Personal accident claim

The Ayatolla

I struck a vehicle with two women in the car.

Their car was parked and I was reversing out of my drive in a van.

I hit them at around 4mph, and caused a small crack in their bumper. We agreed that I pay the damage and they were to get an estimate. No police were called.

This morning i got a solicitors letter asking me to admit guilt in this case etc and that they were filing a claim against me.

Do they have a leg to stand on here? Guessing the best thing to do is contact my insurance company?

coylemj

Sounds like a whiplash x 2 claim is on the way, inform your insurance company ASAP. If they've engaged the services of a solicitor it means they probably got talked into claiming by their friends or husbands.

Do not reply to the solicitor's letter, forward it to your insurance company.

Expect your insurance company to settle with them for a few grand each and you can wave goodbye to your no-claims bonus.

xxlauraxxox

no been honest you dont you hit them,you admited fault paying for the damage can you imaging the impact of a van hitting a car regardless of speed a car is much lighter than a van...i guess they are claiming whiplash sudden jerk to the neck and back can cause pain to anyoone

The Ayatolla

coylemj wrote: »

Sounds like a whiplash x 2 claim is on the way, inform your insurance company ASAP. If they've engaged the services of a solicitor it means they probably got talked into claiming by their friends or husbands.

Do not reply to the solicitor's letter, forward it to your insurance company.

Expect your insurance company to settle with them for a few grand each and you can wave goodbye to your no-claims bonus.

Cheers, will contact insurance company tonight!

Hopefully the wastes of space don't get too much anyway.

coylemj

xxlauraxxox wrote: »

no been honest you dont you hit them,you admited fault paying for the damage can you imaging the impact of a van hitting a car regardless of speed a car is much lighter than a van..

The OP never quoted the model of his van or the car so you can't say that. There are dozens of models of vans which are lighter than medium-size saloon cars. He only hit them at 4 mph while reversing FFS and in all probability they saw him before he saw them so they would have been prepared for the impact.

xxlauraxxox wrote: »

i guess they are claiming whiplash sudden jerk to the neck and back can cause pain to anyoone

Yes, the symptoms usually develop after a visit to the pub or golf club or when you see an advertisement for an ambulance-chasing firm of solicitors.

The Ayatolla

I myself was involved in an accident about 6 years ago, it was around 60mph collision where someone rear ended me and a friend, had no injuries and was in work the next day. Obviously different people have different reactions and what-not but I have a feeling I'm dealing with a double case of bluff in this one haha.

xxlauraxxox

coylemj wrote: »

The OP never quoted the model of his van or the car so you can't say that. There are dozens of models of vans which are lighter than medium-size saloon cars. He only hit them at 4 mph while reversing FFS and in all probability they saw him before he saw them so they would have been prepared for the impact.



Yes, the symptoms usually develop after a visit to the pub or golf club or when you see an advertisement for an ambulance-chasing firm of solicitors.

well im coming from a point where was rear ended by a jeep at aroundabout in april and even though i was stopped and he went bang into the back of me and he aggrivated old injures i had from 3years ago im just saying that they could genuiely be injured unless ur a medical personnel or the persons past history of injuries u cant really judge

but if they are pulling a fast one on your insurance will either be found out or will have no luck with the money they get wishing you all the best

Procrastastudy

If he'd been paying attention and not hit them he wouldn't now be having this problem. I think its fair to give the injured party the benefit of the doubt.

The Ayatolla

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I think its fair to give the injured party the benefit of the doubt.

Good one!

Jarren

Are you a doctor by any chance ?

The Ayatolla

Jarren wrote: »

Are you a doctor by any chance ?

Yes

Weylin

The Ayatolla wrote: »

I struck a vehicle with two women in the car.

Their car was parked and I was reversing out of my drive in a van.

I hit them at around 4mph, and caused a small crack in their bumper. We agreed that I pay the damage and they were to get an estimate. No police were called.

This morning i got a solicitors letter asking me to admit guilt in this case etc and that they were filing a claim against me.

Do they have a leg to stand on here? Guessing the best thing to do is contact my insurance company?

are u sure u werent driving into your drive ,stopped for a sec to avoid the cat/dog and they rear ended you!!!!!!!!;)
this has been known to happen you know ............

The Ayatolla

Weylin wrote: »

are u sure u werent driving into your drive ,stopped for a sec to avoid the cat/dog and they rear ended you!!!!!!!!;)
this has been known to happen you know ............

I know, I wonder would they have trouble building a case if I just told them that this was all made up.

Procrastastudy

As a couple of these have cropped up recently I thought I'd ask. There is contributory negligence in cases where no seat belt is worn. Why have has there not been a similar adoption on CN in cases where head rests were not properly set?

