Advice on a crash :(

furtzy

No harm in letting you insurance company know purely in case of possible PI claims

corktina

i'd say it's going to cost you. you should consider if it's worth claiming on your insurance , might be cheaper to pay yourself.

Anan1

corktina wrote: »

i'd say it's going to cost you. you should consider if it's worth claiming on your insurance , might be cheaper to pay yourself.

It might, but the nightmare scenario is OP pays out of their own pocket and then, six months later, a PI claim arrives and their NCB is gone anyway.

DIESEL TOM

it a shame you didn't have dashcam op

turniphead

sebastianlieken wrote: »

If the case is brought through the insureres, there is a higher liklyhood that a personal injury claim comes to light. Hence more paper work. If it's brought through insurers with no personal injury claim, the Gaurd will have to prepare a statement and ensure all paperwork is upto scratch. If the case goes to court, the Gaurd may have to attend court, more paperwork (and a court day). If it's settled, the case is dealt with there and there; if the case goes through insurers, you can bet the case wont be settled within even a month, that's just another outstanding case for the attending Gaurd aswell.

You seem to be missing the point and speculating here. This is a material damage collision. There is no suggestion whatsoever of personal injury. The Garda 'paperwork' involved will be the same regardless of who is liable.

Insurance companies investigate material damage traffic collisions.

Chippy01

OP, from your pics, it looks like the other driver cut you up a good one. Did you get any shots of the damage to the cars? Can you see on the damage which way the scratches/damage travel (from the front of the other car towards it's rear, and visa-vera for your own car)? If it does, that would also help proving that you were hit, and not them.
I know it's a bit late now, but a dash-cam would've certainly helped in your position.

I'd fight it.

Idbatterim

if it was some elderly bint driving that **** heap micra, I have a fairly good guess at who is at fault! Pity the nice car also took the hit! If your found to be at fault and decide to pay yourself, I can let you know bodyshop guy around that area, who I can highly recommend on price, service and quality of finish... just looking at those pictures again! WTF is she doing?! look at where the car is positioned, no surprise with guards response, vulnerable old lady driving a micra or probably a youngish speed demon boy racer driving the bm, of course you are at fault... (insert rolleyes)

mitosis

Idbatterim wrote: »

if it was some elderly bint driving that **** heap micra, I have a fairly good guess at who is at fault! Pity the nice car also took the hit! If your found to be at fault and decide to pay yourself, I can let you know bodyshop guy around that area, who I can highly recommend on price, service and quality of finish... just looking at those pictures again! WTF is she doing?! look at where the car is positioned, no surprise with guards response, vulnerable old lady driving a micra or probably a youngish speed demon boy racer driving the bm, of course you are at fault... (insert rolleyes)

I still say 50/50. Who has the more expensive car isn't relevant in determining blame. If I had to guess I'd say the Micra saw the amber and stopped, the BMW saw the amber and accelerated. The Micra drifted out of lane (blame) and was hit from behind by the BMW trying to beat a red (blame).

djimi

Idbatterim wrote: »

no surprise with guards response, vulnerable old lady driving a micra or probably a youngish speed demon boy racer driving the bm, of course you are at fault... (insert rolleyes)

Pretty much exactly what happened to me a few years ago (replace Micra with Fiesta and BMW with Civic); despite the fact that there was almost no concievable way that I could have been at fault for the accident Im still convinced that they looked at the parties involved and reckoned that there was no way that a guy in his early 20s driving a Civic could be completely innocent against a woman in her mid 40s in a Fiesta.

Im well aware that I sound bitter about it...

MercMad

Are dash cams accepted as evidence ??

Anyway, its an unfortunate incident, however could I ask............did she stop before you hit her ? If so = your fault and thats what the Ins Co will say.

However if you travelled together, same speed, and she leaned over on you then you may have a case, get you broker/ins company to make a counter claim or tell them you'll accept 50/50 whereby you fix you own car and she fixes hers.

Best of luck.

Gumbo

I would not be mentioning anything about the yellow light except for the fact that both parties were in the process of stopping for the amber light when the micro cut across into your lane.

