A driver who smashed into me has lied to insurance and said I caused the accident. What now?

[GunpowderGelatine]

A few months ago on the roundabout near my house, a car went into the side of my car. I was in the right lane going right on the roundabout (exiting at 3 o'clock point) and they were going to the 1st exit (11 o clock point). They did what LOADS of drivers on that same roundabout do - rather than sticking to the lanes they travel to the exit in a straight line, which means they end up in the right lane for a few seconds. This happens about 3 times a week to me on the roundabout, they aren't looking to see if someone is slightly behind them in the right lane so cut across. Because turning the steering wheel for 2 seconds is clearly too much like hard work. Anyway, I have near misses all the time, and this time the back right side of their car crashed into the front left side of mine.

I got their insurance details (though they were cagey about giving a name and we're very indignant about the whole thing) and I put in a claim which has rattled on a bit, paid £150 excess for car repair.

Anyway my insurance have come back and said that I was the one who swerved into their lane and crashed into them!!! fucking lying bastards. I'm furious. Insurance want me to claim 50/50 liability. Which means I only get 50% excess back and my no claims is reduced by 3 years!! I have said no way, it wasn't my fault and they are committing insurance fraud by lying.

I explained that the damage to the areas of the car show they obviously didn't see me (because they weren't looking when they served into my lane) and their back crashed into my front. If it had been me going into them then surely I'd have crashed on purpose as I'd have seen them clear as day?! Also why would I be travelling home in the correct lane and randomly swerve into the wrong lane?!

Anyway insurance have said because there's no CCTV, witnesses or dashcam footage (I have one but my charge point was broken 😫) it's my word against there's and an independent judge would automatically rule 50/50 liability

I'm raging. I also think that's bullshit about the judge. Surely every case without CCTV before dash cams wasn't settled 50/50?!

Any advice on what I can do now? Insurance pressuring me to settle 50/50 but honestly I think they're trying to avoid work for themselves. I refuse to admit it was half my fault and can live without the excess for now. I have heir number and feel like calling them to ask why they're lying bastards (I won't). Why would someone not just do the right thing?!

[Passthecherrycoke]

I don’t understand what you’ll end up paying more of? You don’t usually pay the excess when it’s not your fault, why did you have to pay initially?

Also, don’t know why people are always asking if you have legal cover on your insurance this is an issue with the car insurance, why would they provide a lawyer to tell you any different?

remember Op. it’s the insurance company paying out. They’re the ones who can’t be bothered to pursue the other insurance company because it’s not worth their time. They’ve already paid our for your repairs and are just trying to recover their money at this point, I take it?


I strongly suspect you’re going to have to end up with 50:50. You can insist on taking it further but I imagine they’re right about the judge finding the same. No one is going to put much effort into a low value car accident, the likes of which happen every day in huge numbers

[GunpowderGelatine]

To clarify - I did not go into the back of their car. Because they were slightly ahead and served into my lane, the back of their car hit the front of mine

[Hingeandbracket]

Truffle, I must be really thick then because I’ve read that three times and I can’t make head nor tale[sic] of it
Nor me - but sadly for OP it won't matter - the case law will prevail.

[Tunnocks34]

From experience there’s nothing you can do.

Same thing happened to me, driver pulled into my lane, crashed into my car and then said I had done it! Car insurance company did allow me not to accept join liability but the ultimately, an impartial judge or whatever ruled it 50/50

[Hingeandbracket]

Great diagram OP - I especially like the key

[GunpowderGelatine]

You didn’t happen to take any pictures of the accident that could show you in the correct lane so it’s obvious he swerved into you?

Nope, they drove off immediately (to find a space to park). I was a bit flustered after it all so didn't think to get out and take pictures, it's a big roundabout and would ah e been dangerous to get out the car anyway

[TruffleShuffles]

This is probably the worst diagram ever to grace mumsnet and the lanes don’t exactly fitfor the OPs island but this I’m presuming is what she means. The person in the left hand lane has just cut across the lanes to take the shortest route across the roundabout instead of sticking in their lane and going around it. As the OP pulled out at the same time and was in the inner lane of the roundabout the other driver had swiped the front of her car with the back end of theirs.

