| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Riddle me this, riddle me that http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19800 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Riddle me this, riddle me that |
so the truck hit me, wouldnt admit blame, i paid my repair bill to save claiming only to find the truck claimed off me! so i counter claimed he wanted to use drivers mate as a witness, LV said no, not independent almost at the point of agreeing a 50/50 payout then LV suggested a "bare own losses" then this.... Quote: I apologise for delay in responding to you. After our last discussion I emailed the third party claims handlers to propose the ‘bare own losses’ settlement where neither party makes any claim as I had discussed with you. I received a very confusing response from them last week in that they accuse our actions of being paramount to blackmail, that we have instructed solicitors who convinced you to claim an injury and that they are instructing us to force our clients down the route of litigation to force claims costs up. I have responded to them to stress that this is not correct at all and that you have never claimed to be injured, nor have carpenters persuaded you you are injured as they’ve stated. I’ve also pointed out that we have only tried to settle the claim amicably and have proposed both a 50/50 settlement and then the bear own losses settlement in genuine attempts to settle the claim without the need for litigation. I do not understand what their cause for complaint is here and I have made this clear to them. I am still hoping that they will agree to the bear own losses settlement. They have come back to me to ask you to confirm exactly what you were pursuing through carpenters (on the basis the claim would be settled 50/50). Am I right in thinking that it was just the amount you have paid for repairs and the loss of earnings? Please could you confirm the amount that you were looking to claim for each for me. ive not made any claim for injury, my claim was a tad higher than the trucks claim against me |
|
| Author: | bloodnock [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
Makes you think "Why Bother" being insured,. |
|
| Author: | Nidge2 [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
bloodnock wrote: Makes you think "Why Bother" being insured,. I've been thinking that for the last few years. |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
I think a letter along the lines of we have made every attempt to solve this amicably BUT your insured seem determined not to and as we believe we have an excellent case to present to the court we are more than happy for the courts to determine a settlement. It sounds as if the lorry driver is convinced that it was not his fault perhaps he should learn his lesson the hard way By the way I was very disapointed when this turned out to not to be about Batman !! 
|
|
| Author: | grandad [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
wannabeeahack wrote: so the truck hit me, wouldnt admit blame, i paid my repair bill to save claiming only to find the truck claimed off me! so i counter claimed he wanted to use drivers mate as a witness, LV said no, not independent almost at the point of agreeing a 50/50 payout then LV suggested a "bare own losses" then this.... Quote: I apologise for delay in responding to you. After our last discussion I emailed the third party claims handlers to propose the ‘bare own losses’ settlement where neither party makes any claim as I had discussed with you. I received a very confusing response from them last week in that they accuse our actions of being paramount to blackmail, that we have instructed solicitors who convinced you to claim an injury and that they are instructing us to force our clients down the route of litigation to force claims costs up. I have responded to them to stress that this is not correct at all and that you have never claimed to be injured, nor have carpenters persuaded you you are injured as they’ve stated. I’ve also pointed out that we have only tried to settle the claim amicably and have proposed both a 50/50 settlement and then the bear own losses settlement in genuine attempts to settle the claim without the need for litigation. I do not understand what their cause for complaint is here and I have made this clear to them. I am still hoping that they will agree to the bear own losses settlement. They have come back to me to ask you to confirm exactly what you were pursuing through carpenters (on the basis the claim would be settled 50/50). Am I right in thinking that it was just the amount you have paid for repairs and the loss of earnings? Please could you confirm the amount that you were looking to claim for each for me. ive not made any claim for injury, my claim was a tad higher than the trucks claim against me That's what comes from being a clever dick and not doing the claim properly in the first place. You are basically f**ked when it comes to renewal because the question will be asked if you have had any accidents or claims. You will have to answer yes because you have had this accident and it will be recorded. |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
LV have already said if they dont pay anything out its a "no fault/no claim" accident and yes, its recorded, as for being a clever dicky, my excess was £500 but my cash repair was less, so whats the point? happily i have 6 months to sort a new business which isnt vehicle reliant, 10 years of carriage of goods and carriage of persons tells me anything is better |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
I just wonder how much of this bowlocks is down to the fact that all claims are now over the telephone and not in writing on a claim form. Do you know what the claim handler has typed into the computer when she / he is taking details over the phone about your version of the incident? If you send a written claim form, then at least you know what you have written and should have kept a copy. Then if you deal with all subsequent matters relating to the claim by email or letter and refuse to deal with it by phone, again you have a written record. I've never liked this claiming over the phone and these problems with claims seem to have become worse since the time the insurance companies started phone claims. |
|
| Author: | bloodnock [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
Claims companies leave a lot to be Desired...I once hit a deer that suddenly bounded out of the trees and Claimed for it, They turned it into being an "Own Fault" even though it was completely unavoidable and then they Stated on the Claim that " Driver hit Pedestrian" because they had no Category for hitting Deer...and that fechin looks bad don't it.. 
|
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
surely they must have a category for driver hit animal because depending on which animal you hit it has to be recordable because you have to notify the police if it is a dog or farmers livestock |
|
| Author: | bloodnock [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
edders23 wrote: surely they must have a category for driver hit animal because depending on which animal you hit it has to be recordable because you have to notify the police if it is a dog or farmers livestock Not so a Deer it seems.. 
|
|
| Author: | gusmac [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
I think dogs ceased to be reportable when the dog licence was abolished. (Could be wrong) Deer are wild animals, and as such are not reportable. Hit a deer myself a few years back just outside Aberdeen. The estate gamekeeper was in the back of the cab and he finished it off pdq. I asked him what would happen, he said he'd pick it up later and it would be eaten. Even offered me a bit. I didn't bother with a claim, the damage wasn't bad. Just a broken headlight. |
|
| Author: | blackpool [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
Probally comes under one of those "act of god acts" Try having a accident with a horse and getting paid ! |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
gusmac wrote: I think dogs ceased to be reportable when the dog licence was abolished. (Could be wrong) You are wrong. I also thought this until one of my drivers hit a dog and didn't report it. He nearly lost his badge over the incident. |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riddle me this, riddle me that |
Cannock chase has deer, i saw what one did to a car one day, i think the car must have been doing 70 at least |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|