insurance claim against me

[Ben-m]

Hello
First off thank you for your time!
Background:
I was involved in an accident with a taxi on 9/12/2017, the taxis insurance company have been chasing me for £10,000, as my insurance company says I was not covered at the time of the accident(separate issue)

The claimant's insurance company passed the claim to Flint Bishop to handle, and we have corresponded by email. As part of their first email to me on 10/5/2019, they requested I confirm that the address they have was correct, which wasn't correct as I had moved and I gave them my new address via email.

We had a number of email exchanges all of which they ignored the facts in the mails sent (more on this later, as it's my defense against the claim). Eventually, the mails stopped and I thought that they had looked at the evidence provided and decided not to go ahead.

I was contacted by a bailiff company in Feb 2021 and was told that a judgment was granted on 04/10/2020 by the County Court Money Claims Centre, I had explained I was not aware of the CCJ as I had moved and they recommended that I apply to have it set aside which I am in the process of doing following the guide on here.

The first question is where on the form do i make a counter claim for the cost to have the CCJ set aside ?

thank you, Ben

[Ben-m]

here is my Witness statment :-
I , Ben xxxxxx, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;
This Witness Statement is in support of the application for an order that the judgment in this case CLAIM No G99YX812 judgment granted on 04/10/2020 be set aside.
I have recently been contacted by a bailiff company for case number G99YX812 in respect to a claim for £10,084 for a judgment granted on 04/10/2020.
This judgment was granted in my absence as I did not receive the court papers as they were sent to the wrong address , as you can see in EXHIBIT B, a mail I sent to Flint Bishop on 10/5/2019
I confirmed that I was no longer at the address at the time of the accident and provide a correspondence address for future communication.

On 23/03/21 and several times after this date, I sent emails to the Claimant and their Solicitors requesting them to consent to set aside the judgment due to the reasons above.
The Claimant and their Solicitors did not respond to my request.
I therefore respectfully request that the Court sets aside the judgment in this claim and allows 14 days for me to submit my defence.
Statement of Truth
I, Ben xxxxx , the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true.

[Ben-m]

here is my draft defence:-

I have recently been contacted by a bailiff company for case number G99YX812 in respect to a claim for £10,084 for a judgment granted on 04/10/2020.
This judgment was granted in my absence as I did not receive the court papers as they were sent to the wrong address , as you can in EXHIBIT A, a mail I sent to Flint Bishop on 10/5/2019 I confirmed that I was no longer at the address at the time of the accident and provide a correspondence address for future communication.

Haven Insurance Company Limited have not provided any supporting evidence to show I was at fault for the accident
The court papers state the claim is for registration mark KX16 TXU, on checking with DVLA KX16TXU is a blue VAUXHALL MOKKA not a taxi. The engineers report is for registration mark RV51 COV, previous registrations are shown on the report as T9XXE and BF09TWV.
Previous registration mark T9XXE shows on the DVLA database that the MOT expired on 01/10/16 Registration mark RV51 COV is not on the DVLA database and shows no MOT history and therefore was not in a roadworthy condition.
The vehicle was registered to , FASTRACK CLAIMS (COV) LIMITED who filed asset of a total value of £4997 with company’s house of this plant and machinery was listed to be £1495 on 01/04/2017 rising to £2495 on the 31/03/2018 the rest being attributed to intangible assets (software). This filling is in line with the company’s act 2006 and was approved by the company director as being a true and fair view. Therefor the vehicles value absolute maximum as stated by FASTRACK CLAIMS (COV) LIMITED must be less than £1495, due to the fact that they must have computer equipment to load the software on as listed in intangible assets.

The engineers report ,EXHIBIT B, clearly states the vehicle for inspection on the first page is grey, this is also supported by DVLA records for previously MOT’s , records held by DVLA show the vehicle has always been grey from the date of manufacture , yet the vehicle inspected is black and always has been.
The engineer was unable to positively identify the vehicle as the engine was not present, so no engine number could be verified, or from the front of the vehicle which would have had the VIN plate. The only item that identifies the vehicle was the number plate, which looks in remarkable condition but is not a legally reliable means of identification as it could have been changed. The registration mark shows no DVLA history or MOT

Again, I reiterate that the engineer was not able to positively identify the vehicle and completely missed the fact that the vehicle to be inspected was grey and not black. The images presented do not match the DVLA records which show a grey vehicle, so the report was completed on the wrong vehicle.

