Just had a bump - should I bother claiming?

[tt82]

Just had a small bump in my car and not sure wether I should bother claiming through the insurance. Theres only a small amount of damage and it would prob cost more in rises of my premium then to just get it fixed, or indeed leave it.

The story
Couldn't be bothered cooking any dinner so nipped down to the local McDonalds. On the way out of the Retail Park the road is 2 lanes and at a roundabout both lanes turn right. I was in the left hand lane and an old codger was in the right lane. As we exited the roundabout he cut straight across the front of me into my lane and left a little scratch on the bumper.

The sign on the road in my lane showing direction of travel straight on and to the right can clearly be seen.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9043/oldcodger1.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/217/oldcodger1.png/)

Entering the roundabout.
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/8665/oldcodger2.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/691/oldcodger2.png/)

On the roundabout.
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/4946/oldcodger3.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/9/oldcodger3.png/)

Exiting the roundabout and old codger moving into my lane.
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2558/oldcodger4.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/43/oldcodger4.png/)

Old codger cuts me up and hits my car.
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/5627/oldcodger5.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/801/oldcodger5.png/)

Photo showing the old codger has clearly moved from the right hand lane into the left hand lane, in the process cutting me up and hitting my car.
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/8665/oldcodger6.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/849/oldcodger6.png/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0c76i7X7AA

p.s. old codger didnt even want to leave his details and was more than happy to just drive off even after I had stated my car was damaged. I blocked him at the next lights and told him if I didn't get his details I would report him to the police.

The damage

Its not really that noticeable but there is a definate scratch. Just annoying that thats yet another little mark thats on the car.
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2559/23092011194.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/193/23092011194.jpg/)

[RobbieH]

Did he notice or just drive off leaving you?

With those photos as evidence I'd be tempted to talk to the police (leaving the schene of an accident) and the insurance. Do the orginal photos show the number plate clearly or did you note it down separately?

Edit: and when you mean little scratch what is the exact damage (maybe post a pic)?

Edit 2: just read your edit LOL. He has clearly left the schene of an accident. Report it to the police at minimum. If you can get his details I'd report it to your insurers eeven if you don't want to put an actual claim in. Two hats like this need stopping.

[tt82]

No, he pulled over further on. After a cursory examination of my car I approached his car and explained the error he had just made. He and his wife seemed to think I had approached the roundabout from the other side. He mumbled "Well you've got my number" and started to pull away.

Didnt take his reg at the scene as I though I would be able to get it from the camera. Gonna have to try and dechipher his address that he scribbled down and track him down.

[RobbieH]

Definitely report it to the police. "Leaving the schene of an accident". End of.

[volvorocks]

Hi tt82

A quick question

That camera looks a great idea. Is it a special camera fitted in your car and if so where can they be purchased

Thanks

[Thanatos]

What RobbieH said as if it was the other way round you can bet he will do

[RobbieH]

Hi tt82

A quick question

That camera looks a great idea. Is it a special camera fitted in your car and if so where can they be purchased

Thanks

Try ebay, there's loads. Just type "in car camera" into the search box. A bit like this http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=in+car+camera

Sorry tt for going off topic :o

[tt82]

Hi tt82

A quick question

That camera looks a great idea. Is it a special camera fitted in your car and if so where can they be purchased

Thanks


It is a RoadHawk RH1 (http://www.roadhawk.co.uk/roadhawk-black-box-video-recording-systems/cat_2.html), though its now been updated and sold as a DC1.

[tt82]

Did he notice or just drive off leaving you?

With those photos as evidence I'd be tempted to talk to the police (leaving the schene of an accident) and the insurance. Do the orginal photos show the number plate clearly or did you note it down separately?

Edit: and when you mean little scratch what is the exact damage (maybe post a pic)?

Edit 2: just read your edit LOL. He has clearly left the schene of an accident. Report it to the police at minimum. If you can get his details I'd report it to your insurers eeven if you don't want to put an actual claim in. Two hats like this need stopping.

Put a pic in the main post now. EDIT and video as well.

