LV Motorhome Insurance claim. Big problem

[jerryz]

When my MH was hit by a Renault van on M27 a few weeks ago all seemed clear

The driver of Renault admitted to me and Police that he caused the incident when he drifted into my lane and his wing mirror and then bumper made my van unstable and then go into his lane . This is in Police report ,

However a third party dash cam only shows the last part of the incident and not his intial drift into my lane or impact so his insurers are now claiming against me and LV have caved in?????

The police also saw the dash cam evidence from 3rd party and they say it does not show the start of the incident but that the Renault driver clearly admitted to drifting into my lane and causing the whole accident..

LV are obviously being lazy and say they will dump the whole thing on me and my unblemished 33 years NCD record when I am the abused party ,,m I need to fight this and will need advice on what to do now , I am very upset as it is after the accident and now to be blamed for it as well when I was not at fault is aweful.

I am now serously thinking about giving up on MH as I have not had any problems in 30 years with cars or motorcycles

How can I get LV to put this right?????

 

[jdk62]

In my opinion all motor vehicle insurers are a shower of a s***.

Some years ago my premiums on my car went up significantly as a result of my car being hit in France and the other driver (a local), supported by dashcam, accepted they were at fault. The insurers argument for the premium hike was that whilst they accept I was blameless, their costs for recovering their losses was significant..... Hmmmm

Last year we got hit from behind whilst towing our Toad with the Moho. The driver of the vehicle that hit us accepted she was at fault, but we had no dashcam footage ( ours is in the front of the moho), and hers was "broken". She declared she was an off duty police officer, I at least thought things should be simple.... how wrong was I! Our Toad was insured with a different insurer from our motor home, but in my mind I assumed that the Toad insurers would be the main point to of contact... they inspected our damaged car and damaged A frame assembly.... said it was uneconomic to repair the car because of costs (rear bumper damage only to car, but crushed A frame). I pointed out that the cost of the replacement A Frame should not be part of the market valuation of the car and should be considered an uninsured loss.. they refused to accept this and offered me a cash settlement for the car but it would be considered a Category N write off .. I rejected this and then sought to see if my Moho insurers would get involved... well that was a palaver.. So in the end, I got the Toad repaired and A frame replaced at my cost and am using my Moho insurers legal team to recover all my costs from the third party driver...

The third party driver has also now reported that she wasn't at fault and I pulled in front of her on the motorway....
Watch this space....

Grrr

So I sympathise with the OP having to feal with the insurance industry...

 

[gus-lopez]

All well and good , but for the OP this is very unfair,, especially as the Police have clearly stated it was not his fault and have evidence of the other party admitting liability.
Does seem like very sloppy practice from the OP's insurer, who are supposed to look after THEIR clients interests, ( or customers if you prefer).
And especially if there is evidence that their client ( or customer ) is in no way at fault.

The Op needs a method to get the police to reinterview the driver under caution.
He should be being prosecuted anyway & if not OP needs to move that forward in some way.

 

[gus-lopez]

The third party driver has also now reported that she wasn't at fault and I pulled in front of her on the motorway....
Watch this space....

You are in front.You have right of way.I would also be making a complaint to the police about her lying with a view to getting her sacked .

 

[dalspa]

Seems that the insurers prefer to have both parties “at fault “ so that they can up both their premiums, especially when they each may have more than one vehicle. A quicker way for them to get their money back. Scandalous.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[FrankNicklin]

You are in front.You have right of way.I would also be making a complaint to the police about her lying with a view to getting her sacked .

Not sure thats the case, if you are rear ended by someone because they failed to brake thats different than the driver behind being potentially/allegedly cut up and hitting you. If someone brake tested you and you hit them who is at fault.

 

[jdk62]

You are in front.You have right of way.I would also be making a complaint to the police about her lying with a view to getting her sacked .

I absolutely agree, however it is all about evidence... without demonstrable proof - "he said, she said " doesn't wash.
We were in the second lane and the nose of the Moho was already past the bonnet of the car we were overtaking when she hit us... however, trying to get hold of any cctv coverage from the highways agency is like seeking the Holy Grail.... and of course all the other cars on a motorway keep moving..would of been better getting hit in a city centre to get witnesses....