No way on earth I would let this go and I would fight it as high as I could go.

I cross this junction twice a day at minimum so know it we'll.

Zulu

Sooo. I spoke to my insurance, sent them the photos, and they've maintained that the whole "hit the back & your guilty" is rubbish. They reckoned if the photos show shes guilty, she's guilty. So we'll see on that one.

Then yesterday I got a phone call from "an independent investigator" that's employed by liberty to investigate. He said that whatever he finds, they'll go with it. I thought it was a bit suspicious, but I'm nothing to hide, so I told him the truth. He wanted me to email the photos, but I said I wanted to talk to my insurance first to ensure it's legit.

THEN, just now I got a phone call from your one! She was asking me why I changed my story, and why I'm not taking responsibility etc.. She said she spoke to the witness and he backs her up saying she "was stopped and I ran into the back of her". I didn't say anything other than that I have photos (which she said "ah sure you took them, they could be anything with angles and that". So I just said, "look whats the point of this phone call?" and she said "oh I just have bad phone reception and home and I couldn't make out what the insurance company said, and I wanted to make sure you were changing your story".

Silly fu*king cow! Surely by ringing the witness she's ruined his in partiality?

runawaybishop

Zulu wrote: »

Sooo. I spoke to my insurance, sent them the photos, and they've maintained that the whole "hit the back & your guilty" is rubbish. They reckoned if the photos show shes guilty, she's guilty. So we'll see on that one.

Then yesterday I got a phone call from "an independent investigator" that's employed by liberty to investigate. He said that whatever he finds, they'll go with it. I thought it was a bit suspicious, but I'm nothing to hide, so I told him the truth. He wanted me to email the photos, but I said I wanted to talk to my insurance first to ensure it's legit.

THEN, just now I got a phone call from your one! She was asking me why I changed my story, and why I'm not taking responsibility etc.. She said she spoke to the witness and he backs her up saying she "was stopped and I ran into the back of her". I didn't say anything other than that I have photos (which she said "ah sure you took them, they could be anything with angles and that". So I just said, "look whats the point of this phone call?" and she said "oh I just have bad phone reception and home and I couldn't make out what the insurance company said, and I wanted to make sure you were changing your story".

Silly fu*king cow! Surely by ringing the witness she's ruined his in partiality?

Report to you insurance company that she rang you and claimed she rang the witness.

djimi

If she calls you again immediately end the phone call or dont answer her; let the insurance companies deal with it now, and do not engage her in any way directly.

Absolutely inform your insurance company that she has been in direct contact with the witness.

Zulu

Yeah I sent the insurance company an email. Still waiting to hear back. It all sounds very underhanded, doesn't it? Surely it can't be right??

Anan1

Zulu wrote: »

Yeah I sent the insurance company an email. Still waiting to hear back. It all sounds very underhanded, doesn't it? Surely it can't be right??

Don't worry about it, and don't have any contact with anyone other than your own insurance company. Do keep us posted.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

The fourth picture there makes it pretty obvious that she was straddling two lanes. If you have witnesses saying she pilled over late I think you'd be on the winning side. I'd push. Are you a young male driver likely to get a murderous premium if it all goes tits up though? I think you're in the right but I'm not an assessor. Gotta balance the risk vs reward here.

Just saw you decided to push. Fair play. Keep her at arms length and record all phone calls if she rings again. Hope you get the right out come. Good luck.

Cathalog

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

The fourth picture there makes it pretty obvious that she was straddling two lanes. If you have witnesses saying she pilled over late I think you'd be on the winning side. I'd push. Are you a young male driver likely to get a murderous premium if it all goes tits up though? I think you're in the right but I'm not an assessor. Gotta balance the risk vs reward here.

Just saw you decided to push. Fair play. Keep her at arms length and record all phone calls if she rings again. Hope you get the right out come. Good luck.

Isn't that illegal without her consent?

runawaybishop

Cathalog wrote: »

Isn't that illegal without her consent?