As the assets of the company were £1495 on 01/04/2017 anything above this would be betterment in respect to the vehicle, legally I am not responsible for the betterment of the vehicle and contest the vehicle inspected was the actual vehicle even if found at fault for the accident

Haven Insurance Company must prove the matters they allege, bare allegation is in no way sufficient. Where a claimant alleges a matter, it is for the claimant to prove. So far, the evidence provided has failed to discharge the burden of proof in respect of the claims.

Flint bishop have not supplied requested supporting information although it has been requested several times

[Ben-m]

also just spotted on the particulars of claim the vehicle they claim i had the accident with is the wrong registration!

[Ben-m]

could some one comment on my draft defence please

Draft Defence



I have recently been contacted by a bailiff company for case number G99YX812 in respect to a claim for £10,084 for a judgment granted on 04/10/2020.
This judgment was granted in my absence as I did not receive the court papers as they were sent to the wrong address , as you can in EXHIBIT A, a mail I sent to Flint Bishop on 10/5/2019 I confirmed that I was no longer at the address at the time of the accident and provide a correspondence address for future communication.

Haven Insurance Company Limited have not provided any supporting evidence to show I was at fault for the accident
The court papers state the claim is for registration mark KX16 TXU, on checking with DVLA KX16TXU is a blue VAUXHALL MOKKA not a taxi. The engineers report is for registration mark RV51 COV, previous registrations are shown on the report as T9XXE and BF09TWV.
Previous registration mark T9XXE shows on the DVLA database that the MOT expired on 01/10/16 Registration mark RV51 COV is not on the DVLA database and shows no MOT history and therefore was not in a roadworthy condition.
The vehicle was registered to , FASTRACK CLAIMS (COV) LIMITED who filed asset of a total value of £4997 with company’s house of this plant and machinery was listed to be £1495 on 01/04/2017 rising to £2495 on the 31/03/2018 the rest being attributed to intangible assets (software). This filling is in line with the company’s act 2006 and was approved by the company director as being a true and fair view. Therefor the vehicles value absolute maximum as stated by FASTRACK CLAIMS (COV) LIMITED must be less than £1495, due to the fact that they must have computer equipment to load the software on as listed in intangible assets.

The engineers report ,EXHIBIT B, clearly states the vehicle for inspection on the first page is grey, this is also supported by DVLA records for previously MOT’s , records held by DVLA show the vehicle has always been grey from the date of manufacture , yet the vehicle inspected is black and always has been.
The engineer was unable to positively identify the vehicle as the engine was not present, so no engine number could be verified, or from the front of the vehicle which would have had the VIN plate. The only item that identifies the vehicle was the number plate, which looks in remarkable condition but is not a legally reliable means of identification as it could have been changed. The registration mark shows no DVLA history or MOT

Again, I reiterate that the engineer was not able to positively identify the vehicle and completely missed the fact that the vehicle to be inspected was grey and not black. The images presented do not match the DVLA records which show a grey vehicle, so the report was completed on the wrong vehicle.

As the assets of the company were £1495 on 01/04/2017 anything above this would be betterment in respect to the vehicle, legally I am not responsible for the betterment of the vehicle and contest the vehicle inspected was the actual vehicle even if found at fault for the accident

Haven Insurance Company must prove the matters they allege, bare allegation is in no way sufficient. Where a claimant alleges a matter, it is for the claimant to prove. So far, the evidence provided has failed to discharge the burden of proof in respect of the claims.

Flint bishop have not supplied requested supporting information although it has been requested several times since 23/03/2021

[EXC]

Paging des8

[des8]

Trying to understand what has happened!!!!!!!!!

What were the circumstances of the incident giving rise to the claim? (exact details please, including vehicle descriptions and registration numbers)

Why have your insurers (who?) stated you were not covered at the time of the incident?

[Ben-m]

Trying to understand what has happened!!!!!!!!!