 

[TDub49]

I had an accident in 2012 where a cyclist in the dark road across me at the top of a motorway slip road. The cyclist was injured and did £1500 damage to my car. She broke her arm. The cyclist admitted to the police she was at fault and had chanced it. This was all passed to the insurance company. They even sent out an insurance assessor to view the scene and take photographs. I heard nothing until I had my renewal. Oddly my insurance had not increased significantly. I did have NCB protection. I telephoned to ask why I had not heard anything only to be informed that they had paid out around £13K to the cyclist. I was told cyclist and pedestrians accidents are never challenged as they are deemed the vulnerable party.

Doesn't help your case but I think highlights how insurance companies will view certain accidents. Just to pint out this wasn't LV.

What I don't understand from your post is how the initial drift in to your lane was not captured on the dash-cam when the rest was. It could only have been a matter of a few seconds for the whole event to unfold and why aren't the police dealing with careless driving by the Renault driver on the basis of his admission.

I agree with the comment about the dash cam footage. It is as bit puzzling that the dash cam only decided to record the second part of the accident and not the first. Statements made in the immediate aftermath of an accident are shaky evidentially unless confirmed in writing in a formal interview and whatever the traffic cop says, unless he actually witnessed the whole accident from start to finish it doesn't mean a lot.

In general terms, much as I like this forum, it is not the best place to seek anything other than well meaning but often not the best informed advice and opinions (this post included) when it comes to matters legal. Seek professional help would be my advice to the OP - he may well have legal cover as part of his insurance. There is always the insurance ombudsman if the OP feels badly treated. The NCD will likely be a goner whatever happens (unless it is protected as part of the policy) - there's a claim whatever the outcome and as someone else posted, it's not a 'no blame' discount.

 

[Coastal Cruiser.]

Just don’t roll over tell them you do not accept this and you are taking it further and seeking legal advice.

Mrs CC was driving my car years ago indicated and turned right in my Mums street onto her drive, woman in her car decided to overtake on the right and drove into side of my car, insurance company said we will call it knock for knock I said no we won’t we will go to court and let them decide, insurance then found other party guilty and I had car fixed without loosing any no claims.
Insurance companies are proper scumbags and wilm do anything for an easy life

 

[Soycd]

Not sure thats the case, if you are rear ended by someone because they failed to brake thats different than the driver behind being potentially/allegedly cut up and hitting you. If someone brake tested you and you hit them who is at fault.

In Germany if a person runs into another car from behind they are always in the wrong. They assume that even if someone rams the brakes on (avoid a child, animal, pedestrian etc) you should be a suitable distance from the car in front and paying sufficient attention to be able to stop without driving into the car in front. The only exception might be if you are shunted from behind in to a car in front. Not sure about UK?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Kelvin8tor]

Insurance is no longer fit for purpose they make the rules to suit themselves
We returned from our holiday in the Motorhome to discover that my work van ( im a sole trader) had been hit by a lorry while parked outside my house the driver had left his information with a neighbour my van was quite badly damaged I contacted my insurance company to start the process of getting my van repaired. I thought it would be quite straightforward. I asked for a hire van so that I could continue to work but was told that the third-party had not accepted liability. I thought this might be a problem until my neighbour across the road informed me that he had CCTV footage of the incident I sent this footage to my insurance company to the email, I was provided with for correspondence after a couple of weeks I phoned them to see if they had seen the footage and would they please hurry up with a hire van I need to get back to work. I was informed that they had not seen the footage because they needed to supply me with a special link to send this information to, promise to send it me immediately, it never arrived
A week later I called to find out why I’ve had no link from them and was told that the lady that I spoke to did not have the authority to send it to me, but they ensure it was sent out that day which it was. I sent on the CCTV footage and then waited for another week. I called them and ask them if they had seen the footage after a good 15 minutes of silence I was told that they had reviewed it, and it was clearly not my fault still I had no hire van. I asked if I could hire one myself and claim the money back. They advised against this. My van was eventually repaired, but I was never given a hire van so was unable to work
During all this Motorhome Insurance was due it had increased considerably due to the claim on work van, not yet been recorded as a no fault incident, my work van insurance company had the cheek to send me a renewal that had increased in cost from around £400-£1400 This was eventually resolved and the cost only increased by around £100. As you can see so far. This has cost me a considerable amount of money for something that is in the way of my own doing
I contacted some solicitors for help through my legal cover believe me this legal cover is a complete and utter waste of money. They basically told me that it is written in law that because my work can be postponed and done at a later date. I am not entitled to any kind of compensation backed up by contact with other legal parties and confirmed to be the case. The problem with people saying that just suck it up, your insurance may increase slightly continue to enjoy your motorhome. The impact of the increase in insurance becomes relevant to any other vehicles. i have my car which is an extravagance. I agree will cost considerably more to insure being the type of car that is due to this. The motorhome insurance has already gone up. The van insurance has gone up and as a name driver on my wife’s car, her insurance has gone up.
Like I said at the start we pay for insurance and expect to be covered and compensated. Think again. Insurance is no longer fit for purpose.
I’m firmly of the opinion that if your vehicle is damaged and it is less than £2500 to get it fixed it’s not worth claiming and it’s beginning to seem like even claiming for your windscreen will be recorded as a claim and affect your cost, but apparently not your no claims bonus

