Plantec v MCE

Im not really sure as to what is going on here, but something is definitely going on.

Im riding along happily, minding my own business along a 2 lane high street. I approach a junction that has 2 lanes of standing traffic all waiting for the red light to turn green. As I approach the back of the queue of cars I swing right in order to take up the right turn filter lane as it opens up. As I do this the car at the back of the queue pulls out on me, assuming that he wants the same lane that I do I speed up to avoid hitting him and also to go around him. (remember he pulls out from a static position, I am already in motion.} As I am trying to get around him I realise it isnt the lane he wants, he is doing a u turn. I run out of room to manouvre and slam into the side of his car. I go over his bonnet as my bike does its own u turn and falls over facing the way it had come. (My bike is brand new and hasnt done 1k miles yet) I could have been killed had I been travelling at speed. It so happens that even after acceleration I was only doing 15 mph
Plantec call me the next day offering me a replacement bike. I say I cant ride it but they bring it anyway and I sign for it.
3 weeks later, I call MCE to find out how my claim is progressing against the moron that took me out and they pass me to Plantec saying they are my claim handlers. Plantec pass me back to MCE. Who say its Plantec I should be talking to. Anyway… After being on the phone waiting for about 15 minutes my phone gets an email notification. Plantec were indeed my claim handlers but they have rejected my claim and have passed me on to MCE who are advising me to claim from my own policy, it being comprehensive and all encompassing. It is MCE that are my insurer.

Am I alone in thinking something isnt right here?

Plantec tried to screw me over in the past too, funnily enough it was also from a driver doing a Uturn and I went into the side of him.

Bottom line for you though is tell MCE to sort it out. I’d also advise you to give the rental bike back to Plantec ASAP, they’ll charge you an astronomical amount if they can’t recoup the costs of the rental to the car driver. Sounds like that’s what’s happened, they’ve worked out it’s not easy to get a bunch of money from your case so they’ve wiped their hands of it.

I asked them a week ago to come and get it. Shame they not as quick to pick it up as they were to deliver it…

I claimed through MCE against a farm when I crashed due to mud on the road.

It took me quite a few phone calls to MCE to get them to initiate the claim. I even got told that I “couldn’t claim because of no injury”.

With MCE it all depends who you get on the phone.

Hire bikes seem to be the one big area where people get screwed over. Luckily I’ve always had second bike so never got one (and would have refused to sign for it). Make sure you get it in writing that you don’t want it. I’d be tempted to say to them that for every day you are forced to keep it you will be charging storage fees… £250 per day should cover it.

(That last bit probably won’t hold up in any court though, this is just the musings of a keyboard warrior).

Good luck

@Serrisan Thanks for that. Im prepared to go all the way on this one. I had a ZX9 stolen some years back and Zurich (my insurer at the time) point blank refused to pay out. We went to court and I was advised to walk away as they would have tied me up in court and left me broke if I lost. Which I did and regretted ever since…

Can’t see how this wouldn’t be a split liability case. Its all about your reaction, instead of taking evasive action by hitting the brakes you speed up and carry on regardless?!

As for the hire bike if you didn’t want it don’t sign for it, don’t accept it.

@National_Treasure I took evasive action by trying to go around him. It was thhe quicker reaction to emergency braking. As I said I was already in motion, he was at stand still. There is no split liability here.

They always take into consideration things like this so would not worry.

Do you have witnesses or video evidence though?

I was incapacitated so couldnt take names or numbers even though there were many witnesses. Im waiting to see if the police got the cctv footage from the street cams. The incident happened at the approach to the junction of Tottenham high Rd and West Green Rd.

Based on the police’s response when that cyclist got knocked over and left for dead, I wouldn’t hold my hopes for that!

Because of all the lack of resources, they tend to close these cases without really investigating as they have bigger cases… And no time

And there in lies my biggest problem. How thorough are these guys going to be. To be fair to the cops on the scene they had the driver for near on an hour in the back of their car. Whether they kept him or sent him on his way I have no idea.

well you “may” have some glimmer of hope, are there any shops near there with CCTV? under GDPR you are entitled to a copy if it holds your data. So assuming your number plate was visible to the camera(s) you could argue that you’re entitled to it as it hold your personal data (number plate). BE QUICK THOUGH most places will hold at best 30 days.

As Serrisan says because you basically managed to walk away, that is highly likely what the police will do.

I got knocked off, the driver drove off I had it all on my helmet camera but apparently that was still not enough to prosecute!!!

@grimmreapa51. What you say about Plantec surprises me, as thet are the one claims management firm I have never had an issue with (although to be fair I do know the boss well).

Drop the boss Garry King a line direct at [email protected]. He overseas and is boss of client relations and will be able to sort out any issues you have.

As far as the original incident is concerned, I deal with these types of crashes on a daily basis, and remember it matters not if the Police prosecute or not as the test in traffic law to secure a conviction is different to civil law.

The Police have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the drive is guilty of an offence. Sometimes this can be very easy, and whilst CCTV footage can be a help, it can also work against claimants, but in any case, CCTV is in realtive terms quite a new innovation and so the burden of proof remains on the prosecution through investigation, which very few Police forces do these days, especially for the smaller crashes.

In civil law however, the test is based on the balance of probability of 51% or better. A much easier test to satisfy and depending on the circumstances given the poor investigations carried out by the Police, their accounts are often not even taken into consideration when a certified extract of the Police report is obtained…

Sometimes as far as the Police are concerned, it is not the Police but the CPS who are the fly in the ointment as they will often not go for a prosecution because it means them actually having to do some work.

@T.C Thanks for the input. I really appreciate it…

@grimmreapa51, you are welcome. I should also have added that based on your explanation of things liability should not be an issue as far as you are concerned.

If your representatives are doing their job properly, they should either get an admittance of liability from the third party quite quickly or tell them to issue proceedings.

That usually gets defendant company minds thinking long and hard before disputing everything as they can see the potential for costs increasing substantially.

1 Like