Our first traffic accident, just what is the law?

[brokenbone]

6 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

He admitted in hospital he was not overtaking, that was obvious because he was too far over, he was travelling on the wrong side of the road, why who knows. He said he did not see the car so how could he have been overtaking anyway. I think he may have been looking at his phone.

lol, ok, a complete nutcase then

[Orton Rd]

Also still in hospital and likely the rest of the week for minor cuts and bruises, everyone like to cash in

[richard_smith237]

8 hours ago, brokenbone said:

yes i took over in villages for as long as it wasnt a hazard signal someone intended to turn, worked like a charm

since nobody would leave signal on out of laziness, but all would signal

in advance prior to turn, and none would cut a lane occupied.

 

you are wrong, this is just a side track,

the car should have been arsed to signal

well prior to turn, and should have looked in the mirror if someone was behind intending or already busy taking over.

the odds are very strong the bike was already in overtake lane when the car decided to cut him off.

 

there is also no difference from home or here, as you can see driving on any

road in pattaya, lets say you drive on 2nd rd,

people take over every minute in spite

of all the endless sidetracks

 

You are wrong on all counts, you are also a hazard to yourself and others. 

 

You will have an accident sooner than later if you continue riding as you say you do..i.e. 

- Under the flawed assumption that no one would leave a turn signal on out of laziness

- That looking in the mirror will see a motorcyclist (blind spot, no?)

- Or over taking near junctions with a flawed belief that its still safe

- If you consider the junction small not to be a junction but a side track 

- No difference between here or home (my home UK had 1770 deaths in 2017, Thailand is approx 25,000 - would you still want to imply no difference?)

 

 

[richard_smith237]

8 hours ago, brokenbone said:

no, the bike was taking over in the right lane in the right direction, it would have worked as the law intended if 1] the car

had either signal in advance its intention so the bike could take over on the other side

or 2] if the car had seen the lane it intended to cross was

already occupied, and simply wait for its turn

 

4 way crossings has additional rules that apply,

i.e no overtaking in vicinity

 

You are trying too hard to give the motorcyclists any form of credibility and blame the car driver.

 

You ride around in Pattaya, you must have seen the idiots taking crazy chances or riding without a care or consideration for any of the traffic around them. 

 

The Op has clearly stated - the Motorcyclists admitted to riding down the wrong side of the road.

 

It was 100% the motorcyclists fault. 

 

But, even if the motorcyclists was overtaking - still the motorcyclists fault. The LTA is clear on that. 

 

 

 

Please don't ride around assuming others will signal for you. They wont and when riding a motorcycle any assumptions you make can prove disastrous. 

 

 

 

 

[brokenbone]

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

But, even if the motorcyclists was overtaking - still the motorcyclists fault. The LTA is clear on that.

 

you have a point on the other accounts,

but side tracks does not count in the crossing regulation

[richard_smith237]

19 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

you have a point on the other accounts,

but side tracks does not count in the crossing regulation

 

Its pretty clear that the Op was turning into a paved road...  this is not a 'side track'

 

If you are referring to a side track being a dirt track, then I can see where this can potentially become a grey area. 

 

That said a 'side track' could be considered an 'area in which carefulness is required on the roadway' and is thus is considered in LTA section 47 (pasted below).

 

Section 47 itself is somewhat of a grey area as it could be argued that 'carefulness is required on the roadway' in all areas thus rendering any overtaking manouver illegal. 

 

Section 47 (400-1000B)

No driver of a vehicle shall drive his vehicle to overtake or pass another vehicle by, in doing so, going beyond the roadway's middle line that is marked or where there is a traffic sign indicating a danger area or an area in which carefulness is required on the roadway.

 

 

But again, this is all fairly moot as the motorcyclist was riding on the wrong direction on the wrong side of the road. 

 

[Orton Rd]

The cops say that the junction is not a real one as it only leads to a moobhan, certainly feels like one! They are sticking to the he was overtaking line even though he admits now he did not even see the car.

Anyone know what a fine might be, they say they are adding onto the 500 baht for careless driving depending on how injured he is. Just cuts and bruises but he's still in the Hospital of course another nice earner there.

[MeePeeMai]

It's best not to get yourself into this situation in the first place (if at all possible).  Yes there are blind spots in the mirrors, that's the reason that you should always look over your shoulder (regardless of the law and who will be "at fault").

