Hi all,
I posted something similar on PistonHeads but no replies, thought I’d post here to see if I get a better response.
Over the weekend I was involved in a minor accident in London, going down the Finchley road by Swiss cottage heading towards Regents Park. Road is three lanes and I was in the very left lane. As I proceed past some traffic lights the car in the middle lane starts moving over into my lane and forces me to hit the curb on my left as I try to avoid them. Upon me hitting the curb the car that was in the middle lane, but now half in my lane, continues to cut across me resulting in the side of their car hitting my front right wheel arch. Resulting damage to my car is severely curbed front left alloy and a dented front right right wheel arch. Damage to their car are scratches down the side from the middle of the car going all the way to their rear. Upon pulling over to discuss the incident with them and swap details they insisted I pulled into their lane into them. I put to them that this was not possible as I hit the curb on my left trying to avoid them but they stuck to their story. It didn't help that their car was mostly full of non English speaking tourists drive a Sixt rental car. They also stated that they were trying to give a coach room that was in the very right lane. This implies that they were moving into my lane despite their instance that I went into them. If they were being squeezed by a coach surely they should have just stopped rather than edge me into the curb and then drive into me. Them being tourists and being unfamiliar with the roads obviously hasn't helped.
I have advised my insurance company of the incident, explaining the above, who then forwarded to their claims management company (CMC) as a no-fault claim. Having never been in an accident in my 20 year driving history I am unsure how best to proceed. I am wary of possibly being stung with costs somehow down the line although the CMC also offer a free credit insurance policy which would cover any losses they are unable to claim back from the 3rd party insurance co, the main proviso being that the other party is at least 50% liable in fault. Having read various posts on here I am cautious on using the CMC but it does have the benefit of me not having to stump up the excess and claim back and having the claim from the get go being treated as "no-fault". My insurance is due for renewal next month so this is unlikely to be resolved before then hence the CMC route being attractive. I also have legal cover but will not be making a personal injury claim. To be honest I just want the easiest quickest way for me to resolve and get my car sorted. I kind of begrudge using the CMC due to all the inflated fees (which the other parties insurance co or credit insurance policy will cover) but on the face of it seems the easier option for me. Is there anything I have missed which I need to consider?
Given the above description of the incident how are the insurance companies likely to split liability assuming the other party still denies fault.
In this situation is using a CMC a wise choice? The car is road worthy so only need a hire care when the actual repair takes place. For reference I drive a VW Golf R estate. Other party were in a VW people carrier.
Essentially I’m trying to weigh up my next move.
Thanks
Mike
two things.
if they make it complicated the insurance companies will agree knock for knock.
If you use a claims management company the value of the claim will increase exponentially and your insurance is going up next year, whoevers fault it turns out to be.
Is there any CCTV in the area that you may be able to use to prove your side? Do you remember the coach/company which may have a dash camera installed?
I had a hit and run accident and took photos of the damage as well as the location of the accident. I also took screenshots from Google maps and marked on the location of my car and the other driver. As I did not have other driver's registration plate, I had to pay the excess and was rewarded with an increase in insurance. This is despite me having a dash camera which showed the speed and direction I was travelling.
The insurance company won’t be financially impacted as costs are covered by the 3rd party insurance company or the credit insurance policy. Although I’ve yet to confirm with my insurance company on how I am proceeding they have already sent a text confirming they have treated as a no fault claim and my no claims bonus remains intact.
In regards to the 50:50 liability could they come to this conclusion even though I have damage to my car (kerbed alloy) showing that I took action to avoid being hit...rather than I was the party who drove into the other car.
It was in central London, I assume there must have been cctv somewhere but wouldn’t know where to start in trying to obtain it.Originally Posted by prexelor
My main point to the insurers is that I have damage on my alloy when I hit the kerb trying to avoid being hit...surely that is sufficient to dismiss the claim from the 3rd party that I went into them into their lane.
For reasons too complicated to go into here I would nevertheless recommend that you ask your insurer to handle the claim themselves on your behalf instead of a CMC. It'd be interesting to hear how you get on with that.I have advised my insurance company of the incident, explaining the above, who then forwarded to their claims management company (CMC) as a no-fault claim.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
This is where you went wrong - you must always, always take the hit from the other vehicle in full. The damage to your alloy is your own liability. It doesn't matter if you avoided causing a huge multi-car pile-up and crashed your car whilst saving everybody else, you have caused damage to your vehicle in the eyes of the insurers.
I doubt very much your case for a no-fault claim has merit.
Sounds like they will be found at fault given what you have detailed
and agree left side wheel damage pretty conclusive along with them saying they were edging left into you to avoid a coach.
I assume at point of impact you were also 'stationery' ?
Rental insurance should end up taking the hit rather than long protracted expensive game of tennis and decent claims co will put this to other side quickly to resolve in your favour.
