them. Sad, but upto them.
I'm a DSA registered instructor & Fleet trainer & RoSPA Dip Holder (Oh & an examiner) & also, apparently a troll although generally, I don't chuckle at other people's misfortune. If you want to feel vindicated in your actions go speak to your Mum,If the truth hearts & you can't learn from it; tough.So for advanced driving forum I am a little concerned that the view seems to be focused on apportioning blame rather than how to negotiate the junctions, much like the insurance company.
I am interested in views on the above but don't really find the "don't pull out into traffic" contributory or even funny to the question and suggest that if they certain people want to troll threads to make comments that make them chuckle that's up to them. Sad, but upto them.
I would suggest that driving techniques aren't that relevant to this. It doesn't matter if you did everything humanely possible and drove to perfection. Some accidents are just like that where no party is really at fault-they are just that- an accident.
THe only thing that is relevant is whether you could be even 1% to blame - which I think you will agree you could be.
In that case you suffer no loss because your financial position is the same regardless of whether you are 1% or 100% to blame. THis being the case you have no loss to actually sue for.
Accidents are frustrating for this and I sympathise but it's life I am afraid.
THe only thing that is relevant is whether you could be even 1% to blame - which I think you will agree you could be.
In that case you suffer no loss because your financial position is the same regardless of whether you are 1% or 100% to blame. THis being the case you have no loss to actually sue for.
Accidents are frustrating for this and I sympathise but it's life I am afraid.
Not to cause offence 7mike as the comment was not aimed at you as your comments were helpful. it was aimed at 7db who's comment has no use to this thread at all. And by the way, my mum is dead.
I accept that while I took all possible care and to asses to my right, I should have forseen that there may have been some idiot tailgating, as my crystal ball knew, that that same idiot would then overtake the slowing turning vehicle when it was not safe to do so and hit me from the right while on the wrong side of the road due the overtake. Of course had I not been there it would have not happened. On the other hand, had he not overtaken then no collision would have occurred. I do not deny that some fault lies with me and have accepted that fact but by the insurance company accepting 100% liability without even obtaining true independant evidence is idiotic.
Moreover regarding the insurace company, they have offered me £50 as I was lied to by their staff member who knew I wanted to progress the claim to court for a decision, but lied to me about their policies and proceedures. Because they have a clause in the contract that says they take full control regarding decisions on claims, you hope they would do their best for you, not just shrug it off because someone has their own crystal ball as to what the ultimate decision would be. Apparently not.
This is not the correct forum for this aspect so I think have exhausted relevant responses for now.
I accept that while I took all possible care and to asses to my right, I should have forseen that there may have been some idiot tailgating, as my crystal ball knew, that that same idiot would then overtake the slowing turning vehicle when it was not safe to do so and hit me from the right while on the wrong side of the road due the overtake. Of course had I not been there it would have not happened. On the other hand, had he not overtaken then no collision would have occurred. I do not deny that some fault lies with me and have accepted that fact but by the insurance company accepting 100% liability without even obtaining true independant evidence is idiotic.
Moreover regarding the insurace company, they have offered me £50 as I was lied to by their staff member who knew I wanted to progress the claim to court for a decision, but lied to me about their policies and proceedures. Because they have a clause in the contract that says they take full control regarding decisions on claims, you hope they would do their best for you, not just shrug it off because someone has their own crystal ball as to what the ultimate decision would be. Apparently not.
This is not the correct forum for this aspect so I think have exhausted relevant responses for now.
ubermonkey said:
have accepted that fact but by the insurance company accepting 100% liability without even obtaining true independant evidence is idiotic.
You are categorically and deliberately ignoring the point.If they took it to court and the court decided 50-50, 80-20 or whatever, the outcome is still the same to you. So what does it matter? Where have you made a loss?
Look at it from the insurers point of view. You want them to spend several thousands of pounds to get a court to say that you aren't 100% to blame to soothe your pride a little and achieve nothing else. Why the f
k should they?ubermonkey said:
I accept that while I took all possible care and to asses to my right
No you didn't, you pulled out whilst having your view obscured by a van. You weren't able to check the route was clear, and it transpires it wasn't. Taking all possible care to assess to your right would have meant waiting until you could actually see, but you didn't - the result was a crash.As for your comments about this forum, you'll find there are numerous insurance experts, senior police officers, barristers and motoring lawyers on here who regularly provide insightful, enlightening and expert opinion on matters of motoring law - I suspect your posting style and the content of your posts has dissuaded them from assisting. You appear to only want you own opinion confirmed, which unfortunately is not something that occurs on here when people are at fault, we call it how it is.
It's a well-known phenomenon (and a factor in the way insurance costs work) that people have the same accidents again and again.
If a driver is involved in a collision and cannot see how their actions contributed to it, they cannot learn from it, and are likely to repeat the same error in the future.
Accepting a share (or all) of the responsibility is a tough thing to do, but when every single person and organisation you encounter is telling you the same thing, it might be time to listen.
If a driver is involved in a collision and cannot see how their actions contributed to it, they cannot learn from it, and are likely to repeat the same error in the future.
Accepting a share (or all) of the responsibility is a tough thing to do, but when every single person and organisation you encounter is telling you the same thing, it might be time to listen.
ubermonkey said:
Not to cause offence 7mike as the comment was not aimed at you as your comments were helpful.
Ok; ta 
I'm not remotely interested in apportioning blame; that's the job for plod/insurance companies/clever people on internet forums etc. We can't turn back the clock & have another go, so hopefully you can gain some positive experience from it. Personally; I don't trust indicators anyway. Too easy to scam when the third party says they were pulling in just past the junction you were coming out of.Advanced (or any other) driving advice is easy. If exiting a junction and a vehicle to your right is slowing, anticipate that another vehicle, maybe a motorbike, will overtake them. Only proceed when you have a clear view.
I have no special expertise on the insurance aspect - but if your own accident report shows that you were responsible (and you have to accept that our reaction to what you have said here shows that it does) then why would you expect them to look for any further evidence?
I have no special expertise on the insurance aspect - but if your own accident report shows that you were responsible (and you have to accept that our reaction to what you have said here shows that it does) then why would you expect them to look for any further evidence?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff