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?!

@Ginseng1 what even though cars should overtake on the left?!

The trouble is you won't find a lawyer who will fight it. It's a small claims matter and there's already an offer that probably won't be beaten on the table. It's not automatic but when a judge is faced with 2 people each saying the other moved into their lane it's more than likely going to be a 50/50.

I had your exact experience. I told the insurance company that I did not want them to settle 50/50 and that I was prepared to go to court. The other party’s insurance paid in full.

I was prepared to go to court, that I was prepared to go to court.

Just about everyone i ever spoke to said this.

The other party’s insurance paid in full.

Sometimes new evidence comes to light, sometimes you get the other persons sketch and that actually proofs your case it up. Sometimes the other insurance company takes a look at the file and realises they have no case. Sometimes just sometimes you get an independent witness who makes a difference. Sometimes from the circumstances
Of the case it looks 50/50 and you get an unexpected admission. Actually a lot of things happen in the life span of a case. I can promise you the assertion that you will go to court will make no material difference to the outcome.

You might be prepared to go to court. That doesn't mean the solicitors will be prepared to take it.

No Claims Discount is a farce.
Even with a 'protected' NCD you premiums will be higher for about 5 years after you make a claim, regardless of fault. NCD makes about 30 quid difference on a 500 pa insurance policy.
Meanwhile making a claim bumped it up by 2-300 for a few years.
I am sure there are variations, but in my experience that was the case.
Insurance companies talk up the NCD like its some big thing, get you to pay e extra to protect it etc but actually it's pretty irrelevant.

So I would say not really worth the hassle to have a big fight with insurance company to protect a NCD.
Worth a try, cos they are a lying bastard, but not too much effort.

Havent RTFT

If you are not at fault, contest it. It will go to small claims. A judge will decide, on balance, based on evidence called.

And also, you don't need lawyers for small claims court, although with your insurance, you may have legal cover.

I contested 50:50 once, woman drove out of a junction into the side of us and then said we were going too fast. But it was more clear cut, as we don’t have a car that can move sideways and throw itself into other cars at a 90 degree angle to cause a big dent in the passenger door. The damage was obviously not something we could have done when driving in a straight line.

I did once have an at fault accident where I drove into the back of someone. I think they hit the person in front of them first then I was the third car in the line. Though maybe I was the first to hit and shunted him into the first car. Will never know! No idea how that ended up as I never heard from the insurance company, asked them at renewal nearly a year later and they said “oh yeah it’s all settled nothing for you to do”. Looking back shouldn’t I have been consulted, no idea if I had any fault ascribed to me. Probably not relevant now as it’s 22 years ago!

And in law, it's not 50-50. There is contributory negligence, but if you were in your proper lane throughout, you were not negligent and did not contribute to the collision.

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

How does it work? Each person will have their version of events and in the absence of any independent witnesses, CCTV, dash cam evidence 50/50 is the only possible outcome.
It's a situation that happens all the time on roundabouts, we've had a number of near misses.

No advise OP, just sympathy. I had a claim that dragged on for almost a year because it wasn’t my fault and I wasn’t taking a 50:50 split, in the end they said it was my only option, they admitted fault at the roadside too!! Fucking assholes

OP, I hear you. Somebody pulled out onto me, her fault entirely. No other cars or witnesses and she admitted liability.

Afterwards I thought how easy it could have been for her to lie, so I brought a 2 way dash cam. I protect my NCD too.

That accident saw my insurance prices increase for 5 years - even though it wasn't my fault.

Just a thought, you mentioned 'them' upthread, so she has a witness but you don't?

Exactly the same thing happened to my husband last year on a roundabout. Insurance company initially suggested it was a 50/50 claim as other driver didn't think he had been in the wrong. Dh said no to this and emailed them a diagram of what exactly happened. Eventually it was accepted that it was the other drivers fault. Just stick to your guns and try to draw and accurate picture of what happened and where both cars were on the road.

I had similar a couple of years ago. A van driver came into my lane just after a roundabout. I called my insurance company and said he'd hit me, he did the same. Lots of paperwork and lies on his part later we went to court (so scary but my barrister and the judge were lovely). Based on the damage to cars (my right side and his front left) and out testimonies the judge ruled in my favour.

As painful as it was to have it hanging over me for 18 months I was so grateful that my insurance company refused to back down and supported going to court.

So many drivers do this @GunpowderGelatine it makes my blood boil, it's lazy and dangerous and I'm getting worked up just thinking about it reading your post has made me decide to get a dash cam (no idea why I've not considered it before). I guess if you end up having to settle 50/50 you at least take away from this a hard lesson about keeping your cam charged. Feel for you and fingers crossed they'll retreat to their cave if you continue to rightly challenge their lies!

Maybe there are CCTV cameras there somewhere

I don’t see how you can fight this op with n cctv. She can just as easily argue that you swerved into her lane and caught the back of her car with your front. She was in her lane you misjudged and didn’t take the curve of the roundabout tightly enough. Ie) you were the one who drifted lanes.

You state why would anyone do that but yet you are saying that is what she did.

I 100% believe you but unfortunately you have no proof that this is what happened and from an insurance or judges point of view, you could be lying just as easily as her. You can’t win this I’m afraid without a witness or video proof.

I see this cutting up manoeuvre all the time on roundabouts and I've even had to tell DH off for doing it, although he claims to not notice he's done it! Last time it happened to me a van took out my left front wing and just drove off. I've got a dashcam now.

Can anyone reading this who drives please buy a dash cam if you haven’t already? I’m sure you’ll find a decent one for a decent price this weekend so there’s no excuse!

No Claims Discount is a farce.
Even with a 'protected' NCD you premiums will be higher for about 5 years after you make a claim, regardless of fault.

Let’s assume your base premium was £500 and you had 5 years NCD giving you 70% off. You would have paid £150.

Post accident, your base premium rises because you’re now statistically a higher risk to your insurers. They add 50% to your base premium (£750)

In addition you lost 2 years NCD because they weren’t protected. Your discount is now 50% so you pay £375.

Had your NCD been protected your base premium would still have risen, but you’d still have your 70% discount meaning you would pay £225.

But sure. That £150 saving ain’t worth having.

Would

Would it be more accurate to say they sideswiped you and damaged front and side panels rather than just ‘the front of the car’. Changing the language used can affect how people view this.

This is a very good point and paints a much more honest picture of what actually happened.

they did admit liability at the roadside

Most insurance policies are void of you admit liability - so in some ways they have to withdraw the admission to still be insured

It’s worth fighting

Can you ask the repair garage to write a report of the damage indicating that is was hit from the side at the front as opposed to 'front'?

We were in this situation - we were stationary and a car hit us - he still won the case by saying we were moving !!!! He had hardly any damage just a little to the bumper - he claimed £6700 ?!!

• indicating, I presume, from what you say how you were hit, ie that you were hit from the side at the front as opposed to just the front which would imply you hit them from behind

sorry didn't word my post very well