I suspect this will come down to what you can/cannot PROVE happened and therefore whether your insurance company think they can win the case against the other insurer based on the evidence/case you provide them with.
If it ever went to court, the other party would have likely left the country, so unfortunately I suspect this will be a knock-for-knock claim and will affect your insurance premiums going forward, regardless of NCD implications.
I hope I am wrong and you manage to get it sorted in your favour.
It does of course hugely depend on what the other party declare on their statement to the hire company/their insurers.
Last edited by Maysie; 4th September 2018 at 11:36.
If the car was rented Sixt has an open line of credit on their card (that’s how they recover driving/parking fines).
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
So regardless of the fact that I had two 4yr old children in the car I should have not tried to avoid a collision...hmm.
Is your opinion based on any insurance knowledge/experience?
The hiring party had damage excess waiver.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Too late to help you in this instance but get a dash cam fitted. Based on what you have explained here it would show that you were not at fault.
I don’t believe this for a minute. It’s human instinct to try and avoid an accident if you see it happening. I can’t see ANYONE having the speed of thought to first see the accident unfolding, then have the train of thought to not move at all to avoid it so helping when it comes to any claim being made.
This is the damage to my car.
Left front wheel
Right eight wheel arch
Damage to other car - a few light scratches.
Given that I have already informed the insurance company I have three choices:
1) claim direct with my insurance, pay excess and take hit of increased premium come renewal in October. Then hope other insurance assumes responsibility so I then get my excess back and NCD reinstated.
2) go CMC route with no excess to pay and keeping NCD intact. Insurance co are treating as a no-fault claim. Credit insurance policy should cover losses that the CMC can’t recoup from the 3rd party insurers.
3) pay from my own pocket. Not sure if viable option as insurance co already aware and marked as a no fault claim on my policy.
Just trying to think of any potential consequences of option 2
Normal human instincts take over to try and avoid. The only place I’ve see where this doesn’t seem to be the case are Russian dash cam vids where they seem to purposely plough into the other party.
It’s a nightmare being involved in any motoring incident these days.
Because mine was a none fault accident( me stationary, driver hit me in rear)
my insurers passed me on to their claims management company as they could no doubt see the pound signs.
It took 2 years and an appearance in court to settle...
IMO, the problem with relying on the kerbing to your wheel to support your version of events is proving that it wasn't already damaged prior to the accident. Thousands and thousands are, after all.
If you can't get round that, and the other driver continues lying his butt off, then you really need an independent witness, some CCTV footage or a picture of the cars showing their positions immediately after the impact. Without these, you have a bit of a hill to climb whichever way you decide to go, with a day in the County Court possibly awaiting you at the summit.
I have a photo of my car from a few weeks ago that shows that the damage on the wheel inflicted by the accident not being present. Not sure if this is sufficient but I have the same concern that you raised in that the wheel damage was already there. At least in my pics the damage on the wheel looks “fresh” with loose metal flakes still clinging to the wheel. If the damage was historic this wouldn’t be present
Why could it end up in court? It’s a minor accident so surely it wouldn’t go that far would it? The costs for the insurance companies to pursue to court would outweigh the cost of fixing my car.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just to add to my post above that the picture show small metallic dust or dirt from the curb on the tyre which indicates the damage occurred during the incident rather than prior historic damage.
I'd put a claim in for your hooter not working.
I did use my fully functioning horn, but thanks for your input.
You'd hope that would be enough, but the risk remains that your word on this won't be accepted as sufficient proof.
It might not go that far, but if you want to recover your excess / other uninsured losses, then it might be the last resort, depending on how strongly you feel about it. On the other hand, if the other side feel they have a case, then they could conceivably push it that far. However, if you're right about the other driver being a foreign national, then presumably he'll be returning to his home country long before that becomes a real possibility.
It used to be quite a common practice in cases like this for the two insurance companies to sit back and let the drivers slug it out in court over the uninsured losses, agreeing to abide by the result when it came to their own outlays, but the CMCs have largely swept this aside, and vastly increased the costs.
The claims management company will arrange a £90 per week hire car for you, overly extend the repair time, then charge the other party +£30 per day.
A rear boot lid, paintwork and body repair took 10-weeks for the "approved repairer" to fix = over £2,100 in hire car charges, for a £800 body repair.
The car came back with additional workshop damage, which I got fixed locally for £600, then sent them the bill.
Who knows how they managed to get the drivers door ripped off the hinges, then weld it back on hoping we wouldn't notice the 1-inch drop when it was opened.
Avoid them like the plague.
Last edited by Reeny; 4th September 2018 at 14:53. Reason: to get the numbers right
I have spoken to the garage who has been assigned to fix my car if I choose to proceed with the CMC route. Estimate would only take 10 mins to compile. I’d then go back to the garage once the work has been approved by the CMC. High level estimate for alloy and front wheel arch repair is approx 3-5 days. I’d only need a courtesy car whilst the car is in for repair as it is drive-able now.
