I've had an accident

[fungus]

The investigator employed by my insurance company said that the thought of a no win no fee lawyer scares the pants off them. The lady, (ex police) was very thorough. She left no stone unturned. Even though I had sent photographs of the accident site, and the damage to my car, she took her own photos as she said they would show more detail.

[fungus]

An update to the accident I had when the boy cyclist rode out from behind a blind 6' wall on the 2nd July 2010.

My insurance renewal is due in March. Upon checking the details I find that the accident is listed as an at fault, pending. Third Party hit insured. The cost to date is £6466.29.

I have been informed that this accident will remain an at fault pending until the cyclists 22nd birthday, as he has until that date to make a claim against my insurance, because, it appears that the third party has three years from their 18th birthday in which to make a claim for personal injuries if they were a minor at the time of the accident. This means that as the boy is now about 15 years old, I will still have this as an at fault pending accident for around 6-7 years.

I know this may sound a bit like sour grapes, especially as I am not currently a cyclist, but I cant help feeling that may be a clause could be included in household insurance to cover cycling incidents caused by members of the policy holders household.

[martine]

The cost to date is £6466.29.

I have been informed that this accident will remain an at fault pending until the cyclists 22nd birthday,

This is so wrong...and stinks. Insurance and the law and procedures around personal injury claims and all that goes with it are in need of serious reform. It's not sustainable and has generated a whole industry based on referral fees which everyone pays for. I dislike the ambulance chasers, I dislike insurance companies who hike up premiums in the hope you won't go shopping around, I feel so sorry for young drivers who are faced with £3000 premiums on a Corsa 1.2.

By the way you've described your incident it's sounds about as straightfoward as it can get - yet you are faced with this...I would be fuming also...in fact I am on your behalf!

RTCs are going down yet premiums are going significantly up.

There must be a better way.

[TripleS]

I completely agree with what Martin has just said, the system stinks when this sort of injustice is permitted.

The young cyclist was entirely responsible for the collision, but he can't pay to put things right, so his parents should. They appear to have claimed that they can't afford to pay, but the probability is that they simply don't want to pay.

In Nigel's situation I think I'd have pursued them through the Small Claims Court.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[martine]

I've got a feeling that the small claims court won't deal with motoring cases...but I may be wrong.

[michael769]

I've got a feeling that the small claims court won't deal with motoring cases...but I may be wrong.

They deal with them all the time - or used to. It's just that with repair costs being what they are - fewer claims meet the cost limit these days.

[TripleS]

I've got a feeling that the small claims court won't deal with motoring cases...but I may be wrong.

They deal with them all the time - or used to. It's just that with repair costs being what they are - fewer claims meet the cost limit these days.

I have just read something to the effect that the limit on cases that can be handled by the Small Claims Court could rise from the present £5,000 to £15,000. Apparently an increase is under consideration, but no change has yet been made.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[fungus]

Thanks for the replies.

The car in question was sold 15 months ago. I didn't persue the matter through the Small Claims Court as to be honest, I felt that it was possibly too much trouble. What angers me more, is the fact that this accident will remain as an at fault pending until the cyclists 22nd birthday, when he could no longer make a claim for personal injury against the policy. Also the cost to my insurance company, whilst being small compared to the sums that insurance companies incur, when multiplied by the thousands of like incidents they have to deal with, must add up to millions, and we're all paying for this.

[fungus]

I have just found out today that the parents of this boy are pursuing a bodily injury claim against my insurance. I only found out because my wife was finalising details on our daughters insurance, and I am a named driver on her policy.

[martine]

I have just found out today that the parents of this boy are pursuing a bodily injury claim against my insurance. I only found out because my wife was finalising details on our daughters insurance, and I am a named driver on her policy.

Oh for goodness sake - that's ridiculous...and no one had the decency to tell you? That can't be right in itself can it? So do you need to get a solicitor involved?

[fungus]

I have just found out today that the parents of this boy are pursuing a bodily injury claim against my insurance. I only found out because my wife was finalising details on our daughters insurance, and I am a named driver on her policy.

Oh for goodness sake - that's ridiculous...and no one had the decency to tell you? That can't be right in itself can it? So do you need to get a solicitor involved?

The claim is in the hands of the insurance company. As the costs already incurred by my insurance company total £6466 -29 up to Feb. 2012 and this has cost me on each renewal. However, I have been informed that there will be no effect on my insurance after three years. So I presume that no matter what the outcome now, there will be no further impact.

I think that what is worrying about this, is the fact that what the boys parents are basically saying to him is that morals are not important, and whether you are to blame or not, you should claim even though you only had very minor grazes.

[Octy_Ross]

Presumably, if you had taken him to court and established the boy was at fault there could be no further claim against you? In which case, presumably, it must always be worth establishing 'blame' ?

[fungus]

Presumably, if you had taken him to court and established the boy was at fault there could be no further claim against you? In which case, presumably, it must always be worth establishing 'blame' ?

May be, but my insurance company had already hired an investigator to cover their own back, which was going to incur costs which would impact on my insurance.

[zadocbrown]

You should have hit the little sod a bit harder. A proper accident investigation might have saved you a load of hassle...

[TripleS]

You should have hit the little sod a bit harder. A proper accident investigation might have saved you a load of hassle...

My recollection is that Nigel didn't hit the little sod at all. I thought Nigel's car was hit on the left front wing by the cyclist.

This whole episode has been a disgraceful injustice as far as I can see - and that's before we get into this 'strict liability' nonsense.