insurance Question

Lamps

im living over the UK at the moment and will be for a couple more months.

In the meantime i have an English car for work but also have my Irish car parked up.

On the day in question, i was driving the irish car as the company car was being serviced.

So on my way to work, i aproached a mini roundabout, stopped etc. When i seen the road clear, i drove. As i was turning on the roundabout (i was turning right), a transit came skidding across and crashed into my drivers door (it was lashing rain and he skidded quite a bit). The van was going to fast and couldnt stop in the rain. He came up over the mini roundabout and hit me on the drivers door.

he said i pulled out in front of him but i say he didnt stop at the roundabout junction and give way to my vehicle which was on the roundabout. The problem with these little roundabouts is people dont treat them as roundabouts.

Anyway, who do you think is in the wrong?
There was no damage to the van (which was a company van) except for a scratch about 2mm long that cud be barley seen. On the other hand my drivers door is in bits.

Then today i get a letter from his insurance compnay saying they believe I was in the wrong and they want £550 for the replacement of the bumper. No way am i paying this. If im in the wrong, far enough, but thats taking the piss. I'll be on the boat back to ireland in a few weeks and they'll never see me again or have any contact details.

All they have is my UK address and reg number. No insurance details (which i dont beleive they will be able to get a hold of).

dogmatix

boll*x to them. I'd say they were in the wrong - IF you where already on are part of the way on the roundabout before the van came onto to it.

As far as i know, anyone entering a roundabout has to give way to a vehicle already on it, and it looks like you where already on it first. The guy was probably going to fast and misjudged his braking distance.

I'd fight, but maybe get professional advice first - i.e. - legal.

Caliden

The only reason you got that letter is because the driver of the van knows he was in the wrong but is hoping you have no backbone. He took the initiative hoping to look innocent, if memory serves me correctly I read something similar on boards before. Can't remember how it turned out though.

Marcus.Aurelius

Hold on, the OP was hit in the driver's door. That means the van hit his car as he (the OP) entered the roundabout. Didn't you see the van coming? It's actually your fault for not yielding to him.

That's how the ins crowd will see it, you're supposed to yield to traffic coming around the roundabout from your right, why would he have to yield to you if he came from your right? You should have yielded to him!

ballooba

maoleary wrote:

Hold on, the OP was hit in the driver's door. That means the van hit his car as he (the OP) entered the roundabout. Didn't you see the van coming? It's actually your fault for not yielding to him.

Not if the guy came straight across the roundabout. The OP had to go around the roundabout to go right. The other guy could have come in well late.

Lamps

As i said i was on the mini roundabout when he hit me, hed slid across the centre of the roundabout. He was flying, admitted it himself. he said he was going to fast and couldnt stop in the rain.

The mini rounabouts over here aernt treated as roundaouts though, people coming from my right would consider it a straight bit of road as theres rarley people on the roundabout goigng against them. I think hes told the insurance company i pulled out of the junction but failed to say it was a mini roundabout. I had the car in a mid right turn around the mini roundabout when he hit me.

What i want to know is how is this sort of thing proved? Can they hold of my insurance detialsjust through my irish reg, cos i dont want quinn getting involved or i'll be forever paying massive premiums.
I may also just ignore it for the nexrt month im here and then forget about it as i drive back to ireland never to return. I just dont want the hassle of it all, but no way will i fork out £550 cos he's taking the piss.So i may not even acknowledge the letter.

Fanboy

ballooba wrote:

Not if the guy came straight across the roundabout. The OP had to go around the roundabout to go right. The other guy could have come in well late.

OP is at fault, end of.

You give way to the right on a roundabout. Doesn't matter if he's going at 200MPH or 20MPH, you still give way.

When pulling out at a roundabout, you have to be 100% the way was clear, or else you will be held responsible for the accident. The other guy was coming from the right, therefore he had possession of the roundabout.

Your irish car reg will be on all insurance companies databases (if you've ever been to broker or shopped around for quote), so they will find you to get their money back. All the other ins co do is ring around the big companies, say 'Do you insure 00D56765?' - Quinn will say 'yes' - then the other ins co will give details of the accident, Quinn are then obliged to investigate. They'll give you serious hassle about not telling them about it, and possibly decline any claim for damages to your own vehicle.

If you do a runner, they'll forget about chasing you and leave it to a solicitor/debt collection agency. You're not the first (or last) to have that idea.