 

[FrankNicklin]

Deleted

 

[FrankNicklin]

Insurance is no longer fit for purpose they make the rules to suit themselves
We returned from our holiday in the Motorhome to discover that my work van ( im a sole trader) had been hit by a lorry while parked outside my house the driver had left his information with a neighbour my van was quite badly damaged I contacted my insurance company to start the process of getting my van repaired. I thought it would be quite straightforward. I asked for a hire van so that I could continue to work but was told that the third-party had not accepted liability. I thought this might be a problem until my neighbour across the road informed me that he had CCTV footage of the incident I sent this footage to my insurance company to the email, I was provided with for correspondence after a couple of weeks I phoned them to see if they had seen the footage and would they please hurry up with a hire van I need to get back to work. I was informed that they had not seen the footage because they needed to supply me with a special link to send this information to, promise to send it me immediately, it never arrived
A week later I called to find out why I’ve had no link from them and was told that the lady that I spoke to did not have the authority to send it to me, but they ensure it was sent out that day which it was. I sent on the CCTV footage and then waited for another week. I called them and ask them if they had seen the footage after a good 15 minutes of silence I was told that they had reviewed it, and it was clearly not my fault still I had no hire van. I asked if I could hire one myself and claim the money back. They advised against this. My van was eventually repaired, but I was never given a hire van so was unable to work
During all this Motorhome Insurance was due it had increased considerably due to the claim on work van, not yet been recorded as a no fault incident, my work van insurance company had the cheek to send me a renewal that had increased in cost from around £400-£1400 This was eventually resolved and the cost only increased by around £100. As you can see so far. This has cost me a considerable amount of money for something that is in the way of my own doing
I contacted some solicitors for help through my legal cover believe me this legal cover is a complete and utter waste of money. They basically told me that it is written in law that because my work can be postponed and done at a later date. I am not entitled to any kind of compensation backed up by contact with other legal parties and confirmed to be the case. The problem with people saying that just suck it up, your insurance may increase slightly continue to enjoy your motorhome. The impact of the increase in insurance becomes relevant to any other vehicles. i have my car which is an extravagance. I agree will cost considerably more to insure being the type of car that is due to this. The motorhome insurance has already gone up. The van insurance has gone up and as a name driver on my wife’s car, her insurance has gone up.
Like I said at the start we pay for insurance and expect to be covered and compensated. Think again. Insurance is no longer fit for purpose.
I’m firmly of the opinion that if your vehicle is damaged and it is less than £2500 to get it fixed it’s not worth claiming and it’s beginning to seem like even claiming for your windscreen will be recorded as a claim and affect your cost, but apparently not your no claims bonus

Written in law that you are not entitled to earn a living like to see that in a court of law.

 

[Tonks]

I agree with the comment about the dash cam footage. It is as bit puzzling that the dash cam only decided to record the second part of the accident and not the first.

Not necessarily. It's probably due to the positioning of the dash cam carrying car, or other vehicles on the road, resulting in the dash cam's view only being of part of the incident.

 

[Chris]

If the other driver admitted fault to the police, why were they gathering 3rd party dashcam footage?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[L' Hobo]

If the other driver admitted fault to the police, why were they gathering 3rd party dashcam footage?

and why did they volunteer the footage unless they were known to the third party.
In my experience, drivers of cars just drive by.

 

[RayD]

We had a claim for an accident in Spain a number of years ago. The insurers were Aviva. We had dashcam video shown to Guardia Civil who agreed we were not at fault. The 3rd party denied responsibility but Aviva also agreed - after review of dashcam - that we were not at fault! The claim went to Spanish court, but the day before hearing Avivas Spanish lawyer advised he could not win so Aviva settled on 50/50. We went to Ombudsman who reviewed dashcam and claim information agreed that the other party was to blame for accident, but Ombudsman could not force Aviva to change their position!

Beware of taking to Ombudsman!!