That right OP?

[GunpowderGelatine]

@Hingeandbracket I mean the bullshit about it being automatic 50/50. It's not how the law works

[Bluebell878275]

I totally get what happened. That wasn't your fault, however, I think legally the person who went into the back of another car is automatically at fault. I know in this instance they swerved into you, but the damage to the car will indicate you went into their back. I think it would then be up to you to prove otherwise. That's how I think they are viewing it..sorry OP. It's a bugger about your dashcam.

[TruffleShuffles]

Crosspost with OP

[Hingeandbracket]

I mean the bullshit about it being automatic 50/50. It's not how the law works
It is at roundabouts - go and ask a lawyer.

[Walkingdeadfangirl]

Actually a very good diagram op. Unfortunately it looks like you weren't paying attention and have driven into the back of him.

Do the road signs specifically show what lane everyone is supposed to be in? because it looks like you have assumed which one you think he should be in.

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

I don’t think that is what @GunpowderGelatine is saying, @Walkingdeadfangirl.

The other car was in the lane to the left of the OP, slightly ahead, going round the roundabout. Instead of going round the roundabout in their own lane, the other driver basically went straight, cutting across the OP’s lane and crashing into the front of her car.

I have done my first MN diagram to illustrate what I think she is saying.

The black car is the OP, the white one is the other driver. In the top diagram, which is what should have happened, both cars stay in the correct lanes going round the roundabout. In the second one, what actually happened, the white car has taken a short cut, going straight across, cutting into the OP’s lane, and causing the accident.

[GunpowderGelatine]

@Passthecherrycoke they hadn't yet decided that I wasn't liable so I paid it in the understanding I'd get it back! I think this is pretty standard

@TruffleShuffles you are an ANGEL - that's exactly it. My diagram is suitably embarrassed about its inferiority

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

Bum - the OP beat me to it. And it is a better diagram.

[pumpkintree]

I was involved in an acident that was not my fault they lied and said it was. I was offered 50/50 . I instructed them to take it to court as i knew i was correct. I won . It took 3 years to get it to court.

[slipperywhensparticus]

So were you still on the island or trying to exit

[GunpowderGelatine]

Do the road signs specifically show what lane everyone is supposed to be in? because it looks like you have assumed which one you think he should be in

It's a roundabout, it doesn't need road signs to show you what lane you're supposed to be in.

Also how can it be the person behinds fault if they're cut off?!

[Passthecherrycoke]

Oh I’m sorry I thought you meant he admitted liability then withdrew it later

[messolini9]

Also they admitted liability and then changed their minds apparently! It's all on my claim.

This is probably the strongest point in your favour.
Ring your insurance company again & point out that anyone changing their story after submitting a claim is deeply suspect, & either lied on the claim, or has lied afterwards.

The other driver can't have it both ways.
He was liable, & must now admit it or be done for fraud.
Or he was NOT liable, but inexplicably lied that he was, on his claim - & can get done for fraud.

[Inforthelonghaul]

Is the damage to the cars actually on the front and rear or to the side? Surely if the damage is the rear of their car and the side of the front of yours that proves your side.

[Hingeandbracket]

I was involved in an acident that was not my fault they lied and said it was. I was offered 50/50 . I instructed them to take it to court as i knew i was correct. I won . It took 3 years to get it to court.
Was it on a roundabout? Because only that would make it comparable to the OP's.

[Passthecherrycoke]

Messolini ive cross posted with you- I thought the same but OP has said he didn’t admit liability to his insurance company

[GunpowderGelatine]

So were you still on the island or trying to exit

We'd just exited, got about 10-15 feet and bam, they went into me. Thankfully I was going slow

[LakieLady]

I wonder if it is because the damage is to the back of his car but the side/front of yours?

Exactly. The general presumption is that you can't crash into a car that is behind you (unless you're reversing) so without dashcam footage, 50/50 is the best you can really hope for in these circumstances.