Help... DH just crashed my car.

Tammer

Hi,

It's a shame noone paid any attention to him, but thenudeone is correct. The husband should have reported the crash to the police and probably should still do so.

He may even have found that the sore necks disappeared when the police turned up!

olly300

vaio wrote: »

Any answers you get are just guesses, his policy will tell you what needs reporting and when.

I've read the small print of all my policies they want notification as soon as possible.

One actually says within 24 hours if possible.

However due to the FSA stance about treating customers fairly they can't force you to tell them immediately.

If they attempted to penalise you for this and you had a very good reason for not telling them immediately i.e. you weren't in the country, your wife went into labour or you went into labour, they would be in trouble.

So yes you can delay telling them and get away with it.

scheming_gypsy

thenudeone wrote: »

That statement is only true if he produced the certificate of insurance to the other driver at the time (which is not mentioned in the post so presumably he didn't). So he should have reported it to police.

Road Traffic Act 1988

170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.
(1)This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [F2or other public place], an accident occurs by which—
(a)personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(b)damage is caused—
(i)to a vehicle other than that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(ii)to an animal other than an animal in or on that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [F1mechanically propelled vehicle], or
(iii)to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [F3or place] in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.
(2)The driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
(5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of [F4a motor vehicle] does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—
(a)to a constable, or
(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,
the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage.
(6)To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver—
(a)must do so at a police station or to a constable, and
(b)must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.
(7)A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (5) above is guilty of an offence, but he shall not be convicted by reason only of a failure to produce a certificate or other evidence if, within [F5seven] days after the occurrence of the accident, the certificate or other evidence is produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when the accident was reported.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170

I would get him to go to the nearest Police Station straight away to report the accident. He still gets 7 days to produce the documents but he must report it straight away.

That's not actually true, although you've copied and pasted the law the definition is misinterpreted as nobody was 'injured'

you only need to exchange details for it to comply with the road traffic laws.

paddedjohn

OP you say the car was duel controlled, how do you know the instructor wasnt in the passenger seat, learner in the drivers seat and others in the rear seats? AFAIK its not against the law to have passengers on a driving lesson.
By the way, where does it say that passengers cant sit in the passenger seat of a duel controlled car?

mikey72

thenudeone wrote: »

I expect that if you tried to rely on the DOC cover, the insurer would ask as a matter of routine - Does any other policy cover cover the incident? When they found found that the driver was a named driver on the policy for the vehicle involved, they would backheel to them it pretty fast, on the basis that their policy does not cover circumstances already more specifically covered by another policy.

For example, my Aviva policy states quite categorically that under the "liability to others" section,

"The cover will also not apply if the insured person can claim under another policy."

They'll probably take the opportunity to record it as a claim on both policies though.

thenudeone

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

That's not actually true, although you've copied and pasted the law the definition is misinterpreted as nobody was 'injured'

According to the first post:

there were 5 people in the other car, all of whom are likely to claim whiplash (one claimed it at the scene

Would you feel comfortable standing up in court to say:
"Your worships, after my car hit the back of the car he was in, the passenger claimed he had a sore neck. I have no medical training but I didn't think he was injured so I didn't think I had to comply with the law regarding accidents where injuries were caused."

Dream on.

olly300

mikey72 wrote: »

They'll probably take the opportunity to record it as a claim on both policies though.

Cynical but realistic - yes likely both insurers will screw both of you. :mad:

Kira000

OK so an update... could do with a view..

We have had communication back regarding the claim from the TP, from their solicitor. Need to check its been to our insurer - we wont reply ourselves.

Its a bit fishy as to the reasons, but it seems that we were right in suspecting something was off with the TP's liability in driving the driving school car for social/domestic purposes. It appears from the paperwork that the guy driving is not claiming on our insurance OR his own insurance, or any other insurance policy in force on the car for any the damage to his car, nor loss of earnings, nor any injury to himself or 3 of the other passengers. The only element that there is currently any claim for is a claim in his wifes name for whiplash injury, not claiming loss of earnings as she is a housewife, just rehabilitation/physio treatment at £60 per session.

Also, is there a danger that at some point they will try to come back and claim for something else later on? Or once it is settled, is that then it?

Question is, if there IS something suss re:his insurance situation, be it because he was not supposed to be using it, or the fact the car was overloaded and pax cannot have all been belted in, should we be challenging the remaining bit of claim from his wife, given the immediate claiming of whiplash at the scene which seems a bit unlikely? Someone a few posts back mentioned there might be grounds for challenging and getting a 25% reduction in their claim if there were grounds of negligence on their part?

Trentenders

Are you for real? Your car has caused an injury and the claimant only wants reimbursement for the cost of physio (which I assume will be accompanied by an invoice for the treatment).

Think yourself lucky that all 5 of them are not taking the pee and tell your DH to take a bit more care

Crazy_Jamie

Kira000 wrote: »

Also, is there a danger that at some point they will try to come back and claim for something else later on? Or once it is settled, is that then it?

Once any given person's claim is settled, that will be it for their claim. But it doesn't stop someone else in the car putting in a claim at a later date. In an ideal world all injured parties would put in a claim at the same time, use the same solicitor, and have their cases managed together. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world, and it is not at all uncommon in cases like this for the claims to be staggered, whether by luck or design.

Kira000 wrote:

Question is, if there IS something suss re:his insurance situation, be it because he was not supposed to be using it, or the fact the car was overloaded and pax cannot have all been belted in, should we be challenging the remaining bit of claim from his wife, given the immediate claiming of whiplash at the scene which seems a bit unlikely? Someone a few posts back mentioned there might be grounds for challenging and getting a 25% reduction in their claim if there were grounds of negligence on their part?

Anything that may be dodgy in relation to his insurance details is not going to affect the claim in relation to his wife. As I think I stated previously (I haven't gone back and read previous posts from this thread), there could be an entirely legitimate explanation as to why he claimed whiplash for his wife immediately afterwards. In and of itself it's not the best argument to rebut a claim when everything else (e.g. medical records, physiotherapy) stacks up.

The 25% reduction for contributory negligence is if she is found to have not been wearing a seat belt. It cannot be used to rebut the entire claim, but would simply reduce her damages by 25%. But again, proving that she wasn't wearing a seat belt may be prove to be rather difficult.