Help please.Accidentally uninsured car hit by insured driver whilst parked

andygb

Lum wrote: »

There are two completely separate issues here,

1) Having a car parked on the road uninsured - better hope the police don't notice

2) Being hit whilst parked - Contact the other guy's insurance directly. They are liable even if your car had no tax, MOT or insurance and was standing on bricks at the side of the road. These days this is the recommended procedure even if you are insured.

The MIB will advise agains paying out for damage to uninsured cars.
Where do you get your information that "this is the recommended procedure even if you are insured"?;)

Lum

Where do I get that information?

Look at every car accident thread on this forum and it's the advice always given to avoid hassles with NCB at renewal time if the claim has dragged on for a bit. You temporarily lose your NCB while the claim is ongoing but if you go direct to the other guy's insurance, or use an accident management company, then this does not happen and you can renew while keeping your NCB intact.

scheming_gypsy

andygb wrote: »

These are my thoughts:
The OP has been dishonest not informing the other party that the car does not have insurance, and therefore the other party has admitted liability, something which would not have happened if he knew the full facts. The police have not been made aware of the full facts by the OP, which is failure to disclose information relevant to the vehicle.
For the rest of us who struggle to tax and insure our vehicles and keep them legal, I hope that this comes back to bite the OP (or his brother?), which I think it will because:
The other party's insurance will run a check on the uninsured car and - bingo! They will not pay out, and will probably inform the police.

The other party would probably still have admitted liability after he drove into a parked car. As the police were passing they could have easily seen that the car hadn't been driven for x amount of time and wasn't being driven at the time of impact (cold engine).

If, as the OP mentioned, the car is his brothers and he's working away... How would the OP know it wasn't insured until he told his brother about the crash?

Don't the third party insurer still have a duty to pay out?
and does the OP have to inform the police, as you don't need to inform the police of any accident unless somebody is hurt. So is there a 'failure to disclose'.


also, with most insurance auto renewing.... he probably is insured but doesn't even know.

andygb

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

The other party would probably still have admitted liability after he drove into a parked car. As the police were passing they could have easily seen that the car hadn't been driven for x amount of time and wasn't being driven at the time of impact (cold engine).

If, as the OP mentioned, the car is his brothers and he's working away... How would the OP know it wasn't insured until he told his brother about the crash?

Don't the third party insurer still have a duty to pay out?
and does the OP have to inform the police, as you don't need to inform the police of any accident unless somebody is hurt. So is there a 'failure to disclose'.


also, with most insurance auto renewing.... he probably is insured but doesn't even know.

1) Ignorance or forgetfullness is no excuse when it comes to renewing insurance policies.

2) The police were not called, they stopped and gave a reference number.

3) I thought that policies only renewed if there was a payment plan/direct debit. You are now assuming that the OP's brother is insured despite no evidence that this is true.

Quentin

andygb wrote: »

No it is not the same, because the law regarding keeping uninsured vehicles on a road has changed, and the MIB (Motor insurance bureau) stipulate that the owner of an uninsured car, or passengers in an uninsured car cannot make a clain for injury or damage caused to the uninsured car or its occupants.

The MIB don't come into this scenario!

The OP can claim directly off the third party!

lazer

The amount of misinformation given in this thread is crazy

Simply - The fact that the parked car is not insured is irrelevant to the liability for damages casued by a third party.

To claim, you have 3 options
1) Contact the third party insurer directly and arrange for them to organise the repair etc
2) Take the car to the garage, inform them that you are not liable for the costs, give them the details of the TP who has admitted laibility, and they may sort it out - a fair few of the main vehicle repair places near me do this - you are also entitled to a courtesy car when yours is being fixed, and the courtesy car will be of equal or greater spec than your own!
3) Use a claims management company

The fact that the car was not insured although irrelevant is illegal and you may have to face the consequences of this, but this will be seperate to the claim for damages.

scheming_gypsy

andygb wrote: »

1) Ignorance or forgetfullness is no excuse when it comes to renewing insurance policies.

2) The police were not called, they stopped and gave a reference number.

3) I thought that policies only renewed if there was a payment plan/direct debit. You are now assuming that the OP's brother is insured despite no evidence that this is true.

1 - err, what? the OP still wouldn't know that his brother wasn't insured till he spoke to him. So ignorance or forgetfulness the OP had to speak to his brother to find out. Brother not there = can't give insurance details to the other person.

2 - exactly, they were passing. they weren't called out to an accident, they stopped and made sure everything was ok. They didn't attend an RTA in an official capacity.

3 - i'm not assuming anything. I'm suggesting that he may be insured due to the common practise of auto renewal.

sarahg1969

andygb wrote: »

The other party's insurance will run a check on the uninsured car and... will probably inform the police.

You really think so? I've never seen a case where that has happened. I can't imagine that would even cross the mind of the claims handler. They may do a MID check (they may not), but they will settle the claim as normal.

interstellaflyer

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I can't imagine that would even cross the mind of the claims handler.

I would have thought that these days when insurers are looking for reasons not to pay out, that running a check for insurance would be the first thing a claims handler woulkd do.

Quentin

andygb wrote: »

These are my thoughts:
The OP has been dishonest not informing the other party that the car does not have insurance, and therefore the other party has admitted liability, something which would not have happened if he knew the full facts.....

Your thoughts are your own, of course.

But there is no requirement for the OP to inform the guilty party whether or not the property that has been damaged is "legal" in terms of it's insurance/mot/tax etc!

Why would the guilty party have refused to admit liabilitity? The legality of the damaged property makes no difference whatsoever to the liability issue!

In short, your thoughts are no help to the OP, and should be ignored.