 

Common sense says that since we all know how folks drive here in Thailand, it would be wise and prudent to always look over your shoulder to make sure it is safe to proceed whenever making a turn of any kind.

 

This way you don't have to deal with the police and the insurance company and argue over who is at fault and who is going to pay.  Accident's do happen but 90+ percent of them are avoidable.

 

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

The cops say that the junction is not a real one as it only leads to a moobhan, certainly feels like one! They are sticking to the he was overtaking line even though he admits now he did not even see the car.

Anyone know what a fine might be, they say they are adding onto the 500 baht for careless driving depending on how injured he is. Just cuts and bruises but he's still in the Hospital of course another nice earner there.

 

Then Section 47 comes into play.... 

 

The motorcyclist 'was overtaking' in an area where carefulness is required on the roadway - thus it was illegal for the motorcyclist to overtake at that location.

 

Either way you are still not in the wrong... You have the Land Traffic Act, you have a photo of the accident. Just tell them you will not accept any blame, according to the LTA and Thai law your wife did not make any mistake. 

 

Section 47 (400-1000B)

No driver of a vehicle shall drive his vehicle to overtake or pass another vehicle by, in doing so, going beyond the roadway's middle line that is marked or where there is a traffic sign indicating a danger area or an area in which carefulness is required on the roadway.

 

 

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

It's best not to get yourself into this situation in the first place (if at all possible).  Yes there are blind spots in the mirrors, that's the reason that you should always look over your shoulder (regardless of the law and who will be "at fault").

 

Common sense says that since we all know how folks drive here in Thailand, it would be wise and prudent to always look over your shoulder to make sure it is safe to proceed whenever making a turn of any kind.

 

This way you don't have to deal with the police and the insurance company and argue over who is at fault and who is going to pay.  Accident's do happen but 90+ percent of them are avoidable.

 

 

Agreed...  the shoulder check is habit for most of us... but we are not perfect all of the time and it happens all too often when a motorcyclist comes out of nowhere....  some of them are crazy. 

 

In these cases the law should be protecting us and it would if the BiB weren't so lazy and making up their own minds on the spot. 

 

The policeman who's made the decision on the spot does not have to have the final say if you don't agree. 

 

 

[MeePeeMai]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The policeman who's made the decision on the spot does not have to have the final say if you don't agree. 

 

 

I agree.  Dash cams (front and rear) are hard to argue against too.

But as always, there's the way it should be and there's the way it is. 

Sadly, things will never be the way they should be (anywhere on this planet).

[Orton Rd]

Interestingly nobody asked us for dash cam footage, we did not have any but it was never mentioned. Also the cops never interviewed the bike driver as he was whisked off to hospital by the time they showed up.

[Orton Rd]

25 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

It's best not to get yourself into this situation in the first place (if at all possible).  Yes there are blind spots in the mirrors, that's the reason that you should always look over your shoulder (regardless of the law and who will be "at fault").

 

Common sense says that since we all know how folks drive here in Thailand, it would be wise and prudent to always look over your shoulder to make sure it is safe to proceed whenever making a turn of any kind.

 

This way you don't have to deal with the police and the insurance company and argue over who is at fault and who is going to pay.  Accident's do happen but 90+ percent of them are avoidable.

 

I take your point but this is a quiet road and we have honestly never seen a bike ridding down the wrong way so it's easy to not consider it, further on definitely bikes everywhere. We will be getting a dash cam put in once the car is fixed.

[MeePeeMai]

Just now, Orton Rd said:

Interestingly nobody asked us for dash cam footage, we did not have any but it was never mentioned. Also the cops never interviewed the bike driver as he was whisked off to hospital by the time they showed up.

Some Police Officers here feel that anyone driving a much bigger and heavier car or truck has the ultimate responsibility to look out for anyone on a motorcycle (regardless of whether or not the motorcyclist is breaking the law) since the motorcyclist is usually (if not always) the one who is severely injured or killed.

 

I can see why some, if not most officers feel this way (not saying I agree with it though).  This is not the West and attitudes here vary from what some would call right or wrong. 

 

Breaking the law by riding a motorcycle on the wrong side of the road or by unlawful passing etc. is viewed as irrelevant in the eyes of the police since "you should have seen the motorcyclist" takes precedent to the fact that he was breaking the law and you crossed his path when turning thereby "causing" the accident (in their eyes).  It may seem backwards to us but not to them.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

Some Police Officers here feel that anyone driving a much bigger and heavier car or truck has the ultimate responsibility to look out for anyone on a motorcycle (regardless of whether or not the motorcyclist is breaking the law) since the motorcyclist is usually (if not always) the one who is severely injured or killed.