There's also legal consequences for not taking all resonable steps to assist your insurance company to indemnify a third party after an accident.

Just be a decent human being, admit your mistake (everyone makes them) and sort out the damage you caused.

If you let Quinn sort out the damage, you have the option to repay the outlay before renewal date and have the accident not effect your insurance. Once they get the money they paid back, they act as if it never happened.

ballooba

Fanboy wrote:

OP is at fault, end of.

You give way to the right on a roundabout. Doesn't matter if he's going at 200MPH or 20MPH, you still give way.

When pulling out at a roundabout, you have to be 100% the way was clear, or else you will be held responsible for the accident. The other guy was coming from the right, therefore he had possession of the roundabout.

That is complete total and utter claptrap. If the other road user hasn't reached the yield line then they are not on the roundabout and you don't have to give way. If the other person entered the roundabout after him then they have no right of way.

Fanboy

ballooba wrote:

That is complete total and utter claptrap. If the other road user hasn't reached the yield line then they are not on the roundabout and you don't have to give way. If the other person entered the roundabout after him then they have no right of way.

Where's the proof that the other person hadn't entered the yield line?

The only proof of what happened is the damage which is consistent with the OP pulling out on the roundabout, infront of the other person.

That is exactly how the insurance company will see it. Fact.

People, who are at fault for accidents, always make excuses and over/under exaggerate the facts. The only way the insurance companies have to call liability is with the physical evidence. People lie.

ballooba

You are in no position to dictate the facts of the situation. You didn't witness the accident. You made a wild assertion about who was at fault and I showed that there are scenarios where you could be completely wrong.

As to the original question I would not suggest running awy from the problem, it will catch up with you and you don't want it hanging over your head indefinitely. If the van driver hadn't crossed the yield line then go and plead your case, otherwise take the short-term financial hit. If he was at fault and he lies then you will just have to live with it unfortunately.

The van driver's admission that he was going too fast should help. If it looks dodgy the insurance company may distribute the blame, meaning you don't pay the full cost.

the_syco

My take on the OP is that they were going around the roundabout, when someone came speeding from the right, and slams into them.

I say speeding, as the van driver skidded, which means that they saw the OP from a distance. If the OP had suddenly pulled out in front, the van would have just ploughed into the OP.

Anyone who uses those low roundabouts know that you only use them if theres another car, otherwise people mainly go straight over them. The van driver should have gone left, around the "roundabout", instead of going straight through. If the roundabout wasn't there, the can driver may have had the right of way, but as there was a roundabout there, whomever goes onto the foundabout first gets the right of way.

OP, run and you are gulity. Simple as. Do the case now, and it will be a lot more clear cut than trying to convince a judge that you were in the right, even though you fled the country to escape the van's insurance company (as this will how it'll look).

Lamps

He skidded through the junction, end of. I was in the middle of swinging the car right and he came up over the centre of the roundabout. if he had of swung it left he would of avoided me.

I have attached an awful paint job. The mouse on this laptop aint working so i did my best. £550 feck sake.

I'll give the insurance company a call on monday and see what the craic is, tell them that i think i was in the right and see what happens.

Whats annoying is he said afterwards " my van is ok so you wont here from me again, but i'll have to mention it to my boss". but i insisted on taking his details just in case and he then did the same.

BTW i took photos of the van and th dumper and the minisculw tiny mark that could of been there already or done by a scratch just so he couldnt come backa nd try screw me like he is now.

So you all think I should hold my hands up, pay it and put it down as an expensive lesson? I'll protest my innocence and make it as difficult as possible anyway.

*edit - having problems uploading my paint attachment. If you like at syco's picture, my car is much further up, (on the other side of the rounabout) and in the process of going right.

Thanks for the avice lads

Fanboy

ballooba wrote:

You are in no position to dictate the facts of the situation. You didn't witness the accident. You made a wild assertion about who was at fault and I showed that there are scenarios where you could be completely wrong.

As to the original question I would not suggest running awy from the problem, it will catch up with you and you don't want it hanging over your head indefinitely. If the van driver hadn't crossed the yield line then go and plead your case, otherwise take the short-term financial hit. If he was at fault and he lies then you will just have to live with it unfortunately.