Tbh I'd rather not get the insurers involved, even if I dont put in a claim they will probably bump my premuim up anyway.

[ruffday]

If it was me I would report him for leaving the scene of an accident and not giving you proper details. These old duffers who cant see that they have done anything wrong need to be off the road.
As for putting in a claim I wouldnt bother. It looks minor and I would thing any of the smart repair companys would charge less that £100 to put it right.
£100 would most certainly be less that any excess you may have to pay as you may need to rely on your insurance co recovering the costs.

[Andy Northface]

Put a pic in the main post now. EDIT and video as well.

Tbh I'd rather not get the insurers involved, even if I dont put in a claim they will probably bump my premuim up anyway.

Oh yes. :(

[RobbieH]

Put a pic in the main post now. EDIT and video as well.

Tbh I'd rather not get the insurers involved, even if I dont put in a claim they will probably bump my premuim up anyway.

OK , just a wee scratch that hopefully should polish out from what I can see.

I'd still report it to the police at any rate just with the prviso that you're not claiming. They may just have a polite word with the gentleman which could have an effect on his future driving behaviour (yeh, I know "all pigs fed and ready to fly" :rolleyes:).

[tt82]

If it was me I would report him for leaving the scene of an accident and not giving you proper details. These old duffers who cant see that they have done anything wrong need to be off the road.
As for putting in a claim I wouldnt bother. It looks minor and I would thing any of the smart repair companys would charge less that £100 to put it right.
£100 would most certainly be less that any excess you may have to pay as you may need to rely on your insurance co recovering the costs.

I wouldnt have to pay any excess. The last time some idiot drove into me I didnt have to pay and my evidence, although not as good as this was accepted and t was deemed the other partys fault. Though that could have just been as we had the same insurer.

OK , just a wee scratch that hopefully should polish out from what I can see.

I'd still report it to the police at any rate just with the prviso that you're not claiming. They may just have a polite word with the gentleman which could have an effect on his future driving behaviour (yeh, I know "all pigs fed and ready to fly" :rolleyes:).

Don't have his reg as I relied on getting it from the camera and its not a good enough picture, doh :bricks:. Not having much luck finding his address in the AtoZ, so I cant go round and get it. Would love to inform the Police but I may just sit back and see what happens. I dont think he's gonna take it any further, if he does then it'll be an expensive mistake and when I get his reg I will report it to the Police.

[docjd]

Been thinking about getting an in car camera-this reinforces my thoughts-lucky it was only "minor damage"-still as other have said report the incident.

[christheancient]

Been thinking about getting an in car camera-this reinforces my thoughts-lucky it was only "minor damage"-still as other have said report the incident.

Ditto.

But I'm a bit skint at the moment!

[kebab10]

Report the "old codger" to the feds, show them the footage and pictures you have obviously; dont bother with the insurers. Should polish out okay.

As for the old codger, was the reason he didnt want to stop because he isnt insured, not eligible to drive or what. Let the Police deal with.

But, did you get to MaccyD's?

[andy_d]

report him
leaving the scence of the accident
driving without due care and attention.

as the damage to the car doesnt look that great , maybe / maybe not involve the insurnace, But 100% report the clown.

regardless of age ,driving off after an accident that is clearly 100% down to Them = report the clown.

[weble]

that camera is a great bit of kit! I think i need one of those!

It could have been a lot worse, that mark looks like it could come out with a bit of cutting paste. However I know what ya mean, the careless old fool dont care and will still make the same manouver next time he's there and it could be a lot worse!

You're call if u decide to report it to the police. I would, although the chances they will do anything is slim as he wasnt speeding and it wasnt caught by a Gatso :(

[Steve940estate]

I've just watched the video a few times and while it's clear that the guy pulled over into you and he clearly should have seen you I don't think you might have helped things.
As you approach the roundabout there is a car between him and you which you go up the inside of. While the road layout is such that you can go up the inside and go right you possibly didn't need to do that. He might have checked his mirror and seen the car behind. Because you came past that car quite quickly he may not have see you before entering the roundabout, if he did he might have considered you were going straight ahead.
All this doesn't change the fact he hit you but if it was you in the car in front can you see how you might also have been caught out ?