 

I can see why some, if not most officers feel this way (not saying I agree with it though).  This is not the West and attitudes here vary from what some would call right or wrong. 

 

Breaking the law by riding a motorcycle on the wrong side of the road or by unlawful passing etc. is viewed as irrelevant in the eyes of the police since "you should have seen the motorcyclist" takes precedent to the fact that he was breaking the law and you crossed his path when turning thereby "causing" the accident (in their eyes).  It may seem backwards to us but not to them.

 

Good points...  

 

I'd like to add that in most cases the Policemen will not know the law, they've not studied the LTA or laws or been privy to them. They have simply followed a well established path of what their peers and seniors do and teach them... 

 

But, when faced with someone who knows the law, particularly a lawyer, then generally become quite timid. As laymen, knowing the law will not concern the BiB but once they understand that we cannot be walked over, their 'path of least resistance' is no longer available to them and they then have little choice but to follow the law as its written. 

 

As you wrote earlier, MeePeeMai, "there's the way it should be and the way it is"...  With a little knowledge and a dash of confident and polite stubbornness we can influence the way it is to more closely resemble the way it should be when faced with circumstances such as this. 

 

 

 

 

[puukao]

i knew a farang that somehow caused an accident a few years ago where it could have been horrible; however, no harm and everyone and everything fine and they just left.  they were speeding and over-reacted to thinking my friend would not turn right but somehow turn left (weird explanation), but i'm sure he would have been to blame even though he was maybe 50 meters away by the time they crashed into the ditch.  I was another 50 meters ahead, but heard the car when it locked its breaks, spun around, and went into the grass ditch.  i was shocked they didn't ask for money.  maybe to wash the car (wasn't dirty) or maybe something..anything...they had kids in the back of the truck and they looked shocked.  i don't remember if i thought if he was drunk, but we knew we would pay if he called the cops.  still not sure why he didn't...

[MeePeeMai]

Just be glad nobody was killed.

 

I saw two young males (without helmets/no muffler) flying down the street on a motorcycle (easily doing or double triple the posted 30 kph speed limit) coming around a slight bend in the road broadside a Fortuner making a slow and careful U-turn in the roadway.  One kid died at the scene and another died later in the hospital. 

 

Who's fault was it ..... the kids on the bike who were speeding and not wearing helmets or the poor guy making the careful U-turn on a four lane undivided roadway?

 

The Toyota driver said he didn't see them until it was too late (probably true) and stopped immediately so that the teens could go around him.  The teens probably thought that he wouldn't stop so they could just go around him too (until the Fortuner suddenly stopped) and they just panicked, locked up the brakes and slammed into the side of the Fortuner.

 

Who's fault?  Both I'd say but I put the blame more on the teens on the bike than the Toyota driver.  All had a really bad day and you can imagine the problems it caused for the driver of the Fortuner (and the kids families).  Sad really.  Senseless daily deaths. 

[brokenbone]

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Then Section 47 comes into play.... 

 

The motorcyclist 'was overtaking' in an area where carefulness is required on the roadway - thus it was illegal for the motorcyclist to overtake at that location.

 

Either way you are still not in the wrong... You have the Land Traffic Act, you have a photo of the accident. Just tell them you will not accept any blame, according to the LTA and Thai law your wife did not make any mistake. 

 

Section 47 (400-1000B)

No driver of a vehicle shall drive his vehicle to overtake or pass another vehicle by, in doing so, going beyond the roadway's middle line that is marked or where there is a traffic sign indicating a danger area or an area in which carefulness is required on the roadway.

 

 

newsflash, there is no traffic sign and there is no uninterrupted line indicating forbidden overtaking

[NanLaew]

On 4/19/2019 at 1:10 PM, Orton Rd said:

As we admitted guilt we had to pay the full 3k, was not very impressed with the insurance man, seemed just to go along with anything the cops and the boss of the bike man said. Come to think of it same happened to sister in law who is a headmistress locally. She took it to court and actually lost, bit of a gamble as so unpredicable.

Mrs just gone to see the bugger on the bike in Hospital 'have to' apparently, not me. He'll probably be expecting wais and fruit!