Not illegal, but you can't use it in court unless she is aware and agrees.

Zulu

Sigh.

So I got a call from the insurance company. Sadly they only managed to talk to the witness yesterday. And unfortunately his position is that:

1) the micra was stopped
2) I wasn't paying attention
3) I ran into the back of her

...so in short, from his and their position, I'm 100% responsible.

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but I'll be asking santa for a dashcam.

dr.fuzzenstein

Man, that sucks!
But you can claim she rang the witness and got him to change the story.
Your story makes me want to invest in a dashcam too.

djimi

Did you inform the insurer that she has been in contact with the witness?

Zulu

Yeah, I told the insurer that she contacted him. They said there's nothing to stop you from ringing the witness. It didn't seem to matter at all. The photos didn't seem to matter. The fact that the damage was to the side of her car didn't seem to matter. The fact she was in the middle of two lanes didn't seem to matter.

So long as the witness said she was stopped, I was fubared.

djimi

I dont understand how a witness statement can be deemed valid when there is now serious doubt over the validity of that statement.

I dont know if it will help, but would it be worth contacting a solicitor to ask their advice?

corktina

the witness statement needed to say that the micra moved into your path without warning. Even if you discredited it to the point of it being taken out of the scenario altogether, you wouldn't achieve establishing that, so it makes no difference. On the face of, it appears to the Insurance Companies that you hit her and without that witness back-up, you were always going to have to take this one on the chin.

Sorry for your trouble.

Zulu

corktina wrote: »

the witness statement needed to say that the micra moved into your path without warning. Even if you discredited it to the point of it being taken out of the scenario altogether, you wouldn't achieve establishing that, so it makes no difference. On the face of, it appears to the Insurance Companies that you hit her and without that witness back-up, you were always going to have to take this one on the chin.

Sorry for your trouble.

Sadly, of course you are completely correct. This was always going against me.

djimi wrote: »

I dont understand how a witness statement can be deemed valid when there is now serious doubt over the validity of that statement.

I dont know if it will help, but would it be worth contacting a solicitor to ask their advice?

Honestly, I can't afford a solicitor for this. I mean, no claims bonus is only worth ~€200 next year, then less each year. So I mean for the sake of what, €500? it's not worth it.

Kenny Logins

Sounds like she "little 'ol lady'd" the witness.

corktina

If you had had 3 or 4 witnesses, they probably would have all "seen" different things.

dr.fuzzenstein

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Sounds like she "little 'ol lady'd" the witness.

Time for the OP to get onto the witness and offer bribes.

Voodoomelon

Always saddens me to hear this kind of thing.

djimi

Zulu wrote: »

Honestly, I can't afford a solicitor for this. I mean, no claims bonus is only worth ~€200 next year, then less each year. So I mean for the sake of what, €500? it's not worth it.

Youre probably right. Its just really pisses me off when some incompetant gob****e gets away with something like this (I had a similar situation myself a few years ago), especially when it seems that she went out of her way to get into the ear of the witness.

Dashcams are the only way to go really. Would love to see the look on the womans face as she watched the video that clearly showed her in the wrong.

maceocc2

Zulu wrote: »

Honestly, I can't afford a solicitor for this. I mean, no claims bonus is only worth ~€200 next year, then less each year. So I mean for the sake of what, €500? it's not worth it.

Sounds very familiar, my wife had a similar situation, and we did invest in a dashcam afterwards.

I wouldn't worry about the cost of solicitor, The insurance company will pay for that if you want to go that route. Keep in mind that the insurance company are only advising you walk away, ultimately they will do what you request.

If you feel she has a case to answer then it might be worth taking it forward.

maximoose

Sorry to hear that OP

Is there no chance there's some CCTV footage from that morning? I would have thought either McGeoughs or the pub on the other corner would have a camera that might have caught it. There's def cameras at the solicitors on the opposite side but whether they'd have view of the incident I dunno.

Zulu

There might have been, but it was almost two months ago now.