I just wonder if you took the video to the police for example they might say that you were driving agressively.

If you had hung back a bit and not gone past the car you wouldn't have been in a position where the lead car could have hit you, thats not to say the guy in the second one wouldn't have done the same though I suppose.

Going back to the number plate problem is there any way to enhance the picture enough to make out the reg number ?

[tt82]

I've just watched the video a few times and while it's clear that the guy pulled over into you and he clearly should have seen you I don't think you might have helped things.
As you approach the roundabout there is a car between him and you which you go up the inside of. While the road layout is such that you can go up the inside and go right you possibly didn't need to do that. He might have checked his mirror and seen the car behind. Because you came past that car quite quickly he may not have see you before entering the roundabout, if he did he might have considered you were going straight ahead.
All this doesn't change the fact he hit you but if it was you in the car in front can you see how you might also have been caught out ?

I just wonder if you took the video to the police for example they might say that you were driving agressively.

If you had hung back a bit and not gone past the car you wouldn't have been in a position where the lead car could have hit you, thats not to say the guy in the second one wouldn't have done the same though I suppose.

Going back to the number plate problem is there any way to enhance the picture enough to make out the reg number ?

A very valid point but.....

No matter what my vehicles poition was throughout the entire thing, he clearly moved from 1 lane to another while on a roundabout. He had no need to change lanes at that point and should have done so earlier or later if he did need to. He did not use his mirros or he would have seen me, nor did he check his blind spot. In the end he did not consider other motorist when performing the manouvre.

My speed is shown at the bottom of the video and I dont think 12-18mph was excessive.

I had a perfectly valid right to do the manouvre I did, I obeyed all road signage and stayed within my lane at all times.


Just about to recheck the vid to see if i get abetter view of his plate.

[Steve940estate]

I didn't see the speed readout, probably looks worse than it is (if you see what I mean) as the other car was slowing down.

I've been lucky in the past and have avoided things like this happening. I had someone following me far too close in a traffic jam. I ended up pulling out into another lane only to watch the car that was behind run into the car that was in front of me !
I don't think I will drive the car tomorrow now as I have jinxed myself.

Hope you get it sorted out anyway.

[volvorocks]

tt82

After watching the video

I too concur with Steve940estate in so far as it appears that the Focus was at the roundabout in the offside lane and proceeded round the roundabout whilst you appear to "undertake" irrespective of who was in the correct lane whilst carrying out their manouvre. It could also be suggested that the Focus "cut you up".

I am of the opinion , and it is simply that - opinion , that this incident would be looked upon as contributory negligence and from an insurance point of view may be settled "knock for knock" or indeed on a percentage blame basis

From a Police point of view I am also of the opinion that neither driver would be taken to court although again this is merely opinion.

With respect , I myself have encountered similar situations to that which you display on your video footage,and at all times whilst driving I drive with an "expect the unexpected" sort of view.

I hope this helps and please see that my position on the matter is unbias

Hope you come to a decision and get sorted

regards

psthanks for the camera link

[SonyVaio]

I believe the video footage shows quite clearly that the Focus just moves from the right hand lane to the left hand lane without even as much as an indicator and obviously no mirrors.

Volvorocks: If there was a car in front of the Focus in the Focus's lane that was going really slow would you then expect the people in the left hand lane to have to STOP so that they do not undertake?? There is two seperate lanes there quite simply and clearly, the Focus moved from one to the other without consideration (mirror signal manoever?) otherwise he would have got to the end of the lane where it is then the job of the right hand lane to merge with the left.

Although damage is minimal I think OP should have it seen to properly and costs recovered by from the 3rd partys insurance.

:star-wars-smiley-01

[Palmer]

I think that could polish out. If not reduce the sight off it dramatically.

By the point of principle i still would report him. I hate arseholes like that! Im seriousely considering having something like that in my next car, the amount of arseholes on the road is unreal. It shows just how people act when they think they arent being watched.