Since your good wife can't 'man up' here, just let her go along with the kriengjai malarkey with fruit and chicken essence to the twunt in hospital. In my experience and from the description of the injuries, the claw back on the compulsory insurance, around 30,000 baht, may max out quickly. That's when the residual is claimed against the insurance of the one admitting to be at fault. However, your agent seems to be back-seating on this.

 

From what you say, your good wife is in thrall of the uniform which is normal but I reckon there is no way she was in the wrong. She's been ramrodded by a bent cop IMHO. The insurance agent however, is a total waste of skin. These guys typically work for a third party company that is sub-contracted by the insurance companies to handle these procedures in their best interest. This guy obviously sees that as making sure the insurer pays bugger all and you fork out for everything. If the insurance is in your good wife's name and she isn't willing to raise a complaint with the insurance company about the agent 'rolling over' either, then there's not much point in the OP trying to 'man up' here.

 

It does sound like your local police may have some hold over these agents and insist in doing it the old-fashioned way which guarantees the cops extra income and the endless 'negotiations' which is all a song and dance about how deep their 'victims' pockets are. Bad luck.

 

The claim needs to be 'closed' with the injured party and your good wife agreeing on any final payment and agreeing to no further claims. There will be much made about loss of earnings and fancifully high salaries floated about but in the end, it's a lump sum to get them to just bugger off. Same goes for claims of life-changing disabilities that may arise from this accident. They try every angle including intimidation by friends or relatives that say they know important people. It's a circus. This final lump sum needs to be agreed and signed-off and witnessed by the police. It all goes in one of them big ledgers they like to scribble in.

 

Next time: Call the insurance hotline FIRST. If neither party accepts blame then wait for the agent(s). Although the insurance company states NEVER accept responsibility, if it's a minor, no injury prang and one or both parties accept/share blame, sign off on each others 'knock-for-knock' form which is usually part of the insurance document package. If there is bodily injury or a fatality, say nothing until the agent is on site.

 

And if the agent is an oxygen waster, call head office, complain and get a different one.

[Orton Rd]

She did call the insurance agent FIRST we tried going for 50/50 but the Police said no sign or go to court, they would keep the car and if we went to court and lose there will be no insurance cover, we pay the lot. Insurance rep just stood there and said nothing. Always easy to be wise after the event, or if you were not there. I believe the boss of the rider could well have made an agreement with somebody at the scene. The rider himself was never even questioned for his version, except in Hospital when he admitted to the Mrs he never saw the car at all.

[NanLaew]

On 4/22/2019 at 1:01 AM, Orton Rd said:

He admitted in hospital he was not overtaking, that was obvious because he was too far over, he was travelling on the wrong side of the road, why who knows. He said he did not see the car so how could he have been overtaking anyway. I think he may have been looking at his phone.

No. He's simply winging it. Throwing out varying, contradictory excuses for non-liability regardless of how ridiculous they are, just to see which one sticks and just wear down the other party so they agree, pay and leave. The cops don't want the truth either, just their cut.

[NanLaew]

17 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

She did call the insurance agent FIRST we tried going for 50/50 but the Police said no sign or go to court, they would keep the car and if we went to court and lose there will be no insurance cover, we pay the lot. Insurance rep just stood there and said nothing. Always easy to be wise after the event, or if you were not there. I believe the boss of the rider could well have made an agreement with somebody at the scene. The rider himself was never even questioned for his version, except in Hospital when he admitted to the Mrs he never saw the car at all.

My comment regarding calling the agent FIRST was advisory for other members.

 

Although you did do the right thing and call the ultimately useless agent, the cops look like they're taking advantage of a female Thai driver and possibly the fact she has a farang husband riding shotgun. They told your good wife she's wrong and despite knowing that she isn't, she is accepting their decision. It's the cultural uniform/seniority thing and can't be helped. However, the police cannot seize the car. That's all intimidation. If you have Class 1 insurance, that is the FIRST path of recompense for damaged/injured parties. I had a fender bender a couple of time and both times while waiting for the agents, a nosy cop stops by. He asks if we have insurance and when both parties said yes, he buggers off. No easy money here.

 

Mrs NL had a prang with a local on a motorbike where they t-boned her at red/amber flashing 'controlled' cross-roads at night. I wasn't with her in the car at the time. The kids on the bike were wrong but the cops said otherwise and wanted to check local cctv first. The agent was wishy washy but we did take the bent car home that night despite the cops dearly wanting to keep it and squeeze. Mrs NL called the insurance company and we got a better, more proactive agent. When the cctv came up negative, that took the wind completely out of the cops sails and the 'charges' vaporized.