BohsCeltic

maximoose wrote: »

Sorry to hear that OP

Is there no chance there's some CCTV footage from that morning? I would have thought either McGeoughs or the pub on the other corner would have a camera that might have caught it. There's def cameras at the solicitors on the opposite side but whether they'd have view of the incident I dunno.

Looks like one would have been pointing directly at it

mitosis

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Always saddens me to hear this kind of thing.

Why? He didn't leave enough room to stop. Clearly intended to run the lights if he could. I have some sympathy for him, but not a lot.

Zulu

mitosis wrote: »

Why? He didn't leave enough room to stop. Clearly intended to run the lights if he could. I have some sympathy for him, but not a lot.

Genuinely: do you believe that a driver should always leave enough room to stop between themselves and a driver in a different lane of traffic?

And if so, fair play, but how do you honestly progress through traffic in the real world?

_Kaiser_

Zulu wrote: »

Genuinely: do you believe that a driver should always leave enough room to stop between themselves and a driver in a different lane of traffic?

And if so, fair play, but how do you honestly progress through traffic in the real world?

I wouldn't pay any heed to that sort of response - there'll always be the "typical young male BMW/Audi/Honda driver trying to bully his way down the road" types :rolleyes:

Sorry to hear of the outcome though.. as I posted earlier in the thread I had something similar happen a few years back and it still annoys me but with our "it depends who you ge and their mood at the time" justice system you probably would have been met with the same reaction as from the poster above anyway

timetogo

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I wouldn't pay any heed to that sort of response - there'll always be the "typical young male BMW/Audi/Honda driver trying to bully his way down the road" types :rolleyes:

(

What????
There was nobody in his lane in front of him. The other driver swerved into his lane as she was stopping.
I drive with a safe stopping distance between me and the car in front of me. That's not bullying. Most people don't drive with a safe stopping distance between them and a car in a different lane. :rolleyes:

_Kaiser_

timetogo wrote: »

What????
There was nobody in his lane in front of him. The other driver swerved into his lane as she was stopping.
I drive with a safe stopping distance between me and the car in front of me. That's not bullying. Most people don't drive with a safe stopping distance between them and a car in a different lane. :rolleyes:

Have another read what I wrote.. I was referring to mitosis' post above

timetogo

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Have another read what I wrote.. I was referring to mitosis' post above

Ah. Sorry about that.

vibe666

i think most of us know that junction and it's clearly 2 lanes at those lights and everyone should already be in their lane by the time they reach the lights regardless of where they are going.

she changed lanes at the last second at a junction without indicating or checking to see if it was clear to do so and caused an accident.

i'd be pushing it too if i were you, which seems to be the consensus here from the posts i've read.

also, get yourself a dashcam. 50 quid and all this kind of thing goes away in the event of an accident that wasn't your fault.

_Kaiser_

vibe666 wrote: »

i think most of us know that junction and it's clearly 2 lanes at those lights and everyone should already be in their lane by the time they reach the lights regardless of where they are going.

she changed lanes at the last second at a junction without indicating or checking to see if it was clear to do so and caused an accident.

i'd be pushing it too if i were you, which seems to be the consensus here from the posts i've read.

also, get yourself a dashcam. 50 quid and all this kind of thing goes away in the event of an accident that wasn't your fault.

I'd push it too (and did) but the insurance may not be willing to fight it based on the witness statement (in my case the witness was backing my side up).

Unfortunately because of what the witness said, it's more than likely that Zulu's insurance will just settle the claim and load his premium

Zulu

BohsCeltic wrote: »

Looks like one would have been pointing directly at it

I'm pretty sure that's closed now. (http://www.soc.ie/)

I had a look driving past, it's pointed directly at the line, so I don't know if it'd capture the approach. Still it's worth a try. If I find out who's currently there, I'll see if they have the footage archived.

mb1725

Zulu wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that's closed now. (http://www.soc.ie/)

I had a look driving past, it's pointed directly at the line, so I don't know if it'd capture the approach. Still it's worth a try. If I find out who's currently there, I'll see if they have the footage archived.

Surely the insurance investigator woould have checked that camera first?