What were the circumstances of the incident giving rise to the claim? (exact details please, including vehicle descriptions and registration numbers)

Why have your insurers (who?) stated you were not covered at the time of the incident?

I was driving a Astra,reg MT56TVM, and the claimant was a taxi, reg RV51 COV, long story short we were traveling in opposite directions and both collided as we were both driving past parked cars, so the front divers side on both vehicles impacted each other. I was knocked out and taken to the hospital by ambulance.

My insurance company have said I was not covered as I was driving for "business purposes", when in fact I was moving house with my brother and had computer equipment from his work in the car as he had larger items in the works van. I tried to claim for the computer equipment that "disappeared" when it was recovered this is what they are saying is driving for "business purposes"


The taxi (RV51 COV) was insured by Haven Insurance Company Limited who engaged with Flint Bishop to recover the cost.
The taxi (RV51 COV) registered owner and the insured party was a company called FASTRACK CLAIMS (COV) LIMITED.
The accident took place on 09/12/17

I received an e-mail on 10/5/2019 from Flint Bishop stating that Haven Insurance Company Limited would be recovering the cost of the payout for the TAXI:-

"Fundamentally, our client has made a payment of £9,529.00 (inclusive of excess and recovery charges) based on reliable, court-compliant evidence. They made this payment as a result of the accident which you are at fault for. Therefore, you are now liable to reimburse our client for this money"

They also asked if the address they had for me was correct I confirmed that I was no longer at the address at the time of the accident and provide a correspondence address for future communication via e-mail which i have copies of

I asked them to provide any evidence that showed I was at fault, the basis of the valuation of the taxi at £9,529.00, and the " court-compliant evidence" which was an engineer's inspection report with pictures.

This is where it starts to get complex!

The engineer's inspection report with pictures of the taxi (RV51 COV) makes interesting reading, first off the cover sheet states the vehicle details taken from DVLA and states the color is GREY, the pictures are of a black taxi

The report also states that the vehicle had been stripped, engine and front panels removed and states " We have concerns that the vehicle is being used for donor parts.....The storage facility employee advised us that the vehicle was partially dismantled so that they could examine the full extent of the damage,
some of the removed components were inside the vehicle however not all the removed components were present, mainly the engine unit -
see images"
So the only way to identify the vehicle was by a rear number plate, no VIN plate or engine number was present, you can also see the taxi has always been black.

The HPI section of the engineers report list previous registrations of the Taxi ( T9XXE, BF09TWV) and a Category D Insurance Loss, checking the listed registrations against the online MOTs it shows that the taxi is registered as being grey in colour as stated in the engineers report, but the pictures are of a black taxi. I also checked the RV51 COV registration and there was no record of an MOT in the last 12 months for any of the taxi registrations.

Next, i checked companies house for FASTRACK CLAIMS (COV) LIMITED, who were the insured, the owners of the taxi, and received the pay out from the insurance, filed asset of a total value of £4997 with company’s house of this plant and machinery was listed to be £1495 on 01/04/2017 rising to £2495 on the 31/03/2018 the rest being attributed to intangible assets (software). This filling is in line with the company’s act 2006 and was approved by the company director as being a true and fair view. so the taxi must not be worth more than the filling at companies house.
not sure if companies house filings are legal statements of fact?.

I had an email exchange with Flint Bishop based on the above items and eventually, they stopped responding.

In February this year, a bailiff turned up and told me he was here to collect £10,084 for a judgment granted on 04/10/2020i told him i was not aware of this he gave me some details of the claim and pointed out it was sent to an old address, the one I had told Flint Bishop I had moved from nearly 2 years ago !

I have contacted the CCMC and got the particulars of claim and they have confirmed they were sent to my old address the one I had told Flint Bishop I had moved from.
On the particulars of claim the set out the details of the claimant, his insurance company, and the registration of the vehicle, BUT the registration sted in the particulars of claim is KX16 TXU(the first time this has appeared on any documents) and on checking this registration its a VAUXHALL MOKKA not a taxi.

so in short the DVLA documents and the engineers report "state the taxi was grey", the only identification on the taxi at the time of the engineer's inspection was a number plate the VIN plate and engine with engine number had been removed, the company that received the payout and were the owners of the taxi filed asset of a total value of £4997 with company’s house. Flint Bishop ignored the new address i had given them and filed The particulars of the claim with a different vehical registraion VAUXHALL MOKKA not a taxi. and had the court papers sent to a previous address.

