Crash compensation - Any advice?



Mike Causer composed the following ...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:22:06 +0000, Paul - *** wrote:
> heh. Troll methinks. Albeit a troll of little wit who thinks that
>> 'cos he has a car is just that little bit superior to other road suers.

>
> He actually has a Vespa 200 scooter and a Yamaha XJ600 motorbike.


I didn't know, but the impression he gave ...

> Makes me feel ashamed to call myself a motorcyclist, etc.


Yup, which I am too .. ;)

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ... ;)
"A ****** is a ******, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
 
Not Responding wrote:
> Al C-F wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:25:53 +0000, David Martin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> (you have no calim against the insuracne company, but against the
>>> perpetrator)

>>
>> I think that this is the sole exception - that you can claim against
>> the insurers where a mandatory policy is in place (legal requirement
>> to have third-party cover, in this case).


I don't suppose you can sue the insurers but you can indeed claim
compensation from/against (?) them. Don't have to but you CAN.

> No. The claim is against the individual who may/may not have an
> insurance policy to cover legal costs and/or damages.
>
> The proceedings paper I've just signed names me as claiment and the
> driver of the Clio as defendent.


The victim can post a claim directly to the driver's insurance company,
naming the driver, car reg and policy number. It's just a letter. There
is no need for "legal proceedings" or to sue the driver to begin with.
You only need to go down that route if the insurers don't pay up.

~PB
 
"Lance Armstrong" <[email protected]_I.ko> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Daz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

<snip>
>
> You don't have any insurance or are required to have any and you think you
> can just go and claim against a motorist who is already paying through the
> nose for the "privilege" of driving on the roads. Some people want it all
> for nothing.
>
>> Any advice will be gratefully received,

>
> Stop riding through red lights, you will be killed. Learning how to "give
> way" might help.


either you are a troll or a cretin: please inform us which is applicable.
Or it could be both of course.
>
>
 
"Daz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> but the bike was written off (back wheel mangled, rear mech smashed
> and frame bent). I have claimed on the driver's insurance for
> compensation to replace the bike. The two quotes I acquired for the
> damage both came to about £700 and I sent these to the insurance co.


You say the bike was 'written off', and 'the damage was about £700' so I'm
a bit confused. If it was 'written off' it means unrepairable at economic
cost so really you are talking about replacing a whole bike. In that case
the question is how much was the written off bike actually worth, at
secondhand market value, in the state it was in, immediately before the
accident? Any claim for compensation is normally based on 'intrinsic
value', not replacement cost, and certainly not the cost or repair where the
cost of repair exceeds the value of the bike.

That said, if it will cost you £700 to replace your bike with a new one of
equivalent quality, then there is no reason not to ask for £700, you just
need to persuade them that it is in their interests to settle at a higher
figure than they might normally (ie. on 'intrinsic value'). You can do
that, as others have suggested, by threatening to sue for your injuries and
other expenses as well, greatly adding to the cost of your claim, if they
will not play ball and compensate you to the full replacement cost of your
bike.

Rich
 
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:34:18 GMT, "Rich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>either you are a troll or a cretin: please inform us which is applicable.
>Or it could be both of course.


Where's your respect? That's no way to address a man who's had a cameo
role in Dodgeball.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
 
Richard Goodman wrote:
> "Daz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>but the bike was written off (back wheel mangled, rear mech smashed
>>and frame bent). I have claimed on the driver's insurance for
>>compensation to replace the bike. The two quotes I acquired for the
>>damage both came to about £700 and I sent these to the insurance co.

>
>
> You say the bike was 'written off', and 'the damage was about £700' so I'm
> a bit confused. If it was 'written off' it means unrepairable at economic
> cost so really you are talking about replacing a whole bike. In that case
> the question is how much was the written off bike actually worth, at
> secondhand market value, in the state it was in, immediately before the
> accident? Any claim for compensation is normally based on 'intrinsic
> value', not replacement cost, and certainly not the cost or repair where the
> cost of repair exceeds the value of the bike.
>
> That said, if it will cost you £700 to replace your bike with a new one of
> equivalent quality, then there is no reason not to ask for £700, you just
> need to persuade them that it is in their interests to settle at a higher
> figure than they might normally (ie. on 'intrinsic value'). You can do
> that, as others have suggested, by threatening to sue for your injuries and
> other expenses as well, greatly adding to the cost of your claim, if they
> will not play ball and compensate you to the full replacement cost of your
> bike.


