Hit and Run - insurance claim possible?

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

Get yourself to a GP ASAP and get that damaged neck, bruised ribs, tendon/ligament and muscle damage in your limbs looked at. It could well prevent you from working and cause you pain for months.

Furthermore, there can only be so many farmers driving that exact car... keep your eyes peeled.

My thoughts exactly - there are only a few roads out that way and I feel sure I will see him again. Must resist urge to challenge him though - he clearly lacks consequential thought.

The bike's been crashed before - not so worried about it, given that a new one is being delivered today anyway and all the expensive parts (the lights and the wheels, basically) seem to be okay. The proposed ss project is a gonner though, unless I fork out on new forks.

I've booked a GP's appointment, or tried anyway - I thought the GP booking practice of holding open appointements for the same day in order to meet targets had been widely discredited? Mine still does this. Grr.

Mr_Cellophane

My experience comes from being rear-ended while driving by an unaccompanied learner with no L Plates. Hence his insurance was invalidated. I could get nothing from his insurance and whiplash isn't a compensatory injury (if you see what I mean).
Get to the Dr with the injuries, I had some tablets and the instruction not to drive while I was taking them. That was good advice as I fell asleep at my desk every afternoon while I was. Good job my employer was understanding.

Do you know if you scratched the other car, probably not something you thought about while you were flying through the air.

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

Erm have I posted anything offensive?

Shall we have a poll? Look, I'm not going to debate this with you today, but my post was sincere on this occasion and I would respectfully suggest that you take a few moments of quiet reflection on the matter. Send me a PM if you want to argue the toss, report me to the mods if you think you have been wronged. Please don't post unless you have anything constructive to say.

cjcp

:shock: is it safe to come out?

Anyway, can't offer any advice re the MIB etc, but glad to read you're in one piece.

lost_in_thought

Always Tyred wrote:

My thoughts exactly - there are only a few roads out that way and I feel sure I will see him again. Must resist urge to challenge him though - he clearly lacks consequential thought.

The bike's been crashed before - not so worried about it, given that a new one is being delivered today anyway and all the expensive parts (the lights and the wheels, basically) seem to be okay. The proposed ss project is a gonner though, unless I fork out on new forks.

I've booked a GP's appointment, or tried anyway - I thought the GP booking practice of holding open appointements for the same day in order to meet targets had been widely discredited? Mine still does this. Grr.

I wouldn't challenge him, he might try and kill you again! :shock:

I more meant that you could call the polizei back and inform them that you have seen the driver you reported and these are his plates. Might not work, you can but try.

If you're saying what I think you are about the GPs, mine still does that, I find it quite handy as I can get appointments the day I call as long as I call before 10. If that's not what you mean, please feel free to ignore me! Make sure you emphasize the impact these injuries will have on your work/life.

As far as the bike claim goes, the legal eagles are probably right, but you've nothing to lose by trying!

always_tyred

cjcp wrote:

:shock: is it safe to come out?

Anyway, can't offer any advice re the MIB etc, but glad to read you're in one piece.

Um, sorry. Yup, I was pretty angry there. Not in the mood for someone to be a smart alec.

biondino

AT your avatar is freaking me out.

cee

spen666 wrote:

Cee is wrong in this case as he is quoting from the UNINSURED DRIVERS scheme- in your case it is not relevant as you cannot show the driver was uninsured. You are subject therefore to the UNTRACED DRIVERS scheme. You cannot identify the vehicle and therefore under the terms of the untraced drivers scheme you cannot claim for property damage.

spen....i quote from experience. I could not trace the driver or vehicle...he drove away leaving me lying on the road, therefor made a claim against the UNTRACED drivers scheme (the application form is the same for both anyway.)

I filled out the form from the MIB website and got a phone call from the MIB themselves, who went through my claim. My property damage was about £350. They said that I could claim for the property as long as I could take my stuff to a shop, get the damage assessed and get a quote for repair, but the excess would be £300, so I would only be sent a cheque for the rest.

My time is worth more than that (IT Contractor), so i decided to just ignore the damage and accept the (2nd offer) they made for the injury.

I do not know what your experience of the MIB schemes are, and assume that you have no real world experience, but have read the MIB information correctly, so will not argue the case. It must be the case then that the MIB representative whom I spoke to was mistaken.

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Erm have I posted anything offensive?

Shall we have a poll? Look, I'm not going to debate this with you today, but my post was sincere on this occasion and I would respectfully suggest that you take a few moments of quiet reflection on the matter. Send me a PM if you want to argue the toss, report me to the mods if you think you have been wronged. Please don't post unless you have anything constructive to say.

Erm

I thought it was you who is complaining about me posting in "your" thread, and not me complaining about you

I've not complained about what you have posted. Why should I report you to a moderator.

I believe in free speech. I may disagree with what you ( or others) post on many things, but I would defend your right to post such remarks and comments.

I am also happy to say what I have got to say in public

spen666

cee wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Cee is wrong in this case as he is quoting from the UNINSURED DRIVERS scheme- in your case it is not relevant as you cannot show the driver was uninsured. You are subject therefore to the UNTRACED DRIVERS scheme. You cannot identify the vehicle and therefore under the terms of the untraced drivers scheme you cannot claim for property damage.

spen....i quote from experience. I could not trace the driver or vehicle...he drove away leaving me lying on the road, therefor made a claim against the UNTRACED drivers scheme (the application form is the same for both anyway.)

