I hit an uninsured driver....not sure where I stand?

ginnersinner

But in respect of the other party's damage, the advice you should give them if they want to make a claim is to supply their insurer with your insurer's details - which you will have given them - in order for them to handle it! It's not your fault they haven't got an insurer! I did exactly that when I hit an uninsured river - fortunately it was at low speed and only knocked the bumper off her crappy Metro. She wanted me to go with her to a garage round the corner to get it repaired and give her cash, but I told her to contact her insurance company to make a claim against mine. 'But I haven't got one' she bleated. 'Not my problem' was my reply.

dacouch

They do not need to go through their "Insurer" to make a claim, they can either approach your Insurer direct or use the services of a claims management company and / or a solicitor.

pitkin2020

Anihilator wrote: »

No you can't

There being uninsured had absolutely nothing to do with the cause of the crash and is an entirely seperate issue to be dealt with by the authorities.

Likewise he is entirely entitled to expect you/insurers to repair his vehicle and cover his costs.

Surely that can't be right? Legally he had no right to be driving the car as it had no insurance, secondly he had no legal right to be driving on a public road as he had no licence, i'd be very surprised if the insurer paid out for those damages based on those facts alone. IF they did it just makes a mockery of the whole insurance system as even if the OP was the person who was hit its still his insurer having to pay the costs as the other driver isn't insured. Thats just my opinion, but it would be nice to have a definate answer to it.

To the OP as other have said the excess would be what ever is stated in your contract, I believe most companies pay the excess themselves atleast 1 claim per year. You really would have to get your contract out and check what you agreed to when you signed it.

nearlyrich

People are assuming the OP is responsible, I had a crash last year where the other driver hit me from behind I was doing 40 MPH (the speed limit) on a well lit road, it's still not sorted, his insurance co want to go 50:50 I refuse to accept liability, it will probably go to court.

The issue of who pays the excess should be covered in a company drivers policy but some companies don't have one, worth asking where does it say I am liable for the excess?

dacouch

pitkin2020 wrote: »

Surely that can't be right? Legally he had no right to be driving the car as it had no insurance, secondly he had no legal right to be driving on a public road as he had no licence, i'd be very surprised if the insurer paid out for those damages based on those facts alone. IF they did it just makes a mockery of the whole insurance system as even if the OP was the person who was hit its still his insurer having to pay the costs as the other driver isn't insured. Thats just my opinion, but it would be nice to have a definate answer to it.

To the OP as other have said the excess would be what ever is stated in your contract, I believe most companies pay the excess themselves atleast 1 claim per year. You really would have to get your contract out and check what you agreed to when you signed it.

Your not going to like the answer, but as posted before the having no insurance and / or no licence does not mean you cannot pursue the other driver if they are at fault in an accident. The Insurer have no option but to pay out to the uninsured driver if you are liable.

You can also sue another driver if your car has no tax and the other driver is liable.

newfoundglory

The whole driving license system seems a bit of a joke.

Those around here in south london who cant pass their test to get a full license just drive on their own with a provisional, or no license at all.

This of course invalidates their insurance (assuming they actually have some insurance, which a lot don't).

My driving instructor has had pupils with three or more points on their provisional licenses for driving on their own or without insurance - i didn't even think this was possible or allowed!

I know its a rather sweeping statement - but the police really do know the profile of those to look for.

You can prosecute them - ban, fine, take their license away. Will it make a difference? Not one bit.

pitkin2020

dacouch wrote: »

Your not going to like the answer, but as posted before the having no insurance and / or no licence does not mean you cannot pursue the other driver if they are at fault in an accident. The Insurer have no option but to pay out to the uninsured driver if you are liable.

You can also sue another driver if your car has no tax and the other driver is liable.

Personally thats just a p1ss take and another hike in premiums for genuine payers of insurance, once again those that are honest and follow the rules are the ones that get screwed. It annoys me watching programmes like traffic cops where they are always pulling the same people over for no driving licence and no insurance, what do they get....a driving ban....HELLO....THEY DON'T HAVE A LICENCE. Its obvious they didn't give a !!!! about driving without a licence so what good is banning them??

Nearlyrich, its generally considered that if you are hit from behind the driver who was behind is at fault as they obviously didn't observe the road in front of them nor did they leave a safe braking distance between themselves and the car in front. Obvously some situations will differ but as a rule of thumb the person at the rear is responsible as they should ensure a safe breaking distance at all time.

Ian_W

newfoundglory wrote: »

You can prosecute them - ban, fine, take their license away. Will it make a difference? Not one bit.

But taking their car away might!

A fairly recent addition to police powers for unlicensed, disqualified, untaxed or uninsured drivers - more power to their elbow as far as I'm concerned.

dacouch

I agree Pitkin, however it is how the law works in this country.

There are some situations where a passenger in a stolen vehicle can sue the owner of the car / their insurer if the car is in an accident.

You have a similar situation for tresspassers on private property, again there are some situations where they can sue if they are injured.

Wig

ginnersinner wrote: »

But in respect of the other party's damage, the advice you should give them if they want to make a claim is to supply their insurer with your insurer's details - which you will have given them - in order for them to handle it! It's not your fault they haven't got an insurer! I did exactly that when I hit an uninsured river - fortunately it was at low speed and only knocked the bumper off her crappy Metro. She wanted me to go with her to a garage round the corner to get it repaired and give her cash, but I told her to contact her insurance company to make a claim against mine. 'But I haven't got one' she bleated. 'Not my problem' was my reply.

If the other driver were me, I would have taken your name address and claimed the damage from you directly, (BTW I don't even have to tell you if I have insurance or not - I just give you my name and address, if you ask for it.) I don't have to have an insurance company to do the claim for me, I claim against you directly, if you don't pay, I take you and/or your insurer to court. You were lucky she was clueless.