 

[jerryz]

Had a word with the broker AIB about my legal cover and double jeapardy if its also with LV they say that an independent company will deal with it .
Also got through to Hampshire Police , who stand by their original comments on their reports and they say they will not be taking the matter further.

LV will now release the dashcam footage to me and an independent legal assessor that will be covered under my legal insurance cover.

I am relaxing in Thailand and blasting around on my big bikes ,, but I seem to have lost my nerve a bit when it comes to driving 4 wheels here and in UK just dont feel safe in my Toyota Hilux , or my old Nissan Note in UK and everyone is noticing it .but on motorcycles im absolutely fine ???

 

[jerryz]

So is this the very same van now fully repaired and on the road being hit again. Presume OP will have lost NCB and had raised premium anyway.

Since the hit and run when parked it had not been repaired yet its got more damage in same areas as the hit and run wont be going into repair until next year as parts have to be sourced etc so all of it will be done at same time

 

[Lenny HB]

Since the hit and run when parked it had not been repaired yet its got more damage in same areas as the hit and run wont be going into repair until next year as parts have to be sourced etc so all of it will be done at same time

They will still treat it as two claims and charge you two lots of excess unless you can get the excess back from the other parties insurers.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[andysam]

Of no help to you, but LV paid out a large claim to a person who claimed I have clipped her wing mirror in my car. I didn't but there was no evidence to refute it. She had a smashed mirror glass (not housing) and my car was not damaged. They paid out something like £700 for the repair and about £1500 for a months loan car. They were going to pay out for whiplash as well until I literally said that it would be obscenely stupid to do so.

 

[Ingwe]

To the poster, let me just say that this is unfair as all the evidence supports your version of events. Having said this, “fairness” is not something that is part of the system. I remember as a very young lawyer an anecdote supposedly true:
An inexperienced lawyer arrives at Kings Cross and asks a taxi driver to “Please take me to the Royal Courts of Justice.” The taxi driver replies “Don’t know about any courts of justice, gov, but there are some courts on the Strand!”
As others have said, your insurers aren’t interested in you or in ensuring that you get fairness. They will want to meet their contractual obligations as cheaply as possible FOR THEM.
Accept that you’re unlikely to get a just result and don’t let this injustice poison your joy in motorhoming.
Just smile ironically and move on.

 

[helzie2020]

I had a similar experience in our car about 10 years ago. I pulled into the left hand land just after the car in front of me at a queue to turn left at a red traffic light. Then the car in front braked, went into reverse and hit the front of my car. She jumped out and apologised profusely. She was trying to park and had not seen me.

Several weeks later, my insurance company said the other party was saying that it was my fault — that I had driven into the back of her car and that she had whiplash as a result! Like you, I was really angry.

After quite a bit of too-ing and fro-ing, my insurance said that they had agreed to split the claim between the two insurance companies in order to get it resolved with the least cost. They actually asked me if I was okay with that. I told them that I wasn’t happy but that they could if that’s what they wanted as long as they put in the record that I disputed her version.

The anger eventually goes…

 

[Aucheorn]

My recent experience of LV is they will choose the path of least resistance in the event of a claim by a third party. They are not interested in making any efforts to protect the interests of their policyholder even when the amount claimed against them is highly inflated. In our case, the other driver had said he wasn't going to make a claim (we have his text message confirming that). We didn't claim, because there was no damage to our car, which speaks volumes. We only found out that this third party had made an inflated claim, and that claim had been paid without referring it to myself as policyholder, until several months later, at renewal time. Quite shocking poor service. They don't care.

All that will happen is your no claims record is toast, and you get hit with several years of higher premiums. Shop around? In practice, other insurers might decline to cover you when renewal time comes, which becomes a nasty catch-22. It is unfair, but there is little you can do.

Confirms my opinion that all Insurance Companies are committing legalised robbery.
Personally I don't trust a single one of them.
I had to make a claim on my house insurance. Within 5 years they got their money back in inflated prices.

 

[L' Hobo]

We had a claim for an accident in Spain a number of years ago. The insurers were Aviva. We had dashcam video shown to Guardia Civil who agreed we were not at fault. The 3rd party denied responsibility but Aviva also agreed - after review of dashcam - that we were not at fault! The claim went to Spanish court, but the day before hearing Avivas Spanish lawyer advised he could not win so Aviva settled on 50/50. We went to Ombudsman who reviewed dashcam and claim information agreed that the other party was to blame for accident, but Ombudsman could not force Aviva to change their position!