[Manxman]

Apologies if I've missed something, but I don't understand why your insurers did not pay out the third party claim if there was a policy on your car?

Surely your insurers should have paid out the third party claim (that's the whole point of the law) and then, if your insurer was of the opinion you were not covered for the activity you were engaged in, your insurer would sue you to recover their payout to the third party.

I don't understand how come the third party insurer is suing you directly. You did pass it onto your insurer, didn't you?

I have no comment on the merits of the third party claim.

[des8]

One would have expected the OP's insurer to have been named as second defendant, if only for the claimant to be indemnified in the event of winning and the defendant being without sufficient assets to satisfy the judgment.

Now the OP has the opportunity of initiating an action against his insurer to perform the contract and pay the loss.
From the brief description it seems to me that OP was acting in a social manner helping his brother move house.
The ownership of the property doesn't matter if it is lawfully in the possession of the brother.
Still interested in the identity of the defaulting company.

When you apply for set aside, besides shewing you had no knowledge of the court case, you need to show you have a good case to argue.
And don't leave it too long before applying
Haven didn't need to show any evidence in court.
You didn't enter a defence or respond to court papers so they would have won by default.

If you win the set aside application, the original case is reset and at that point you enter your defence, followed in due course by your witness statement

[Manxman]

...
From the brief description it seems to me that OP was acting in a social manner helping his brother move house.
The ownership of the property doesn't matter if it is lawfully in the possession of the brother.
Still interested in the identity of the defaulting company.

...

Not necessarily arguing with you, but I think the OP may have made a bit of a mistake trying to claim for his brother's computer from his own insurer. (The OP surely has no insurable interest in his brother's employer's work equipment, and therefore has no claim against his insurer? (It's led to difficult questions being asked which it seems the OP has not answered to his insurer's satisfaction)

I think his brother should have claimed for the computer on his own insurance or the brother's employer should have claimed on theirs -presumably the employer's insurance should be covering this sort of scenario with so many people currently working from home?

Regardless of that, I still don't understand why the OP's insurer is not dealing with the third party claim. I may be mistaken but I thought the whole legal point of compulsory third party insurance was that the OP's insurer would pay out any third party claim. That is what the insurance is there for, and I thought that was the legal responsibility of the OP's insurer.

If the OP's insurer considers that the policy was invalid for the purpose the OP was using the car, then their correct course of action is to sue their client, the OP, to recover their payout, and not to refuse to pay a third party claim at all.

I'll ask the OP again - has he passed this court claim onto his insurer? (Like Des8 I'd also like to know who they are as I think they are acting wrongly if what the OP tells us is accurate).

I tend to agree with des8 that what the OP appears to be doing should not necessarily invalidate their insurance. I'd like to see how the insurance company's rejection is worded and what their reasoning is. (I'm concerned the OP tried to claim for their brother's computer and I wonder if they have given their insurer the impression they were doing something else?)

[des8]

Manxman I think we sing from the same hymn sheet.

Regarding insurable interest on the computer equipment, the only way that could be argued is that OP was the bailii and the equipment was in his care. If he had been negligent there could have been a claim against him.
Comprehensive car insurance however generally only covers personal possessions, so would not be applicable in this case, and in any event no evidence of negligence.

[Ben-m]

I have started following this up with support from a solicitor against my insurance company, as far as i am aware she has written to them and is awaiting a response and documents from them.

The urgent issue is that i have bailiffs who want to collect on the court order so I need to get that set aside. Do I send my full defence as above?
Also, as the original judgment was given based on the particulars of claim that was submitted which had the wrong vehicle listed can they go back to court with the correct vehicle?

[des8]

You don't give a full defence now.
I would just keep it simple and state that you were never in collision with vehicle KX16 TXU as stated in the particulars of claim (as borne out by the police report..?) and so dispute the whole of their claim.

[Ben-m]

thank you all , i will let you know how i get on