Hassles after a car accident!! - Page 2

Ringo · 26-04-2006, 12:34 PM

Yeah sounds like it is standard procedure to try and get out of coughing up the $

If you didn't have comprehensive insurance then where would you be? Probably talking to and paying a lawyer....or having to pay for the damage yourself

Lesson for all in having comprehensive insurance for just this sort of accident...

The Monty · 26-04-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoked

Not at all.

I witnessed a 4 car pile up in which the first 3 cars were stationary at a Red light. The 4th Car was exceeding the speed limit and travelling around 100km/h. The force from his impact wrote the 3rd car off and pile drove it into the 2nd car and there was still enough force to drive the 2nd into the 1st.

Police charged 4th car drvier and stated te other 3 were not at any fault "Of any kind".

Haha, about a year ago I witnessed a four car plus motorbike pile up. Same thing happened, rear car speeding, everyone stopped at the redlight 4th car into 3rd, 3rd into 2nd, 2nd into motorbike, motorbike into first. The motorbike rider (it was a harley) was not impressed at all.

:

LTDHO · 26-04-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yaw

Not a good idea.
Your insurance company is handling it and if you (for lack of better words) "interfere" you may jepordise the result they get for you inadvertently.
You have contracted your insurance company to act for you, allow them to do thier job and follow thier advice so you get the best outcome.

What people don't understand is thet your insurer is also your legal team. They do the lot, another reason to have insurence. IMO insurence companies do a better job than lawers too.

pauljh74 · 26-04-2006, 01:58 PM

Wait for the claim to be settled, then report him to the VTD, or threaten to spray him with deodorant.

Pinkbits · 30-04-2006, 10:35 AM

The bloke that hit you was probably an illegal immigrant.

RG · 30-04-2006, 10:45 AM

Now, now let's not speculate on the legality of his entrance into this country. Unfortunately chances are that you're probably right.

FRDGAL · 04-05-2006, 06:12 PM

Just when I stopped worrying about this, I get a knock at the door and papers served. From the guys solicitor - they're taking me to court. "Colliding with the rear of the Plaintiff's vehicle" "Failing to apply brakes on the vehicle to avoid collision" "Driving at an excessive speed" (ummm hello the accident happened while we were both stationary) and many more claims. All blame is being put on me. If I don't reply to them within 21 days, they'll see me in court according to these papers.

:

Keepleft · 04-05-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRDGAL_AU6

Just when I stopped worrying about this, I get a knock at the door and papers served. From the guys solicitor - they're taking me to court. "Colliding with the rear of the Plaintiff's vehicle" "Failing to apply brakes on the vehicle to avoid collision" "Driving at an excessive speed" (ummm hello the accident happened while we were both stationary) and many more claims. All blame is being put on me. If I don't reply to them within 21 days, they'll see me in court according to these papers.

:

So 'who' is or was the taxi driver?? (Also, the name of the taxi driver according to this letter differs from the name that the driver himself wrote out for me}.

* The crash could not happen when your both stationary, either you ran into him whilst he was stopped,- on the face of it, or, he reversed into you whilst at the intersection or just over it.

If he reversed into you, the question might then be asked 'why had you not beeped the horn" to warn him?

Just be prepared for all loose potential ends..

LUXO_8 · 04-05-2006, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRDGAL_AU6

Just when I stopped worrying about this, I get a knock at the door and papers served. From the guys solicitor - they're taking me to court. "Colliding with the rear of the Plaintiff's vehicle" "Failing to apply brakes on the vehicle to avoid collision" "Driving at an excessive speed" (ummm hello the accident happened while we were both stationary) and many more claims. All blame is being put on me. If I don't reply to them within 21 days, they'll see me in court according to these papers.

:

straight back to your insurance........ that is utter BS what they're trying to do

FRDGAL · 04-05-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

So 'who' is or was the taxi driver?? (Also, the name of the taxi driver according to this letter differs from the name that the driver himself wrote out for me}.

* The crash could not happen when your both stationary, either you ran into him whilst he was stopped,- on the face of it, or, he reversed into you whilst at the intersection or just over it.

If he reversed into you, the question might then be asked 'why had you not beeped the horn" to warn him?

Just be prepared for all loose potential ends..

We were both stationary so him claiming that I was driving at an excessive speed is false. We were both stopped. I had no warning that he was about to reverse into me or I would have beeped the horn. I'm not stupid to let someone just hit me!! It just happen within a split second.

The point is that he is clearly saying that I hit into his rear, which is simply not true.

Oh and I found out that the different names are because one name is that of the taxi owner and the other name is that of the guy who hit me.

Keepleft · 04-05-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRDGAL_AU6

We were both stationary so him claiming that I was driving at an excessive speed is false. We were both stopped. I had no warning that he was about to reverse into me or I would have beeped the horn. I'm not stupid to let someone just hit me!! It just happen within a split second.

The point is that he is clearly saying that I hit into his rear, which is simply not true.

Oh and I found out that the different names are because one name is that of the taxi owner and the other name is that of the guy who hit me.

You can see then the the 'game' they are playing, it might well be one of 'bluff', it could be the real driver might have told the boss a lie or two.

Normally I'd carry a disposable camera, but even then, in this example, would not show an 'at fault' driver.

Word vs word and that is my fear for you. On principle, I'd not let this rest.

FRDGAL · 04-05-2006, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

it could be the real driver might have told the boss a lie or two. Word vs word and that is my fear for you. On principle, I'd not let this rest.

Hmmmm you may be right there because looking at the papers again, it's the owner taking me to court, not the driver.

And it can't be word against word because I have a witness.