Beware of taking to Ombudsman!!

Beware of Aviva, they wanted to send an assessor to have a look at my vehicle 13MONTHS after the, supposed, accident (which I proved was a scam 6 months before) when one of their clients had reversed into me, not knowing that I had installed a steel front bumper on my VW and I had dash-cam footage.
Needless to say, their clients vehicle sustained much damage while mine needed touch-up paint.
It convinced me never to insure with them at any price!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[The POPs]

Insurers tell you never to admit fault. The car driver shouldn't have done this and I am not sure it is taken into account by the insurance companies. It's really up to the insurance companies to decide how to settle the incident.

I really don't understand your thoughts about giving up the motorhome due to this incident. You could have had a similar experience in your car or motorbike. With no proof this would just be decided as a 'knock for knock' incident by insurance companies with each company looking after its own policyholder and both losing no claims.

I understand it is annoying and upsetting and I would try and fight it is I were you but when it comes down to it, if you lose, it will just be a small claim on your record which you will need to declare for the next 5 years when you renew and you will lose some no claims entitlement but in the grand scheme of things it will just be 'undefineable' increase in your premium next year with could possibly be negated by shopping around for a new insurer next time anyway.

Personally I wouldn't let it spoil my enjoyment of my motorhome. Just put it down to one of life's annoying incidents and get on with enjoying your motorhome.

Thank VXman for helpfu reply. Useful to us all when it come insurance and No claims.

 

[Ziggy123]

A lot of these comments seem to ring true with us to, not in our Motorhome but when we were driving in our truck.

We got hit by an out of control Motorcyclist, going too fast for the bend crossing in to our lane..he hit us on drivers side, bike went under our truck (thankfully he slid down road not under truck), snapped our rear axle and we overturned. He broke a lot of bones but was ok, partly down to hubby's quick actions to avert him hitting us head on. He admitted at the scene he was driving too fast for bend (he was not local and it is a well known motorcyclist 'race' road) his friend who was riding with him on seperate Motorcycle also said the same. Both statements recorded by bodycam footage of fire and Police. Accident report clearly put him at full fault and due to reckless driving but they did not prosecute as they say they weigh up injuries versus court case potential outcome, which would only result in possibly 6 points and as he had 'learned his lesson...he was 65! They asked us if we wish to pursue but clearly felt as he had admitted everything and it was clear cut there was no reason to waste tax payers money so thought that was end. Then the motorcyclist decided that perhaps he had no recollection of the accident after all..and then he decided that actually maybe he could now remember but that it was us that was on wrong side of road and is pursuing a claim for injuries. I don't understand how it is even possible with all the evidence, but the police say it happens all the time, they try it on as Motorcyclists are classed as the more vulnerable road users and if there is any element of doubt it would go their way. He hired one of these no win no fee solicitors. Thankfully our insurance are fighting it though as the evidence is so clear, but its so slow and case workers change and evidence gets lost...all apparently another reason why the try it on as they know this happens too!

It has upset me so much, especially as I lost my own Dad in a car accident many years ago and this brought back so many painful memories, not least while we were sliding down the road on our roof upside down thinking of how my mum must have been feeling when they had their accident, so my view is he is so lucky to have survived, it could have been so different and now greed and lies is his reward, not being thankful that swift actions probably saved his life. Sorry rant over but it makes me so mad when you see stories like this time and time again. The result is our dog was petrified of being in our Motorhome when we got it, loud noises make him so nervous and whilst he has come on so far and will tolerate it for the end gain of nice new walks, he will never be completely relaxed in a moving vehicle again. 3 years on still ongoing where is the justice.

 

[FrankNicklin]

A lot of these comments seem to ring true with us to, not in our Motorhome but when we were driving in our truck.

We got hit by an out of control Motorcyclist, going too fast for the bend crossing in to our lane..he hit us on drivers side, bike went under our truck (thankfully he slid down road not under truck), snapped our rear axle and we overturned. He broke a lot of bones but was ok, partly down to hubby's quick actions to avert him hitting us head on. He admitted at the scene he was driving too fast for bend (he was not local and it is a well known motorcyclist 'race' road) his friend who was riding with him on seperate Motorcycle also said the same. Both statements recorded by bodycam footage of fire and Police. Accident report clearly put him at full fault and due to reckless driving but they did not prosecute as they say they weigh up injuries versus court case potential outcome, which would only result in possibly 6 points and as he had 'learned his lesson...he was 65! They asked us if we wish to pursue but clearly felt as he had admitted everything and it was clear cut there was no reason to waste tax payers money so thought that was end. Then the motorcyclist decided that perhaps he had no recollection of the accident after all..and then he decided that actually maybe he could now remember but that it was us that was on wrong side of road and is pursuing a claim for injuries. I don't understand how it is even possible with all the evidence, but the police say it happens all the time, they try it on as Motorcyclists are classed as the more vulnerable road users and if there is any element of doubt it would go their way. He hired one of these no win no fee solicitors. Thankfully our insurance are fighting it though as the evidence is so clear, but its so slow and case workers change and evidence gets lost...all apparently another reason why the try it on as they know this happens too!