Cheers

Chris.

[volvorocks]

I believe the video footage shows quite clearly that the Focus just moves from the right hand lane to the left hand lane without even as much as an indicator and obviously no mirrors.

Volvorocks: If there was a car in front of the Focus in the Focus's lane that was going really slow would you then expect the people in the left hand lane to have to STOP so that they do not undertake?? There is two seperate lanes there quite simply and clearly, the Focus moved from one to the other without consideration (mirror signal manoever?) otherwise he would have got to the end of the lane where it is then the job of the right hand lane to merge with the left.

Although damage is minimal I think OP should have it seen to properly and costs recovered by from the 3rd partys insurance.

:star-wars-smiley-01

Hi SonyVaio

I see what you say and to some extent do agree - hence the percentage blame scenario and possible knock for knock.

Yes indeed both lanes are for turning right.

Yes indeed the Focus driver should have used their mirrors and yes indicators should have been used.However this does not relinquish another driver from their responsibility and their application of care in forseeing what could be deemed an avoidable situation in what could be classed as an undertaking manoeuvre

Regards "if there was another vehicle in front of the Focus" -

In this case there wasnt - so whilst I appreciate and understand the basis of your suggestion (and do in part agree with you) I will not digress as this has no bearing on proportioning blame in this case due to it being hypothetical.

I am still of the opinion that this case would be settled on a percentage blame basis with each party accepting their part and "paying proportionately"

Seperately I fully understand and in part agree with your suggestion if there was another vehicle in front of the Focus - would we be expected to stop if proceeding nearside?

Maybe we should...maybe we shouldnt - as we could be deemed undertaking - and yes it is very annoying when a vehicle in the outside lane comes up behind a vehicle turning right and believes that they have the right to blindly pull into the nearside lane without indication directly in front of another. Again the party pulling in would argue "the undertaking scenario" and the party driving nearside would argue "due care lack of indication etc"

Cases like this are always problematic and no two similar appearing cases ever have the same result

I hope this post doesnt seem like I am having a go at tt82 or your goodself SonyVaio - as i am simply trying to be unbias

Your input for discussion is appreciated

regards

[migrator]

tt82, whether or not you are going to make a claim you will need to advise the insurers about the incident. If you don't and your insurers find out about it (from the other party's insurers, perhaps) they will have all the excuse they need to cancel your policy. Declare it as an incident notification and not a claim. (I just had to do this when I was attacked by a southbound wheel while I was northbound on the A1(M) at Washington.)

[david philips]

hi, all of the replys so far give good advice,but if it where me i would consider haveing a hot cup of tea or a stronger drink and forgeting about it, unless you want to pursue the other driver to try and get him to pay up ,theres not a lot of damage and the police may say that he dit not leave the accident as he stoped and give you details even if they turned out to be unreadable,if theres no one hurt and thats the main thing,anyway keep us up to date and lets hope thet things dont happen in threes.good luck.:car:

[Bendolfc]

Doesn't look like undertaking to me, yes he is clearly passing slower traffic to his right however not in an aggressive manner or with excessive speed. There is nothing naughty about this but of course it should be done with care and you need to be alert to the fact someone might move over.

Would be interesting to hear the views of one of the traffic cops that frequent the forum.

[volvorocks]

Doesn't look like undertaking to me, yes he is clearly passing slower traffic to his right however not in an aggressive manner or with excessive speed. There is nothing naughty about this but of course it should be done with care and you need to be alert to the fact someone might move over.

Would be interesting to hear the views of one of the traffic cops that frequent the forum.

Hi Bendolfc

I do agree with you,me being an average Jack in the street, that it doesnt look like undertaking.

However a court or an insurance company or a Police Officer or the Law has a slight different view.

We may not agree but it is these people unfortunately to whom we have to succomb.

regards

[tt82]

tt82

After watching the video

I too concur with Steve940estate in so far as it appears that the Focus was at the roundabout in the offside lane and proceeded round the roundabout whilst you appear to "undertake" irrespective of who was in the correct lane whilst carrying out their manouvre. It could also be suggested that the Focus "cut you up".