I filled out the form from the MIB website and got a phone call from the MIB themselves, who went through my claim. My property damage was about £350. They said that I could claim for the property as long as I could take my stuff to a shop, get the damage assessed and get a quote for repair, but the excess would be £300, so I would only be sent a cheque for the rest.

My time is worth more than that (IT Contractor), so i decided to just ignore the damage and accept the (2nd offer) they made for the injury.

I do not know what your experience of the MIB schemes are, and assume that you have no real world experience, but have read the MIB information correctly, so will not argue the case. It must be the case then that the MIB representative whom I spoke to was mistaken.

You assume wrongly mate- I have represented numerous clients in MIB claims over several decades now and can quote you the regulations in my sleep.
I KNOW I am right on the differences between the schemes.

The fact the form is the same doesn't mean the regulations etc are the same. At the time of submitting the claim, the same basic information is needed.

Littigator

HURRAH! For a worrying while I thought Spen was starting to sound reasonable. But in true to form style it didn't take long for his true colours to show through.

Spen, we alll KNOW you're a lawyer...and we all know you love to be right about anything regarding the law...but honestly, sometimes your approach is bullish to say the least and your veneer of trying to help doesn't hide your true intent of just wanting to be right.

You are also to quick to judge people's situations in a too black and white manner when not possessing all the facts, this can lead to advice that risks being incorrect.


ducks and runs for cover

spen666

Littigator wrote:

HURRAH! For a worrying while I thought Spen was starting to sound reasonable. But in true to form style it didn't take long for his true colours to show through.

Spen, we alll KNOW you're a lawyer...and we all know you love to be right about anything regarding the law...but honestly, sometimes your approach is bullish to say the least and your veneer of trying to help doesn't hide your true intent of just wanting to be right.

You are also to quick to judge people's situations in a too black and white manner when not possessing all the facts, this can lead to advice that risks being incorrect.


ducks and runs for cover

Erm I think you will find there is no advice I ghave given on here that is incorrect

Are you suggesting you can claim for personal property in an untraced claim where the car is not identified?

Are you suggesting that it is not rare for a CICA claim to be successful in a motor related claim?

So what advice have I given that is wrong? I have merely given factual advice on the eligibility of OP to make claims under the MIB schemes

cee

spen....

I did not ever say that the regulations must be the same because the form is the same.

I only stated what my experience is. from that experience, i assumed that you did not have any. it was not a slight on your character, or experience.

In fact i went on to say that I also assumed that you had in fact read the regulations fully and correctly, and would not argue the point about what scheme does what as i can't be bothered to read all of the regulations again.

The fact remains that I was offered a property claim (on a call which I was recording with the permission of the MIB rep) on the UNTRACED drivers scheme, but decided that my time was worth more than the £50.

I have now listened to the call again and was without a shadow of a doubt told that the excess was £300 and that if I wanted to continue my property claim, I should get the damage assessed by a bike shop and send the relevant information to the MIB.

So....as I already said, either you are wrong, or the MIB rep I spoke to was wrong.

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

AT your avatar is freaking me out.

I never said anything about your appearance.

Oh, wait, there was that one time...

Littigator

spen666 wrote:

Littigator wrote:

HURRAH! For a worrying while I thought Spen was starting to sound reasonable. But in true to form style it didn't take long for his true colours to show through.

Spen, we alll KNOW you're a lawyer...and we all know you love to be right about anything regarding the law...but honestly, sometimes your approach is bullish to say the least and your veneer of trying to help doesn't hide your true intent of just wanting to be right.

You are also to quick to judge people's situations in a too black and white manner when not possessing all the facts, this can lead to advice that risks being incorrect.


ducks and runs for cover

Erm I think you will find there is no advice I ghave given on here that is incorrect

Are you suggesting you can claim for personal property in an untraced claim where the car is not identified?

Are you suggesting that it is not rare for a CICA claim to be successful in a motor related claim?

So what advice have I given that is wrong? I have merely given factual advice on the eligibility of OP to make claims under the MIB schemes

Spen, my point was that in your responses in the past I have detected an eagerness to expound your knowledge over and above your consideration for giving the best advice possible. This can lead to a risk of giving inaccurate or misleading advice.

Perhaps the advice you have given in this thread is correct, after all you are the one who can quote MIB regs etc in your sleep (oh what a claim to fame), but in general I think my point is valid. You are too quick to start laying down Spen's law without being in possession of all of the facts in each particular instance.

FWIW, when you have previously told me that you were a criminal lawyer, who then became an accountant, who then moved to HMCPSI....what on Earth are doing having spent 'decades' pursuing MIB claims and on whose behalf do you pursue them?

spen666

I have not laid dowen "Spen's law" I have simply repeated what the regulations are.

If you don't like the fact that these are the regulations, then its not my fault. I don't make them, I only impart what the law is.

My job isnot to make the law, but to advise on it and work with the law.

don't shoot the messenger

cee

cjcp

Littigator

cee wrote:

Cee, were you spying on me last night?

cee

yes....i mean no...erm. all your internet are belong to us.

hartleymarvin

It’s really bad on his part. I suggest you to visit an experienced solicitor along with the list of events. You can use the witness of the cops visited that place after the incident occurred.