[Aghast13]

Anybody have any dealings with Haven Insurance?
We were rear-ended on the M1 in April 2024. LV is our insurer and is having no joy in getting any response from Haven, who is the insurance firm for the other driver. Really frustrating state of affairs. The other driver is claiming that I changed lanes and he was left with no option but to hit us! Sadly no camera footage on that particular stretch of road. Cannot understand that Haven are allowed to operate in this fashion. What to do?

[olduser]

You could try the the Financial Ombudsman below;

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org....help/insurance

In the case of a rear end shunt, it is up to the following vehicle to prove it was not their fault, the victim doe's not have to prove anything.

Good Luck

[Beelzebub]

AFAIK the Ombudsman would only deal with a complaint against the OP's own insurer, not a TP insurer.

If the OP can get LV to start court action against the other driver, that should bring Haven to the table.

[Rolebama]

I have been hit five times by other cars. On each occasion, I have given the other driver copies of estimates, and a letter giving them 14 days to make good or face legal consequences. Works for me. After all, they were driving, not their insurer.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

You could try the the Financial Ombudsman below;

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org....help/insurance

In the case of a rear end shunt, it is up to the following vehicle to prove it was not their fault, the victim doe's not have to prove anything.

Good Luck

It is called strict liability, and the following driver is held liable unless there is evidence to support something untoward was carried out by the driver that was hit.
@Beelzebub, the Ombudsman deals with all complaints against all insurers not just the OP's

[olduser]

Not that it makes any difference but I would guess that the two insurers are hinting to each other they are prepared to go to court but in fact not wanting to because of costs.
This dance can go on for quite a while, the TP insurer is in no rush as each days delay is another days interest on the pay out saved.

The ombudsman will/can stop it but that will be after they have reviewed the case.

Perhaps, things may be speeded up by the op contact his insurers to let them know he is going to contact the ombudsman.

TC1474
As I understand it with strict liability the injured party doe's not need to prove anything, the onus is on the other party to prove they are not liable or mitigating circumstances. (it was not me or it happened because).
The op had expressed concern that the other party was saying the op had changed lanes, and the op could not find any evidence to counter that claim.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

.

TC1474
As I understand it with strict liability the injured party doe's not need to prove anything, the onus is on the other party to prove they are not liable or mitigating circumstances. (it was not me or it happened because).
The op had expressed concern that the other party was saying the op had changed lanes, and the op could not find any evidence to counter that claim.

You are exactly right regarding strict liability. It is down to the other side to prove that they were not 100% liable not for the claimant to prove they were innocent.

However.....

Delaying tactics are not uncommon from third party insurers for a number of reasons

Firstly, when a crash is reported (injury or damage only) the third party will determine what the value of that case might be bases on whether (in injury cases) it is minor, moderate, severe or catastrophic.

Each injury has an upper and lower value within that category, so the third party will take this into account and taking into account legal costs, compensation values for both general as well as special damages, they will come up with a cost.

Lets say that value is (for example) £20,000. It is not unusual for the third party to make a settlement offer of lets say £10K on the grounds that if the offer is accepted, the third party insurers have made a substantial saving of £10K and the claims handlers are on for a bonus.

Conversely, if the value of the claim substantially exceeds the values they have set aside, then they have to start explaining why it has cost more than was budgeted for.

So following on from this, when an allegation is made, insurers will then explore the possibility of there being some contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.

This is a legitimate way of reducing the costs, so for example someone is involved in a crash and it was not their fault. Liability is admitted by the third party and it transpires that the claimant was not wearing their seat belt, and so it is deemed that the non wearing of the belt contributed to more severe injuries being sustained than they would have otherwise sustained had they been wearing their seatbelt.

Contributory negligence can range from 0% to 100% so anything that can reduce payments by the third party will be grabbed with both hands.

So in the case of the OP, the allegation has been made that the OP changed lanes, that will be looked at by the third party insurers which may involve getting an independent expert like me involved (which is not cheap) to see if they can reduce these costs.

This all takes time