I am of the opinion , and it is simply that - opinion , that this incident would be looked upon as contributory negligence and from an insurance point of view may be settled "knock for knock" or indeed on a percentage blame basis

From a Police point of view I am also of the opinion that neither driver would be taken to court although again this is merely opinion.

With respect , I myself have encountered similar situations to that which you display on your video footage,and at all times whilst driving I drive with an "expect the unexpected" sort of view.

I hope this helps and please see that my position on the matter is unbias

Hope you come to a decision and get sorted

regards

psthanks for the camera link

I thank you for your input volvorocks but if this was being dealt with by insurance, or even a court to determine fault then we have to deal with facts and not opinions.

There are three types of road in the UK - Single Carriageways, Dual Carriageways and Motorways. The road in question is a Single Carriageway. (Do not make the common mistake of thinking it is a Dual Carriageway as it has more than 1 lane. To be a Dual Carriageway it must have a central reservation. See Highway Code.)

As we have estabilshed it was a Single Carriageway, we know there is no offence as "undertaking" as if you consult your highway code, only Motorways carrys the rules about not overtaking on the left.

Overtaking
267

Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right. You should

check your mirrors
take time to judge the speeds correctly
make sure that the lane you will be joining is sufficiently clear ahead and behind
take a quick sideways glance into the blind spot area to verify the position of a vehicle that may have disappeared from your view in the mirror
remember that traffic may be coming up behind you very quickly. Check all your mirrors carefully. Look out for motorcyclists. When it is safe to do so, signal in plenty of time, then move out
ensure you do not cut in on the vehicle you have overtaken
be especially careful at night and in poor visibility when it is harder to judge speed and distance

268

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Now if we look at the rules considering Lane discipline and how to use multi lane Single Carriageways we will see that at all times my driving was in accordance with the Highway Code. The same can not be said for old codger as he clearly broke rule 133 and 134.

The Highway Code
Multi-lane carriageways (133-143)
Lane discipline
133

If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.
134

You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as directed. In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily. Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended at high speed.
Single carriageway
135

Where a single carriageway has three lanes and the road markings or signs do not give priority to traffic in either direction

use the middle lane only for overtaking or turning right. Remember, you have no more right to use the middle lane than a driver coming from the opposite direction
do not use the right-hand lane

136

Where a single carriageway has four or more lanes, use only the lanes that signs or markings indicate.
Dual carriageways

In conclusion I performed a perfectly legitimate manouvre and I had a valid right to do so. My driving was courteous to other road users and at all times I was driving in accordance with the Highway Code therefore I am not at fault.


As has been suggested it may have been wise of me to let the old codger do his manouvre first and wait patiently for him to do so, but as has been said in another thread - it is exactly people like him who do not know the rules of the road and meander all over the place as and when they see fit that cause so much of the problems we see on our roads.

It is about time these people were pulled up and taught how to drive properly.

[volvorocks]

I thank you for your input volvorocks but if this was being dealt with by insurance, or even a court to determine fault then we have to deal with facts and not opinions.

There are three types of road in the UK - Single Carriageways, Dual Carriageways and Motorways. The road in question is a Single Carriageway. (Do not make the common mistake of thinking it is a Dual Carriageway as it has more than 1 lane. To be a Dual Carriageway it must have a central reservation. See Highway Code.)

As we have estabilshed it was a Single Carriageway, we know there is no offence as "undertaking" as if you consult your highway code, only Motorways carrys the rules about not overtaking on the left.



Now if we look at the rules considering Lane discipline and how to use multi lane Single Carriageways we will see that at all times my driving was in accordance with the Highway Code. The same can not be said for old codger as he clearly broke rule 133 and 134.



In conclusion I performed a perfectly legitimate manouvre and I had a valid right to do so. My driving was courteous to other road users and at all times I was driving in accordance with the Highway Code therefore I am not at fault.