I agree with not stinting on claiming for any real losses arising, but
would avoid pushing it beyond anything you can reasonably justify;
you're up against people who do this for a living, they've seen it all
before and if you overplay your hand the results could be unfortunate.

So claim for *all* your *genuine* losses, using credible valuations for
things like lost earnings (if any) etc. If you get competent legal
advice this will all be sorted out, but it is certainly possible to do
it yourself. The local County Court should give advice about completing
small claims forms and such like if it goes that far.

The initial offer was, as others have already said, not that bad
compared to the more typical starting point of zero (or even threatening
to sue you if you do not go away). In the end, no matter how unjust it
might seem when you know it was entirely not your fault, you'll probably
be better off accepting some compromise. If you aren't willing to give
an inch, the insurance company has little incentive to settle and it
could drag on for a very long time (insurance companies are expert at
stringing these things out when it suits them). But, if you begin by
pointing out how much you could claim when everything is included, while
indicating that you are a reasonable person who will seriously consider
a fair offer in order to resolve this matter, you will probably get an
enhanced offer that's still some way short of your maximum. Then it's
your choice what to do: take the money; keep haggling; go to court. It
helps if you begin with a clear idea of your minimum settlement in mind.


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
 
JLB wrote:

> I agree with not stinting on claiming for any real losses arising, but
> would avoid pushing it beyond anything you can reasonably justify;
> you're up against people who do this for a living, they've seen it all
> before and if you overplay your hand the results could be unfortunate.
>
> So claim for *all* your *genuine* losses, using credible valuations for
> things like lost earnings (if any) etc.



The practical alternative is just to add on a significant chunk for pain
and suffering (which the OP is also genuinely entitled to). Hard to put
a precise value on this, but if you make it plausible, then you don't
have to waste time and effort haggling over the details of every
individual damaged item. If the OP had claimed say 1200UKP rather than
700, he would in all probability already have obtained a settlement he
was happy with (ie enough to cover the direct losses).

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
On 22 Dec 2004 03:30:59 -0800, [email protected] (Daz) wrote:

>just thought I'd de-lurk to ask some advice.


[SNIP]

>I have today received a letter from the insurance company saying that
>whilst they do not think their client was fully at fault, they will
>offer me £500.


[SNIP]

>Any advice will be gratefully received,
>


Hi Darren

I mailed your post to a Personal Injury Lawyer (reminds me of an
episode of Futurama) whom I know slightly.

===========================================

He replied:

It is true that an insurer will often attemt to deny 100% liability
for an accident with a view to reducing the value of the claim. It is
of course the claim's handler's job to reduce all claims to a bare
minimum - that is what the insurer pays him/her to do!

If I were the unfortunate person concerned in this case I would hlod
out for an acceptance of 100% liability and then argue the actual
value of the claim.

I deal with claims involving personal injury. The law states, at
present, that any person suffering personal injury as a resut of a
third party's negligence/breachof statutory duty will be entiltled to
compensation for the injuries received.

The law also states that where the damages recovered for that personal
injury ( known as "general damages") exceed £1,000-00 then the third
party will also have to pay the injured party's legal costs.

Any financial loss incurred as a result of an accident (in this case
the cost of repairs to the bike) can also be recoverd - these are
known as "Special Damages."

Legla costs are only recoverable from the third party in respect of
the recovery of special damages if the sum recovered exceeds
£5,000-00.

Therefore, to make it worth while instructing a lawyer (ie when the
third party will have to pay the lawyer's costs!) either:

1. The person not at fault must have suffered personal injury (must
have been to hospital or GP for treatment as a result)

or

2. Must have suffered financial losses in excess of £5,000-00 as a
result of the accident.

Any financial losses (even f under £5,000-00) can be recovered by the
lawyer at the third party's expense if perosnal injury has also been
suffered.

Hope this makes some sense

==========================

Regards
James