Anyway, I rang Just Car (didn't realise I could ring them after B/H) and the person incharge of my claim will contact me tomorrow. So we'll see what happens

:

The MaDDeSTMaN · 05-05-2006, 07:47 PM

So did they contact you today?

FRDGAL · 08-05-2006, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The MaDDeSTMaN

So did they contact you today?

Sorry, I forgot to update. I contacted them and spoke to the guy incharge of my claim. He said they deal with this paticular solicitor alot and that he is ruthless but he's shocked that I was seved papers before receiving any prior letters from the solicitors office as is supposedly standard practice before going through the courts.

I had to scan and email through to him copies of what I had received and he passed it on to his boss which will then be passed onto their solicitors. He told me not to worry and that they will battle this on my behalf BUT they told me that once before.

He said they have the assessors report, the repairers report, the witness's statement etc... I know I shouldn't worry but it's a bit hard. It's actually more stress than concern because I know he is at fault so I'm not concerned about that, but it's just very stressful having to deal with nonsense like this.

I'll let you know what happens where I hear from Just Car again.

pauljh74 · 08-05-2006, 09:36 AM

Your witness is the key that will result in the other party scurrying back into their little hole as their claim will be thrown out. Sounds like the only reason the solicitor is chasing you is to justify his bill.

Any more letters from the solicitor and you should contact them and tell them to contact person XXXXXX at your insurance company - refuse to deal with him directly as your insurance company is your legal representation in this matter.

It'sTheVibe · 08-05-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

He told me not to worry and that they will battle this on my behalf BUT they told me that once before.

They will (should) battle this on your behalf, but they can't act on correspondence until they are made aware of it.

Years ago I had an XF t bone me when he made an illegal right hand turn from a service road. It was about 2am and the driver was asleep on his feet.
His insurance coy. did the usual and apportioned 10% of the blame to me, reducing my payout from $1800 to $1620 (or thereabouts). Obviously they gamble that it's not worth anybody's time or money engaging a lawyer for $180. I did get a family member who is a lawyer to respond, and they paid out in full. (I only had 3rd party at the time)
When my car was then being repaired they found additional damage the assessor had missed. So I sent off another claim, and yet again the insurance coy. only offered to pay 90% of the new total even though I already had a letter agreeing to settle in full.... it's a mad world..

Whenever I've made a not at fault claim with comprehensive insurance though, never had a problem. Good luck.

Dimi_Ghia · 08-05-2006, 05:48 PM

I had a young girl hit me on the freeway 10 years ago. She was a learner driving with her father. It was only a small bump but enough to scratch some paint off my car (I had a Hyundai Excel). There was no damage to their car and I also noted that she was towing a trailor! We exchanged numbers and I called my insurance to organise to get it fixed and that was that.

A few days later I got a call from her father who must have reveived the bill and the first thing he said was; Hi, I am Professor so and so from **** University.....and told me he was the girls father. He said that there was only rubber marks on my car and he can buff it off. He said that he was not going to pay the $800 just for rubber marks. I told him there was some paint missing also and refused his offer to 'fix it'. He didn't like that and said that he won't be paying the bill. I told him that I am still going ahead with the claim and to deal with my insurer.
Haven't heard from him since!
If he was nice about it then maybe I could have worked something out but because he used his position as a Professor at a big university I said to myself stuff him! And also that my car was only 4 months old.

Good luck FRDGAL_AU6. Your insurance company will sort it out for you I'm sure.

Dimi

FRDGAL · 21-06-2006, 07:43 PM

A bit of an update for you all and an end to this saga. Today I had to appear in court over this matter. I won. I have to give the taxi driver credit though. The story he came up with was absolute gold. But not good enough. My witness crushed his lies. It didn't take long for the judge to rule in our favour. The losses and expenses I claimed were granted and that was the end of it.

If it wasn't for the witness, I could have quite easily lost this. From now on, if I witness and accident, no matter how small it is, I will pull over. I would hate for anyone "not at fault" to have to go through the hassle that I did.

Krissy

Pinkbits · 21-06-2006, 07:58 PM

Well done Krissy!

Free347 · 21-06-2006, 08:06 PM

That's great news. I hope you received adequate compensation for all the time and effort you had to surrender for this ar5ehole.

**Professor Farnsworth** · 21-06-2006, 08:10 PM

good stuff - krissy i work for a company that gets claims for accidents coming in alllllllllllll the time.. and i get to see letters from both sides, along with photos etc etc and every single letter from the insurance companies we receive will throw blame onto the other party - "from the information in out posession it appears your client is responsible for the damages" same line, alllllllllll the time. As others have said, it's a trick, a ballsy trick, for which some people i'm sure fall for, to save the hassle. You did well in having a witness, as taxi companies in my experience are notriously the worst in never accepting blame, even when it's a black and white case, they fight to protect their liability insurance ratings.

On the very odd occasion that a company actually agrees to pay the damages, they STILL never accept liability. It's worded something along the lines of: "although we don't accept responsibility for this accident we are willing to offer a settlement amount....." in other words.......... it wasn't us but we're so nice we've decided to pay out of the goodness of our hearts!!!!!!!! We had a case where someone slammed a new camry into the brick wall sign at the entrance to a housing estate, apparently they fell asleep... the brick wall sign was about 15 metres off the highway, but they claimed the sign was dangerous because the lighting on it was not bright enough, and they won.

anyway good to hear it worked out for you.

FRDGAL · 22-06-2006, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Free347

I hope you received adequate compensation for all the time and effort you had to surrender for this ar5ehole.

I did. And our claim was agreed to very quickly and easily. No dispute from them. My witness was also compensated so he was happy.

Just glad it's over with. I really didn't need the stress.