Your situation sounds like a complete nightmare although I think your garage is more to blame than the actual CMC.
Beware "knock for knock" years ago I was involved in an incident where someone panic braked when they thought I was pulling out and crashed. I (foolishly in hindsight) gave all my details - after much disagreement it was settled "knock for knock" just before it went to court. My damage was of course zero but my insurance counted it as a claim and my premium increased etc.
And the rest. A van drove into the back of me on a motorway. My car is a taxi (E Class Mercedes) the courtesy vehicle I was given was a Skoda Rapid and the cost of that was £165 PER DAY !!
I used a CMC a couple of years ago - never again.
Ended up with a massive stress run over the comms. from them and the other party's insurer who attempted to take me and the CMC to court over the (over inflated) cost.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Out of interest, why were you even involved if you'd done nothing?
As other have said, avoid CMC at all costs. Claim of your own insurance and pay the excess. You could then try to recover your costs from the TP, but I would not be optimistic. I had an accident some years ago where a TP pulled out in front of me causing a collision. Luckily plod attended, and the TP stated to the same that he saw me flash my lights for him to pull out so he did, thus causing the collision. Obviously he was stupid or he would have known not to say that. When my insurance company contacted his, he supplied a different account, obviously having been schooled in what to say. I advised my insurance company to contact the constable for his report. The claim was settled in my favour soon after. With no witness to corroborate your account it may be difficult to prove what actually happened. If you do use CMC for this, and they do not get their costs from the TP, well, you can work out whom they will be chasing for their frankly ridiculous fees.
I had another no fault accident where a TP reversed from a supermarket parking bay into the side of my car. I used CMC sort of by accident, and this was combined with the TP's refusal to fill out his paperwork for his insurance company to create hire costs of some 20000 pounds over a period of some months. I had to attend court to finally get this settled, which was stressful to a degree. Nuf said.
The problem with claiming direct with my insurers is the paying of excess and the extra £1k in premium come renewal in Oct.
The costs that the CMC can’t recover from the TP insurers is covered by a credit insurance policy...assuming the TP has at least 50% liability to the accident.
I’m doing my best to mitigate costs as I think I will only have a courtesy car for 3 - 5 days whilst my car is in for repair.
OP You’ve been given numerous examples of negative feedback about this claim management company and other companies in general on this thread and you seem to keep coming back with yeah but type reply’s...
It sounds like you still intend to use them, that’s your prerogative but why ask?
If you do, I hope that your experience is better than the feedback you’ve been given. Though I suspect that’s not going to be the case...
As no crime was comitted there is no chance of any of the shops releasing cctv footage to you, ( Joe Public ) as this comes under data protection. It can be done but it requires various consent forms to be filled in, by that time the "tapes" will have been wiped anyway. ( yes I am speaking from personal experience )
Tbh, the damage on your car is very minor, ( wheel refurb' = £60, bumper = £130, wing not sure )possible smart repair jobby, the other guy has come of worse, if door is dented they will price for a skin, difficult to see.. so
You should not have used the cmc, imo, you should have claimed through your insurance & used your legal cover to recover any lost excess.
Playing devils advocate, I could say that the other driver is telling the truth, you were in his lane, you were distracted momentarily, you then saw the people carrier & made a hard correction back into your own lane, thus grazing the kerb & causing damge to your nearside wheel. If the other driver has his head screwed on... this is what he will be saying. Unless you have actual footage or a reliable witness to say otherwise.
Last edited by kas9t82; 4th September 2018 at 23:33. Reason: missing info
Because I’m interested in what the general consensus is...doesn’t mean I have to follow it. Obviously everyone’s set of circumstances is different which their experience is based upon, and no one knows all the relevant details in my situation. The intent of this post was just to gain a general view which has been given so am grateful of people’s input which has given me different ways the insurers may view the incident.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
An interesting view and not one that I’ve considered that the other party will present. Given that they are foreign tourists in a hire car and had paid for the damage excess waiver I’m hope as there is zero financial impact on them they have no incentive to lie. But who knows what they may say.
If the claim is deemed 50:50 or settled on a knock for knock basis can I still claim my expenses (excess and increased premium and damage repair) via my legal cover?
I agree with this.
I had a knock from a driver on a roundabout who didn't give way to me. The driver admitted it on the scene but changed his tune with his insurance Co. I had no witnesses but stuck with my insurance Company and got the repairs done straight away with me paying my excess. After completing the report form and accident diagram very rigorously I finally got my excess cheque back last week, the accident was in February. Your case seems similar in respect that it's quite clear who is at fault.
