car accident, guy at fault NOT insured

@property.advert: If you have the energy to do that, and the details he did give you are actually genuine then go for it. In our case we couldn't actually get the 3rd party details as their reaction to driving into the back of my GF's car was to then physically assault her in front of the ambulance driver. Police procedure in that situation is to withhold the details, while still refusing to co-operate on the uninsured driver issue, so it wasn't an option really.

@quentin: I thought I already had done when I stated that this was merely what happened to me, but fine. You were right and I was wrong to assume that the MIB would actually follow their own rules.

You'd think I'd be used to that from my dealings with the DVLA really. *shrug*

vax2002 wrote: »

Nothing ridicules about it I am afraid, guy says hey I have no insurance dude, please dont tell anyone or I will be arrested, help me cover up the fact I am committing an offence for which a constable of the law would almost certainly arrest me under pace 2006, be a good accessory and let me bung you a few quid.
assisting an offender and perverting the course of justice, one would stick if the other fell off !
Once the other party has declared they have no insurance, any action you take to help them avoid detection would render you liable to prosecution, this is not a matter of observance, you would need to be compliant with the offender, other wise, it is going to come to light.
It would be down to what the court would see as normal procedure, which is to oblige your contractual obligation and report the collision to your insurance, the court would want to know why you did not and if this formed part of the conspiracy to conceal the offence.
If the OP wants good advice:
Report the matter to the police first and then your insurance company.
Let the Mug without insurance fend for himself, after all that what he was prepared to do to anyone else by driving with none.

1) PACE 2006? no such thing exists

2) It's only rarely that anyone would be arrested for "no insurance". 99% will just be reported for summons.

3) if someone has damaged your car in an accident you are fully entitled to ask them to pay for the damage and use the civil court if necessary. To suggest that doing so is "assisting an offender" is completely laughable.

4) You have no evidence regarding whether he is insured or not. maybe he's just trying to get you to accept cash for the damage in order to protect his no-claims bonus.

5) The offence of "Assisting an offender" (as originally drafted in 1967) only applies to "arrestable offences" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/4.
The original definition of "arrestable offence" is here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24/enacted
Driving without insurance WAS NOT an "arrestable offence".
The definition of "arrestable offence" was removed by this law http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/section/110. in most cases references to "arrestable offence" now refer to "indictable offences" (although the website for the 1967 Act hasn't been updated to remove the reference to "arrestable offences")
Driving without insurance IS NOT an "indictable offence". So even if someone was actively assisting someone to drive without insurance (which these circumstances wouldn't support), they would not be "assisting an offender" as defined in law.

Some please stop scaremongering and pretending that you know something about the law, when you clearly don't.