 

The family of the injured party mustered for each fruitless negotiation at the police station for ridiculous amounts of lost wages and all sorts of maimed and crippled for life scenarios. They also harassed my wife and I at the 'ritual' hospital visits. I was just her driver, have no time for that kriengjai rubbish and never went near the ward but they would give the stink-eye in the lobby. One time a young relative/friend sidled up to me and sternly warned me that he "knows the general". I stifled the giggles but told the wife afterwards that was the end of the hospital visits.

 

After the 3rd round of pointless negotiations and after discussion with the agent, a nominal personal compensation of 10,000 baht was offered and after much gurning, accepted. At this juncture, the size of the 'family' attending each venue shrunk rapidly. The mandatory insurance + the donation may have covered the greater part of the hospital bill. With Mrs NL being no-billed by the cops, the agent organized the final sign-off which was done with the only pleasant family member (or representative) at the police station and that was the end of it. Her NCB wasn't impacted either as she wasn't at fault.

[richard_smith237]

8 hours ago, NanLaew said:

My comment regarding calling the agent FIRST was advisory for other members.

 

Although you did do the right thing and call the ultimately useless agent, the cops look like they're taking advantage of a female Thai driver and possibly the fact she has a farang husband riding shotgun. They told your good wife she's wrong and despite knowing that she isn't, she is accepting their decision. It's the cultural uniform/seniority thing and can't be helped. However, the police cannot seize the car. That's all intimidation. If you have Class 1 insurance, that is the FIRST path of recompense for damaged/injured parties. I had a fender bender a couple of time and both times while waiting for the agents, a nosy cop stops by. He asks if we have insurance and when both parties said yes, he buggers off. No easy money here.

 

Mrs NL had a prang with a local on a motorbike where they t-boned her at red/amber flashing 'controlled' cross-roads at night. I wasn't with her in the car at the time. The kids on the bike were wrong but the cops said otherwise and wanted to check local cctv first. The agent was wishy washy but we did take the bent car home that night despite the cops dearly wanting to keep it and squeeze. Mrs NL called the insurance company and we got a better, more proactive agent. When the cctv came up negative, that took the wind completely out of the cops sails and the 'charges' vaporized.

 

The family of the injured party mustered for each fruitless negotiation at the police station for ridiculous amounts of lost wages and all sorts of maimed and crippled for life scenarios. They also harassed my wife and I at the 'ritual' hospital visits. I was just her driver, have no time for that kriengjai rubbish and never went near the ward but they would give the stink-eye in the lobby. One time a young relative/friend sidled up to me and sternly warned me that he "knows the general". I stifled the giggles but told the wife afterwards that was the end of the hospital visits.

 

After the 3rd round of pointless negotiations and after discussion with the agent, a nominal personal compensation of 10,000 baht was offered and after much gurning, accepted. At this juncture, the size of the 'family' attending each venue shrunk rapidly. The mandatory insurance + the donation may have covered the greater part of the hospital bill. With Mrs NL being no-billed by the cops, the agent organized the final sign-off which was done with the only pleasant family member (or representative) at the police station and that was the end of it. Her NCB wasn't impacted either as she wasn't at fault.

 

A good story which perfectly highlights what can and does happen as soon as others smell the possibility of money. 

 

It seems your missus wasn't at fault but it still cost you 10,000 baht which confuses me a little. 

 

I would have outright refused anything such as the hospital visits unless fault lies directly at the feet of my Wife. In this case the CCTV showed your Wife was not at fault (did she enter the cross roads with amber flashing lights first? and the motorcycle went steaming into the side of the car?)

 

That said - In 20 years of driving here I've not been involved in an accident where someone was hurt. In my first accident here (a very similar story to the Ops, I was turning right and an overtaking van hit me) - I checked if the van driver was ok, he was clearly ok, but then started feigning injury (the most awful acting !), so I slammed the door in his face, walked off and called the insurance.

 

The "I know the General" comment in your story made me chuckle, hilarious !!!... Should have asked him to Call the General and tell him you say hi !!!

 

 

 

[NanLaew]

17 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

A good story which perfectly highlights what can and does happen as soon as others smell the possibility of money. 

 

It seems your missus wasn't at fault but it still cost you 10,000 baht which confuses me a little. 