It wouldn't be a "lie"though would it? You stated they said this at the time, it would just be their version of events. As you say you are going up against a car rental company, they deal with 1000s of accidents per year, so unless thier customer admits fault, the onus of proof is on you.they insisted I pulled into their lane into them
No. "Knock for Knock" means no proof exists that either driver was at fault, in the eyes of the insurance companies, therefore they settle each others claims & incur losses, that they then pass on to youIf the claim is deemed 50:50 or settled on a knock for knock basis can I still claim my expenses (excess and increased premium and damage repair) via my legal cover?. Legal cover can recover expenses when one driver is clearly not at fault, again that is for you to prove. If both drivers stick to thier stories, this case will be 50-50, aka "knock for knock".
This case is not similar to yours. See my post above, the other driver has not admitted any fault, plus the other party in this case is a large car rental company, with a gaggle of lawyers paid large bonuses to keep costs down. You have only heard one side of the story, that side may be correct..... or...
Remember when you renew your insurance, you will be asked either, have you had an accident or claim in the last five years or have your circumstances changed since your last renewal, when you answer honestly your insurance is going up.
As an example recently a lady backed into the side of my sons parked car, she admitted full liability and her insurance company paid all costs. the lowest price he can now get for his insurance is £200 more.
Agreed.
Exactly the same happened to me when years ago I was insured 3rd party only, so my insurance company was not even notified of the incident. The following year my renewal premium went up due to the fact that I was 'involved in an accident', despite being sat at my desk at the time it occured. When I queried it with the insurers, it was due to statistical data that I am now more likely to have another claim in the future. You are obliged to provide details that the incident had occurred, otherwise they can void your insurance, even though my insurers were not involved. Effectively you are financially penalised for being unlucky.
ThanksIt wouldn't be a "lie"though would it? You stated they said this at the time , it would just be their version of events. As you say you are going up against a car rental company, they deal with 1000s of accidents per year, so unless thier customer admits fault, the onus of proof is on you.
No. "Knock for Knock" means no proof exists that either driver was at fault, in the eyes of the insurance companies, therefore they settle each others claims & incur losses, that they then pass on to you
So it seems this is most likely going to be treated as 50:50. If so these are the scenarios.
1) I claim on direct my insurance. Pay excess, loose no claims discount and see hefty increase in premium for making 50:50 claim. Can’t recover any of these expenses due to it being a 50:50 incident.
2) go via CMC and have the claim treated as non-fault by my insurer. NCD stays intact. Obviously disclose the non-fault claim but my initial research has only showed marginal impact on premium upon renewal. Perhaps if settled as 50:50 I would get notified of this and then would then have to disclose going forward for future renewals. Surely the NCD would remain intact though so not a huge impact on premium.
3) do nothing and repair the damage out of my pocket. I would still have to disclose the non-fault claim/incident upon renewal.
I know most people have posted negative comments on CMC’s but given the choices I have a can’t see why CMC, for my set of circumstances, is not the choice to make.
I'm sorry if I'm confused here (and I will admit to only reading the first few and last few posts) but why would it be a 'no fault' claim using the CMC and not via your own insurer?
If the CMC is going to pay for the damage to your car to be repaired they will be passing those costs on to the other party.
They can only do this if the other party admits liability (or is found to be liable). Why would this be the case only with the CMC and not with your own insurer? If the CMC fail to establish that the other party is liable, won't you end up paying for your own repairs costs and anything the CMC add on?
I have used CMCs before but only when it is very clear that the other party is liable so I have no risk.
Why have you asked posted a thread on here asking questions and when given the correct answers seem to be ignoring them?
Ill say it once more, if you use a CMC you insurance premiums will rocket
The purpose of post was to gather opinion, where valid points have been made I have taken these into consideration.
How will my premium sky rocket when my insurance co are treating it as no-fault claim.
The consensus here is that it will be deemed a 50:50 incident. If I claim on my policy I pay the excess and loose NCD, hence a massive increase in premium. I can’t see this being any different from rocketing premiums if I use the CMC.
No, as mentioned earlier the CMC provide a credit insurance policy that covers any losses that can’t be recovered from the 3rd party insurers. This assumes that the other party is at least 50% liable in the accident. Consensus is that this is the way it will go with the insurers as lack of evidence and witnesses. The risk is that for some reason they decide that I am 100% liable so the credit insurance policy doesn’t cover the unrecoverable expenses..:but not sure how they can come to that conclusion.
Do two things, re-read the responses here, come back at your renewal and tell us how much it went up.
Why ignore the valid questions I raise?
I think you are confused, this does not include your excess, it covers the aspects you take on credit from CMC such as car hire, medical examinations and treatments does it not?
I am not confused and know it doesn’t include my excess. If I go down CMC route the excess is not even payable. I’ve read the policy and the credit insurance covers all expenses the CMC are not able to recover from the 3rd Party insurers. These expenses include car hire and car repair costs
Well what do you have to lose then?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
