Thanks for detailed explanation. It's not clear from dashcam video but she actually slowed down resulting in min damage to dashcam car and juke ended up worst. Third party weren't at roundabout approach when claimant made entry to roundabout. I double checked video to time the incident and the third party appeared within 2s. I don't have data on average recommended reaction time in UK on 1.6L engine on 30mph dual carriageway but doubt it anyone else would have done better than claimant here. Third party just zoomed in with the speed they were before coming at roundabout while claimant were stationary at roundabout and just accelerating when incident happened. This is very each party's POV and will not be part of further escalation.
For us, arguments will be based on claimant on right lane for her intended 2nd exit as guided by road signs, third party if intending for 1st exit travelling on middle lane were positioned wrongly as it is marked for either straight or other right exits. If established this, then it becomes clear from footage that the third party attempted to cut into path of claimaint contrary to what insurers are stating.
One thing very useful from your post is that we can certainly state the fact that third party's intended exit was 1st on Blackwall Lane as they had indicators on as seen on dashcam footage. As for your first para, here's the reply received from insurers today. :
either I'm blinkered only seeing one side of argument or whoever handling case lacks general knowledge of highway code and rules.
The claims handler is absolutely wrong in saying that as the first exit has 2 lanes then either the left or middle lane can turn left.
They are also wrong in saying that left lane is for first exit only.
If the third party entered the roundabout in lane 2 and turned left at exit 1 then 100% third party fault.
There are no road markings to support claim handler’s incorrect opinion.
Highway code: Using the road - Roundabouts (184 to 190)
My reading is that the default, "unless signs or markings indicate otherwise", the lefthand lane is left and straight on.
Funnily enough it’s an almost identical case to an insurance claim I agreed 100% liability on at work recently. My driver tried to turn left from lane 2 and hit a car going straight on from lane 1. Albeit there were lane markings showing lane 1 left or straight and lane 2 straight only.
But I did email the broker to say it was our fault as I had nothing to argue.
My driver did not agree but he’s an idiot.
@Monty Nine (on 1st reply): Personally I know they're wrong..I tried to look from every angle and can't make a sense of report. Few here agreed to my assumptions with more replies coming for solid backup but makes me wonder why they're willing to take it as fault and keeps on repeating same thing which makes no sense.
There’s no way I would be accepting liability if I went straight on from the left lane with no lane markings and someone turned left into me from lane 2.
Exactly this. I watched daschcam, went through how it went and gave help in writing statement. Thought this is straight forward case and when report came, a big surprise. It seems now that I'm taking this as personal crusade to get justice 
Third party failed to adhere to rule 186 as quoted above. Ask them how they don’t agree with that.
Balderdash!
That the first exit has two lanes, is to facilitate traffic approaching from the right and from straight on, to merge with traffic turning left at that exit, or for two queues of traffic from the right to both take the left exit. It has absolutely no bearing on the use of lanes on the approach whatsoever.
 who are these people? Now seriously thinking maybe both parties were with same insurers and they decided on females of age of 25vs 50 old .
Anyway request were made for name and contact details of underwriter. Maybe they'll be happy to see their money saved if possible.