 

I would have outright refused anything such as the hospital visits unless fault lies directly at the feet of my Wife. In this case the CCTV showed your Wife was not at fault (did she enter the cross roads with amber flashing lights first? and the motorcycle went steaming into the side of the car?)

 

That said - In 20 years of driving here I've not been involved in an accident where someone was hurt. In my first accident here (a very similar story to the Ops, I was turning right and an overtaking van hit me) - I checked if the van driver was ok, he was clearly ok, but then started feigning injury (the most awful acting !), so I slammed the door in his face, walked off and called the insurance.

 

The "I know the General" comment in your story made me chuckle, hilarious !!!... Should have asked him to Call the General and tell him you say hi !!!

 

It was the wife's accident, driving her car bought with her money with insurance in her name that she also paid for. I wasn't involved. She called me after the fact and we waited at the scene for the agent. The kids had already been whisked away to the local hospital by the 'rescue' guys and the cops had also buggered off, telling her to come to the station after her agent shows up. I went along for the ride.

 

I have been around the block long enough not to demand that she not visit the hospital or demand that she not pay a penny. She and I BOTH agreed it was the typical stitch-up and even if she didn't have a farang in the shadows, the police would still have favored the injured muppets and the claimants ignorance and harassment would not have been any less. I would not deign to embarrass my wife or myself with any public display of my contempt for kriengjai... that's the stuff that enabled the 10k baht BTW. Her money once again.

 

There was NO cctv available according to the cops. There could well have been but it would have shown my wife to be not at fault so probably much easier for the cops to claim it didn't exist rather than their legal obligation to go after the two kids or their parents. But that doesn't jive with kriengjai in this blighted realm either. No accountability.

 

Now, if those highwaymen and oxygen wasters had tried that stuff after I had an no-fault prang in my own car, then I may get all uppity.

[Orton Rd]

Went to the station today for the insurance to be cleared. Hospital claims the injuries will keep him off work for over 27 days so Police say that makes it more serious, the bloke only has bruises but is hobbling about but only 7 days. I feel he and the Hospital are making the most of it.

Police want the Mrs into the station yet again to discuss this case as it has gotten 'serious' court has been mentioned so obviously she is worried.

I tried to get the Police to explain how they could say the rider, who admits riding down the wrong side of the road, could not be in error, no reply.

 

[NanLaew]

If your wife has not been charged with anything, they are cadging for a bigger handout, that's all.

 

With decent insurance agent, there's nothing to discuss with the cops or anyone for that matter.

[Orton Rd]

Went to the station today (3 hours) thinking that would be that, insurance man and the bike rider with aggressive family also. First off the insurance wanted us to pay for the Hospital bill of 10k for x rays, seems like the first thing to be paid for and an incredible amount. We refused of course, an hour of arguing on the phone resolved it.

 

The bike rider is still playing up the injuries, obviously going for permanent disability and as the Hospital report does not support his claims the cops are sending him for another x ray and report on his knee (not broken). I expect this to come back supporting some sort of permanent problem leading to a large fine.

 

Anyone know how much a fine can go up to and can we refuse to pay at the station and go to court? No way I want to hand over money in that station, in a court would be preferable.

[NanLaew]

Is this the same useless insurance agent you've had from the get go?

 

Have you taken this anywhere further with AXA or the ombudsman?

 

Do you have any law offices where you are at?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Orton Rd]

Bit of a misunderstanding on my part. Cops ordered a new mri scan, Axa said the family have to pay first and they would pay them later, they have no money. So they wanted us to pay first and got nasty when we refused. Mrs had to sort it out on the phone with manager who is quite good. We complained about the useless agent but they still sent him, mrs ending up doing his job!. Everyone has been after money since it happened, have to wait for the scan result, any more nonsense and will take it to court, which in hindsight we should have done from the first day.

[BritManToo]

51 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Bit of a misunderstanding on my part. Cops ordered a new mri scan, Axa said the family have to pay first and they would pay them later, they have no money. So they wanted us to pay first and got nasty when we refused. Mrs had to sort it out on the phone with manager who is quite good. We complained about the useless agent but they still sent him, mrs ending up doing his job!. Everyone has been after money since it happened, have to wait for the scan result, any more nonsense and will take it to court, which in hindsight we should have done from the first day.

I thought you had insurance? Why are you speaking with anyone?

That's your insurance companies job, let them pay as much as they want to anyone they like, nothing to do with you.