As has been suggested it may have been wise of me to let the old codger do his manouvre first and wait patiently for him to do so, but as has been said in another thread - it is exactly people like him who do not know the rules of the road and meander all over the place as and when they see fit that cause so much of the problems we see on our roads.

It is about time these people were pulled up and taught how to drive properly.

Hi tt82

Yes , dont get me wrong I do agree with you and the Focus was not the best driving!

Its just that insurance companies have a great habit of "making their own rules" sometimes in order to limit how much they pay out irrespective of blame sometimes.

Out of interest the "boss" and I had differing views in so far as she said you were 100% right!!

Interesting evening we had..:lol:

Years ago I was a passenger in a car driving the correct way down a road and came to park on the nearside. As we were parking, the vehicle in front (which was parked) suddenly reversed (no reverse light BTW)and there was a collision.We were actually stopped in the space when it hit us.It was decided it was 50/50 despite the fact that the car in front of us was "reversing the wrong way up a road" and settled by ins co knock for knock.
How anyone can consider that a car properly parked that is suddenly reversed into with no warning can be deemed at fault was beyond me.The insurance company however thought otherwise probably to save costs!

Regards

[volvorocks]

" but if this was being dealt with by insurance, or even a court to determine fault then we have to deal with facts and not opinions"

Yes indeed you are correct with your statement as above and yes the court or whatever has to look and deal with the facts , although the outcome is sometimes unexpected for plaintiff or defendant as it is the opinion of the court having due regard to the facts that determines the outcome.

thats why we often think the law is an ass!!

BTW my comments are based on the title of your post as above and I consider it not worth the hassle.

Regards

[tt82]

Hi tt82

Yes , dont get me wrong I do agree with you and the Focus was not the best driving!

Its just that insurance companies have a great habit of "making their own rules" sometimes in order to limit how much they pay out irrespective of blame sometimes.

Out of interest the "boss" and I had differing views in so far as she said you were 100% right!!

Interesting evening we had..:lol:

Always agree with SWMBO, its not worth the hassle. Sorry btw :angel_smile:

Years ago I was a passenger in a car driving the correct way down a road and came to park on the nearside. As we were parking, the vehicle in front (which was parked) suddenly reversed (no reverse light BTW)and there was a collision.We were actually stopped in the space when it hit us.It was decided it was 50/50 despite the fact that the car in front of us was "reversing the wrong way up a road" and settled by ins co knock for knock.
How anyone can consider that a car properly parked that is suddenly reversed into with no warning can be deemed at fault was beyond me.The insurance company however thought otherwise probably to save costs!

Regards

The difference here is that its 100% likely that the third party claimed you drove into the rear of him. Its a common thing at traffic lights now, a car rolling back into the car behind, accepting fault at scene but then suddenly the insurance line is you drove into them. Without any witness its your word against theirs and that will always go 50/50.

You might want to read this thread - Going to court for a RTA - what a shambles (http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showthread.php?t=117803). The incident happened on a roundabout - I just love roundabouts me :sarcastic: when the third party tried to continue driving round in the outside lane and drove into me. When I heard from the insurance that he claimed to have been taking the junction off where he had been forced after being blocked by my car, and that I drove into him I nearly laughed. As there was no witness my insurers seemed willing to settle for 50/50 but I refused point blank and took the matter to court.

My last 2 bumps have been settled in my favour and with less clear cut evidnce then what I have here. Do you really think I would get anything other than NO LIABILITY on my part with this?

" but if this was being dealt with by insurance, or even a court to determine fault then we have to deal with facts and not opinions"

Yes indeed you are correct with your statement as above and yes the court or whatever has to look and deal with the facts , although the outcome is sometimes unexpected for plaintiff or defendant as it is the opinion of the court having due regard to the facts that determines the outcome.

thats why we often think the law is an ass!!

BTW my comments are based on the title of your post as above and I consider it not worth the hassle.

Regards

Given I have not heard anything from my insurer I'm betting he hasnt said anything so I'm going to try and forget about the whole thing, at least until the next time I wash and polish my car and notice the scratch again. :angry_smile:

[volvorocks]

Hi tt82

What is SWMBO?