It has upset me so much, especially as I lost my own Dad in a car accident many years ago and this brought back so many painful memories, not least while we were sliding down the road on our roof upside down thinking of how my mum must have been feeling when they had their accident, so my view is he is so lucky to have survived, it could have been so different and now greed and lies is his reward, not being thankful that swift actions probably saved his life. Sorry rant over but it makes me so mad when you see stories like this time and time again. The result is our dog was petrified of being in our Motorhome when we got it, loud noises make him so nervous and whilst he has come on so far and will tolerate it for the end gain of nice new walks, he will never be completely relaxed in a moving vehicle again. 3 years on still ongoing where is the justice.

Surely the point of impact would clearly show he was on the wrong side of the road. Surprised there wasn’t an accident investigation team involved or perhaps that is only when there is loss of life.

 

[Ray-Vic]

You can pursue this through the courts even without the consent of your insurer.

In 2010 I lived in a house in a fairly tight and windy lane, with a "Not Suitable of HGV" sign at both ends. I was driving slowly along the lane in my car, when from around a sweeping bend came a very large LHD American style motorhome with the driver clearly talking to his passenger and not looking at the road. I was going very slowly and quickly moved over, actually stopping in a privet hedge and bracing for the inevitable impact, which happened when his rear quarter heavily damaged my rear quarter.

Like the OP, the MH driver admitted liability and apologised, but my insurer at the time, Swiftcover, wrote and said it would be a 50/50 claim as the other driver denied liability. I was not accepting this but they refused to take the matter any further until I absolutely insisted that the matter be taken to court as there is sufficient evidence to prove fault.

Anyway, we ended up in Maidstone Crown Court and the case was very quickly found entirely in my favour, with the Judge noting that we should never have been in the court (she actually seemed quite annoyed that it had got to that stage) and had I been inclined to make a claim for additional costs they would have been granted, but that was not my intention, I just wasn't accepting partial liability for an accident that was in no way my fault.

If there is clear evidence of fault, then the courts can and do pass judgement on that evidence, and that evidence alone, not what it's going to cost each insurer.

My car was repaired and all legal costs recovered from the other party's insurers.

If you are absolutely certain of your innocence, and you have evidence to support this, then have a go at insisting your insurers pursue it through the courts.

Good luck and hope you get it resolved.

Ps. It's been fun tonight reading through all the claim information and my witness statement with all the pictures etc.

 

[gus-lopez]

If someone brake tested you and you hit them who is at fault.

It doesn't matter as the person doing the 'brake testing' would not be in any position to complain

(avoid a child, animal, pedestrian etc)

My brother told me that they had changed the law to remove braking to avoid an animal?

and why did they volunteer the footage unless they were known to the third party.

If I see an incident I will always volunteer to be a witness as I know what most of the scum driving are like & reading most of the above it hasn't got any better

The anger eventually goes…

No it doesn't .The woman would certainly have been suffering from injuries after i had visited her

They asked us if we wish to pursue but clearly felt

always ,always,always.& if they won't do it yourself.

maybe he could now remember but that it was us that was on wrong side of road and is pursuing a claim for injuries.

As above after I had nailed his hands & feet to a tree he might have remembered better.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[L' Hobo]

It doesn't matter as the person doing the 'brake testing' would not be in any position to complain

My brother told me that they had changed the law to remove braking to avoid an animal?

If I see an incident I will always volunteer to be a witness as I know what most of the scum driving are like & reading most of the above it hasn't got any better

No it doesn't .The woman would certainly have been suffering from injuries after i had visited her

always ,always,always.& if they won't do it yourself.

As above after I had nailed his hands & feet to a tree he might have remembered better.

I used to until, many years ago, in the end, I was fined for causing the accident and person who had walked free.
The other 2 vehicle had passenger witnesses who backed their stories, I was by myself.
Never volunteered since!