Who would've thought ..........

[Mikeg1]

I have considered using small claims court, but are you suggesting making a claim against the third party insurer and not the third party himself?

Your claim is always against the other driver. Absent his agreement/request (eg commonly, by passing on your claim to them, as per his T's and C's) they are entitled to assume he is dealing with the matter.

Pragmatically, I'd set out your claim to him/his employer, and if you know the insurers involved, cc them.

Small Claims court against the third party insurers would only be eg, they agreed your claim (on his behalf) but then failed to say, issue a cheque.

[Bob]

Cheers, food for thought.

[Deleted User 3629]

I guess my approach may annoy a few but I am struggling a little with the scenario - I know it is frustrating when someone is not concentrating on their driving and collides with an innocent parties property causing damage and much inconvenience but that's life and why we have insurance, if we all went around suing folk for such things imagine that - if this was happening to me my gripe would be with my insurance company leaving me without a car for 5-months. And remember, even in a small claims court their has to be clear intentional fault - and make no mistake, the driver who hit you will no doubt have insurance and probably legal cover too and if you did make a claim against them you can bet their insurance will fight the case and without being able to show intent to cause loss, I doubt you would win?

[Bob]

So, you obviously believe that when someone drives into you when they had plenty of time to stop, in fact they didn't even have to stop, just slow down a little, and avoid any kind of collision, we should just say OK, that's life, I'll take the big financial hit?
If that is how it is, they may as well tear up the Road Traffic Act and highway code now, and save a bucket load of cash by closing down the traffic department in the Police.

Here are the facts, my wife was overtaking two parked cars, the van that run into her had not even entered the road she was on when she started this manoeuvre, so she actually had the right of way, additionally I think I can show he was going over 20mph at the time of the collision, but I'm not sure if they'll accept my evidence for this. Whereas his defence is she was on the wrong side of the road and it was his right of way.

Obviously, I'm not going to pursue anything that is against a solicitors advice, but if there is a chance to turn this around I will.

[JFDIT]

Been there myself. The issue is with your insurers, request escalation. And name and shame them on here for our benefit!

[Mikeg1]

Not sure how insurers are better able to source replacement parts quicker than Volvo UK, but anything's possible.

[Deleted User 3629]

Bob - No its not OK, it is bad inconsiderate driving that you see ALL the time - I wish it was not like that - just look how many uninsured drivers are on the roads, and that's why we need good insurance - just look how people drive badly even when they are legal - speed limits, what speed limits - try to drive at the correct speed, especially at 30-mph and all the beeps you get - Road Traffic Act, don't think some have visited that idea since learning to drive, if they ever did in the first place - but that is how it is. And yes, we always take a financial hit - the car is written-off and we nearly always pay out more to replace it and our insurance premiums rise considerably on renewal.
Regarding your facts - you stated that your wife was actually on the wrong side of the road when the impact happened? In my opinion just because the van had not entered the road when your wife started the manoeuvre does not mean she has automatic legal right of way, in my opinion the van driver may well have a good argument that because your wife was on their side of the road she was at fault.
Once (late 80's) I was overtaking a articulated lorry on a clear straight road with T junctions off, when a car came to the T junction looked only right and pulled left into the road and we hit head on - I was judged to be at fault - the reasoning was, because even though she was not at the junction when I started to overtake the lorry or she did not looked both ways, I was on the wrong side of the road and I had taken her legal right to her legitimate use of that road - and as your situation sounds very similar in my opinion it may well be judged the same?

[Bob]

Some may have noticed that I initially typed a response to Oldies message above, but I have since decided to delete it as I did not start this thread to ask for advice on what to do, or explain what actions I intend to take, I'll seek that advice from a professional and act according to that advice.
The intention of my original post was to show how what appears to be a relatively minor collision can do so much damage, not to get into a debate about what I can and cannot expect to happen.

Cheers

Bob

[Felindre]

Oldie, I'd judge the 2 situations differently. You were overtaking, approaching a junction on the side of the road, so not a clear road. You could have continued progress following and not overtaking.

In this case the driver was PASSING parked vehicles (Bob's error in referring to overtaking) at which point you have to cross over the white line. There is no RIGHT to 'your side of the road' If it's blocked by an approaching vehicle which has no means of giving way until they've completed the manoeuvre, then you must give way, not push through because it's your right.

[ChrisLF]

Exactly! No wonder Bob decided not to continue with his reply.

How else are you expected to pass parked cars!!!