Regards the bump when I was a passenger we had 3 witnesses in total.
The driver, me as a passenger , and a member of the public. Other car who backed up into us was on his own with no witness!

Regards

[mikealder]

What is SWMBO?

She

Who

Must

Be

Obeyed

HTH (Hope This Helps) - Mike

[volvorocks]

Hi tt82

Had a quick read regarding your barrister shambles and yes sadly this can happen.

What tends to happen nowadays is that Barristers are seen as "the holy grail" and that everything they say is correct , when in fact it is not. Problem with Barristers is that what they suggest is purely opinion whereas a Solicitors is advice.

You can be in the bizarre position whereby a very well seasoned experienced and qualified Solicitor with great common sense and knowledge has to instruct Counsel in order to proceed further with a case despite the fact that the Barrister in question may be a "newbie" with little or no experience - a Junior that has simply completed the latter 6 months of his or her pupillage and thinks they know everything. There is no subsitute for knowledge coupled with years of experience.

Its very frustrating.

If one happens to be an experienced qualified lawyer themselves and needs to go to court it unfortunately is frowned upon by the "mighty judge" that he represents himself as judges do not like being challenged by "man in street" and may treat the lay rep in front of him with disdain simply because he may be younger and more knowledgeable or older more experienced and qualified in all things legal and thus feels threatened. So one , whilst being a lawyer "employs" the "services" of a "Barrister" who turns out to be hopeless ,messes up in court and you as a qualified lawyer can say nowt - coz youre not allowed to!!

Thats why I say that whilst the facts may be clear these judges / magistrates pass "judgement" depending on how they feel...and when I say feel I mean "which side of the bed they got out of"...lol

Have a look here (http://www.ahajokes.com/law002.html) and here (http://www.ahajokes.com/lawyer_jokes.html) and here (http://lawfirmblogging.com/2007/06/06/attorney-jokes-from-actual-trial-excerpts/)for some funny lawyer bits and bobs

All the best

[volvorocks]

She

Who

Must

Be

Obeyed

HTH (Hope This Helps) - Mike

Cheers Mike

Now I understand..lol

TYVMFLMK

(thank you very much for letting me know)

[tt82]

Hi tt82

What is SWMBO?

Regards the bump when I was a passenger we had 3 witnesses in total.
The driver, me as a passenger , and a member of the public. Other car who backed up into us was on his own with no witness!

Regards

I have always been under the impression that passengers inside the car cant act as a witness as they're biased, otherwise fault would go down to the car with the least passengers in. (I wouldn't like to try that with some of the locals round here.) You shouldn't have accepted the 50/50 and taken it to court. Insurers always like 50/50 as they only pay half the cost and get to load up both premiums the following year.

[mikealder]

My all time favourite transcript from court can be found Here (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/miles-kington/high-court-hangups-747313.html) and Here (http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Light_Side_14/The_Man_who_Stole_40_000_Coat_Hangers.shtml) which includes day 2 of the hearing, priceless.....

Mike

[volvorocks]

I have always been under the impression that passengers inside the car cant act as a witness as they're biased, otherwise fault would go down to the car with the least passengers in. (I wouldn't like to try that with some of the locals round here.) You shouldn't have accepted the 50/50 and taken it to court. Insurers always like 50/50 as they only pay half the cost and get to load up both premiums the following year.

True to an extent.

We had an independent witness that was walking along the pavement.

BTW I was the passenger not the driver!

It was sorted to satisfaction in the end.

Sometimes if a case is a grand or so it is sometimes not worth going to town on it , but just to accept it.

If it took say 100 man hours to argue a case although you could apply those 100 man hours to your employment and earn five times as much it makes it not worthwhile.Principles always do play a part though - sometimes over the financials.

regards

[volvorocks]

My all time favourite transcript from court can be found Here (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/miles-kington/high-court-hangups-747313.html) and Here (http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Light_Side_14/The_Man_who_Stole_40_000_Coat_Hangers.shtml) which includes day 2 of the hearing, priceless.....

Mike

Very very good!!