Weylin

it comes down to your story versus theirs. your van has rear damage and their car has bumper damage so obviously they ran into you.:D

Yawns

Weylin wrote: »

it comes down to your story versus theirs. your van has rear damage and their car has bumper damage so obviously they ran into you.:D

Most likely damage done to the side of the bumper unless they happened to be driving into his driveway whilst he was reversing :P


OP you agreed to pay damage. Did the repair go ahead and you paid already?

Yawns

Oh and btw unless they are faking and manage to **** up their story big time, say goodbye to your NCB as whip lash is very hard to disprove. The main reason why the money grabbers use it of course. I feel sorry for those that do suffer from it as others automatically think they only do it for the money too. Horrible thing to suffer from, especially in winter months.

The Ayatolla

Yawns wrote: »

Most likely damage done to the side of the bumper unless they happened to be driving into his driveway whilst he was reversing :P


OP you agreed to pay damage. Did the repair go ahead and you paid already?

No repair done yet. Didnt receive any contact from them after the incident.

Can whip lash be caused from someone travelling less than 4mph?

coylemj

The Ayatolla wrote: »

Can whip lash be caused from someone travelling less than 4mph?

Don't bother getting into the science, it's a waste of time. Your insurance company will settle just to get rid of them and there's nothing you can do about it.

Sorry to be negative but if you search the other threads here or in the Motors forum for 'whiplash' you'll see that that's what happens when you hit someone and they claim for whiplash. It's a nice little earner for the lawyers so people are encouraged to submit claims safe in the knowledge that the amount of money involved keeps it below the radar for any thorough medical investigation and the insurance company (i.e. your insurance company) will pay up.

StupidLikeAFox

Did you already hand over the money? What proof do they have that you hit them?

Procrastastudy

The OP might have had a lapse in concentration while driving - we've all done it. There does seem to be a worrying amount of people seeming to suggest he shouldn't do the decent thing. Lets not encourage that shall we? It only means that for every small prang or bump the Gardai would have to be called.

Fair play for manning up OP seems there are *potentially* one or two here that could use the example.

The Ayatolla

ColHol wrote: »

Did you already hand over the money? What proof do they have that you hit them?

No, and none that I can think of other that their word against mine.

Going to contact insurance company today nonetheless and hopefully it makes the best of a bad situation

whiteonblu

The Ayatolla wrote: »

No repair done yet. Didnt receive any contact from them after the incident.

Can whip lash be caused from someone travelling less than 4mph?

you said you are a doctor?

whiteonblu

coylemj wrote: »

Don't bother getting into the science, it's a waste of time. Your insurance company will settle just to get rid of them and there's nothing you can do about it.

Sorry to be negative but if you search the other threads here or in the Motors forum for 'whiplash' you'll see that that's what happens when you hit someone and they claim for whiplash. It's a nice little earner for the lawyers so people are encouraged to submit claims safe in the knowledge that the amount of money involved keeps it below the radar for any thorough medical investigation and the insurance company (i.e. your insurance company) will pay up.

I know someone who had it and had a thorough examination by two doctors so it was very much on and above the radar and they were compensated just because some abuse it does not mean it is not real?

The Ayatolla

whiteonblu wrote: »

The Ayatolla wrote: »

No repair done yet. Didnt receive any contact from them after the incident.

Can whip lash be caused from someone travelling less than 4mph?

you said you are a doctor?

I am. A gynecologist

allthedoyles

Does'nt have to be whiplash , could be just a torso / pelvic injury .

The Ayatolla

allthedoyles wrote: »

Does'nt have to be whiplash , could be just a torso / pelvic injury .

They're not really a smart, respectable family for want of a better term. And they live in a council house in a run down area. I don't think they'd be clever enough to think up of that spoof.

Procrastastudy

Here now don't be dissing the peeps from council houses.

The Ayatolla

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Here now don't be dissing the peeps from council houses.

Them wasters would latch onto anything for a few bob!

whiteonblu

The Ayatolla wrote: »

I am. A gynecologist

is that not a specialisation? would you not have studied all medicine including soft tissue

The Ayatolla

whiteonblu wrote: »

The Ayatolla wrote: »

I am. A gynecologist

is that not a specialisation? would you not have studied all medicine including soft tissue

Yes. Are you one of these '' council folk '' ?

I specialised in soft pink tissue.

allthedoyles

Do they have a leg to stand on here? Guessing the best thing to do is contact my insurance company?

The Ayatolla wrote: »

They're not really a smart, respectable family for want of a better term. And they live in a council house in a run down area. I don't think they'd be clever enough to think up of that spoof.

No - looks like they have a leg to stand on.

Genuine claim - admit liability .

The Ayatolla

allthedoyles wrote: »

No - looks like they have a leg to stand on.

Genuine claim - admit liability .

I've called the insurance company anyway and highlighted the very high possibility of fraud. Hopefully they investigate and find out the facts