Motorway Charges

taffy056

Never seen this before, was just thinking about how these companies get the RK details of people in accidents, how do they know who was driving as surely it's not the RK fault if they weren't driving. And are these invoices just as speculative as the ones we see here daily ? Surely this is something that the insurance should cover in any case ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19833237

The_Slithy_Tove

Sounds like the HA (or whichever contractor) are just hoping that the bills get passed onto to the motorist's insurance company, who cough up without too much question. Another reason why insurance premiums are so high?

Oldfatgrumpy

If the bill came from the Highways Agency, it would make more sense. If it came from some independent contractor, I'd be wanting proof that they weren't already getting the cost back from the HA in some way.

bazster

How do they get RK details? Presumably they simply apply to the DVLA claiming "reasonable cause". And just as for the parking scam, the DVLA merely shrugs and hands over the data.

This has so many parallels with the parking scam. How can a Highways Agency contractor make such a claim? They don't own the property that has allegedly been damaged, they are merely the navvies who get paid to fix it up. And they do get paid, through their contract with the Highways Agency. And if that contract simply imposes a blanket obligation on them to maintain the highway, perhaps, say, for a fixed annual price, it's hardly the motorist's problem that the contractor doesn't get paid on a per-incident basis, that's between the company and the Highways Agency. Incidents causing damage to the highway are not new, they must be covered by the payments to the contractor from the Highways Agency, so if the scumbags then bill the motorist they're trying to get paid twice!

It's like someone throwing a brick through your window: you pay a glazier to fix it, and then the glazier sends a bill to whoever threw the brick!

And of course, as you say, the RK cannot possibly be held liable if they weren't the driver.

I imagine most insurance wouldn't cover damage arising from a breakdown, but certainly it would cover damage arising from an accident.

taffy056

I wonder if the RK says it wasn't me who was driving, are they then legally obliged to say who was ? As you said there are parallels here with the scammers, that is why I posted here instead of the main motoring forum.

The_Slithy_Tove

taffy056 wrote: »

I wonder if the RK says it wasn't me who was driving, are they then legally obliged to say who was ? As you said there are parallels here with the scammers, that is why I posted here instead of the main motoring forum.

Since the HA work closely with the police, I guess they could get the police to send an NIP for driving without due care. That would flush out the driver's identity. They'd have to do that straight away, though, as it has to be served within 14 days.

taffy056

But are they allowed to share data with a third party contractor ? In fact are they allowed to share data to each other ? And if the accident wasn't their fault like somebody went in the back of them and you hit the barrier from that but the other vehicle didn't , is that worthy of a NIP for that ? The more I think about it and the comments above they are trying to be paid twice.

bazster

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Since the HA work closely with the police, I guess they could get the police to send an NIP for driving without due care. That would flush out the driver's identity. They'd have to do that straight away, though, as it has to be served within 14 days.

Not if the incident was merely a breakdown and they're claiming for wiping up a couple of oil drips.

bazster

taffy056 wrote: »

The more I think about it and the comments above they are trying to be paid twice.

Yes, this is where it parts company with the parking scam. The PPC's generally don't receive money from their "clients" (although VCS vs HMRC says otherwise), whereas these contractors do get paid by the Highways Agency for doing what they do.

peter_the_piper

Pity all the drivers behind are'nt entitled to compo for being held up whilst they lean on their shovels. Same way as some compo is due for late trains, the TOC gets it but most customers don't realise they can claim.

Nozone

Hang on, don't the contractors get this money anyway from the government? I admit that I don't know much about this (other than it's all full of BS)