The van driver's admission that he was going too fast should help. If it looks dodgy the insurance company may distribute the blame, meaning you don't pay the full cost.

The van drivers admission is irrelevant...do you think he would say it now? No. Can it be proved he said it? No. One word against another.

From the sketch above, any insurance company would hold OP at fault.

The insurance companies rarely (if ever!) listen to peoples stories when it comes to settling a claim, they go by the damage to the vehicles. Like i said already, people lie. The damage to the vehicles does not.

OP, i know for fact Quinn would settle on your behalf with the other person on the above statement. With your approval or not.....

Like i said already, they will track u down so u might as well just get on with it now and get it over with.

ballooba

Fanboy wrote:

The insurance companies rarely (if ever!) listen to peoples stories when it comes to settling a claim, they go by the damage to the vehicles. Like i said already, people lie. The damage to the vehicles does not.

OP, i know for fact Quinn would settle on your behalf with the other person on the above statement. With your approval or not.....

Like i said already, they will track u down so u might as well just get on with it now and get it over with.

No you don't know for a fact. You are talking through your áss. You have not seen the damage on the car. So you have no idea from which direction the impact came and you have not seen the accident scene. It's a sure sign someone is talking shít when they claim something is fact with no basis whatsoever.

Fanboy

I'm not going to argue with you.

OP said he had damage from someone hitting him on his drivers door, they came from his right, and happened on roundabout.

They are the facts. Insurance companies would hold him at fault.

ballooba

We'll agree to disagree then.

ArphaRima

If this happened to me then I'd legitimately fight it. Don't run. If you believe you were right then hire a lawyer and contest the claim. I'd much rather pay a solicitor £550 than a dodgy claim.
But... be aware that it could go against you and you could end up paying both. For me if I believed I was right I wouldn't care.

I dont understand why you didnt call the police though. Second thing I'd do. Right after I had taken a picture of the position of the cars, and the skidmarks.

Del2005

fluffer wrote:

I dont understand why you didnt call the police though. Second thing I'd do. Right after I had taken a picture of the position of the cars, and the skidmarks.

Police more then likely won't turn up, it's only a minor RTA and pictures don't hold any weight as they can be doctored. Also I doubt the van driver would wait around for the police to turn up, he has a living to make.

As for the driver charging £550 for the bumper, that could be legit. The bumper may not be showing any damage but all the mounts could be wrecked, if the van made a mess of the door then there would be a good bit of hidden damage.

ArphaRima

My insurance company gave me checklist for an accident. I dont have it to hand but it essentially says not to move the car unless its causing an obstruction, call the police, give a statement of facts, and do not admit fault. Even if the police refused to show, I'd make sure to make a statement in a station.
The photos would be invaluable in a future action though. Surely the van driver would have to stay if you insisted. Otherwise he is fleeing the scene of an accident?!

Del2005

fluffer wrote:

My insurance company gave me checklist for an accident. I dont have it to hand but it essentially says not to move the car unless its causing an obstruction, call the police, give a statement of facts, and do not admit fault. Even if the police refused to show, I'd make sure to make a statement in a station.
The photos would be invaluable in a future action though. Surely the van driver would have to stay if you insisted. Otherwise he is fleeing the scene of an accident?!

Why are insurance companies telling this? The ROTR state that when there is no one injured there is no need to call the Gardai, just exchange details and move on. I've seen lots of examples where there is chaos on a road and when you reach the end there are 2 cars with a couple of broken lights. It's a waste of Garda resources to have them coming to every minor fender bender, they could be out shooting fish in barrels:D. I think the Gardai should start to prosecute people for blocking roads after minor incidents.
Photos can be doctored and it's up to you to prove they haven't, saying that they are better then nothing.
Again the ROTR only say you have to remain for a reasonable time, and if a driver has given details then they can leave. Can't be done for fleeing the scene of an accident as they had stopped and done all required by law. From the few incidents, none serious, I've witnessed I'd say the van driver could leave do his business and come back and the Gardai wouldn't have turned up.

ArphaRima

Again the aim isnt to follow the strict rules of the road, but to cover your ass. If somebody later claims they were injured at the time (whiplash etc) then surely the terms change.
Basically the insurance companies make unreasonable demands on you to ensure that you are not unfairly apportioned blame by another company.

Once again, pictures wont hold any weight in court, but they may convince the insurance company whether or not to contest your case with the other party.