Carl_S Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Let us know what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supra-Woman Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 The car behind her was a taxi, i have the guys details and he is willing to be a witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 The car behind her was a taxi, i have the guys details and he is willing to be a witness. Excellent. That will help enormously. I've only had a couple of incidents over the years (non-fault) and having a witness, at the time of the incident, really makes all the difference IMO. The photos will help loads too. I bet she didn't think of doing that. Some people are just very stubborn, but you have proof, and a witness on your side. It may take a while to sort out, but you should prevail in the end. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class One Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Oh believe me, i am a fighter when needs must. Everyone at work keeps telling me to call the Police, but wont they just say i'm wasting their time??? They won't be interested. It was a damage only collision with both parties details exchanged at scene. All your legal obligations have been met. When Police report an accident, their role is not to apportion blame, but to try and establish what happened. Those details are then requested by insurance companies, who have their own assessors and will look at the facts and then establish balme (if any) from there. In your case, just fill out your form, submit your pictures, and let your insurance company decide who is to balme. That is what you pay them for. If it is a stone bonker non fault on your part, then your company will play hardball with theirs. You will, in the meantime, have to pay your excess, it's in your terms & conditions, but if blame is apportioned to the other party then you will at some point get your excess back. Could take years though if she isn't having it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopgunTT Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How much for an independant witness, Im sure i could of been driving back from somewhere that night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How much for an independant witness, Im sure i could of been driving back from somewhere that night What's the going rate for perverting the course of justice these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colsoop Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Can i ask why if it was definately your fault? I had a non-fault accident once and luckily for me the woman admited liability to the police at the scene and insurance company. If she hadn't then i might have ended up paying the excess etc. Why wouldn't she unless she was going to lie about what happened? I believe it is because quite often blame is a subjective thing, an insurance company would rather only pay half a bill than a full one. So if you admit fault then straight away they can't fight their corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 It all sounds above board so far. The 3rd party did as she was requested to do (although maybe her people skills could do with brushing up! ) I would simply stress to your insurance company that you don't want them to admit liability without speaking to you first. From what you describe, it would seem you are not at fault. Add some photos and an independent witness (the cabbie, not TopgunTT!) into the mix, and I'd say your case is strong. If they don't already know about the photos and cabbie, tell them now! That'll help them decide whether to fight your case (hopefully) or throw in the towel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 She was on your side of the road (from what you could see, WHY exactly was she on your side? Obviously not to allow traffic to flow as this makes no sense), you collided, you have a witness AND photographic evidence of the scene showing clearly where the cars are. It's a no-brainer really. As long as you inform the insurance company of this then her insurance will have no case. Homer - why does having a non-fault claim on your insurance increase the premium? Surely if someone hits you, then your ability as a driver is not to be questionned and you should not be punished! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Homer - why does having a non-fault claim on your insurance increase the premium? Surely if someone hits you, then your ability as a driver is not to be questionned and you should not be punished! I believe the opinion of the insurance companies is that the more incidents you are involved in, the more likely one of them is to be your fault. It's not a "punishment" thing, it's just a probability calculation. It's all just calculations from statistics. The insurance company statistics machine will output a report which says, "people who have had non-fault incidents in the past are x% more likely to have a succesful claim against them in the next 12 months", and that will be used to effect a premium increase. ANY data that the insurance company have on you will be used in this way. If they knew what colour eyes everybody had, I expect that would change your insurance premiums too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Rice Rocket there are some very attractive 60 year olds, think of Michelle Pfeiffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Rice Rocket there are some very attractive 60 year olds, think of Michelle Pfeiffer. She's 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I believe the opinion of the insurance companies is that the more incidents you are involved in, the more likely one of them is to be your fault. It's not a "punishment" thing, it's just a probability calculation. It's all just calculations from statistics. The insurance company statistics machine will output a report which says, "people who have had non-fault incidents in the past are x% more likely to have a succesful claim against them in the next 12 months", and that will be used to effect a premium increase. ANY data that the insurance company have on you will be used in this way. If they knew what colour eyes everybody had, I expect that would change your insurance premiums too! Ahh, I see! So it's a guilty until proven innocent thing... Except you never get proven innocent, just shafted for being yet another statistic in their calculations of probability in an underhanded way of producing more revenue for the company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Rice Rocket there are some very attractive 60 year olds, think of Michelle Pfeiffer. She would be so upset with you, as she's only 50! Whereas Signourney Weaver will be 60 this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Signourney Weaver will be 60 this year. Really?! Wow... Didn't realise she was getting on that much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supra-Woman Posted January 27, 2009 Author Share Posted January 27, 2009 My excess is £500 , i am not paying that to have a £100 piece of plastic replaced, i will just wait until she admits liability, which at the end of the day she will have too, when i send the pictures off with my form. There was no reason for her to be in the middle of the road, no parked cars or obstructions. As said i pay my insurance to act on my behalf, my car is driveable so i will just hang this one out and stick to my guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I stand corrected. Sigourney is beautiful, last time I looked. I would certainly 'do' her if she would let me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I stand corrected. Sigourney is beautiful, last time I looked. I would certainly 'do' her if she would let me. If you collected together some of your previous posts and sent them to her in a lovely email, then I'm sure she would be putty in your hands. Or maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I am more than the sum total of all my posts, much more. My tactic would simply be to drop my pants and make her laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 My tactic would simply be to drop my pants and make her laugh. ...and so much quicker than trying to dazzle her with your (and I use this word in its loosest possible sense) intellect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 At the end of the day action speaks louder than words. Words are great, to a point, don't get me wrong. Then you need to deliver the package, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couv3z Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 I may be known to swing both ways Oh believe me, i am a fighter when needs must. At the end of the day action speaks louder than words. humm guess i only read what i want to read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl_S Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 chk contxt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 Ahh, I see! So it's a guilty until proven innocent thing... Except you never get proven innocent, just shafted for being yet another statistic in their calculations of probability in an underhanded way of producing more revenue for the company If you like. The "glass half full" version would say that if the insurance company didn't ask you whether you'd had any incidents in the past, they'd have to slap the extra on the premium anyway, just in case. In fact, the reason that most insurance companies want to incorporate as much of these statistics as possible is so that they can offer the lowest price that they can get away with. If they can find and use a new statistic that nobody else uses to distinguish people who are more or less likely to have a claim against them in the future, it allows them to give better discounts to those who fall on the good side of the stats, winning them even more margin-making business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted January 28, 2009 Share Posted January 28, 2009 The "glass half full" version would say that if the insurance company didn't ask you whether you'd had any incidents in the past, they'd have to slap the extra on the premium anyway, just in case. In fact, the reason that most insurance companies want to incorporate as much of these statistics as possible is so that they can offer the lowest price that they can get away with. If they can find and use a new statistic that nobody else uses to distinguish people who are more or less likely to have a claim against them in the future, it allows them to give better discounts to those who fall on the good side of the stats, winning them even more margin-making business. Good post sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now