Telematics Accident reports from driver who hit me- data protection?

Head-Out-Of-Sand

Hello Moneysavers,

I was recently hit from behind while stationary by a driver who does not appear to have been especially honest in relaying the circumstances leading to him smashing my car up and putting me in hospital, trying to place the blame on another driver when it appears he's just driven into me as he wasn't watching the road (due to road position of cars after accident, position of damage to car etc).

I also wonder if he was actually speeding as he seemed desperate to convince me (before I'd even stepped out of the car) that he was doing a specific speed just under the limit. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much...

Anyway, it turns out he is insured by a company that exclusively offers telematics policies (for young driver and those with driving convictions...he was not what I would call young, therefore I can only assume he falls within the other category...hmm...)

This means he will definitely have had a telematics box in the car at the time of the collision, which in turn means there should be a report on his speed, direction, force of impact etc.

My question is: can my insurer/solicitor demand to see a copy of the report to establish the facts of the accident now that we know this is available, or could his insurer refuse to disclose it unless forced by a court order? e.g. on data protection grounds?

Oh, and in other news, his insurers have also attempted to call me to try the 'Third Party Capture' trick. That's a nasty little habit, now, isn't it?!!

Grateful if anyone has knowledge about the data protection/privacy rights around a telematics accident report - googling has not provided the answer so far! Thanks

atrixblue.-MFR-.

In all honesty i would assume his tracker box data is protected by DPA.

his insurers would certainly have the information, if this is what the tracker box records, there are several types that record more data than other tracker boxes, phone your insurers tomorrow and tell them they have said he was being trcked at the time of the incident and can they request they provide the information, if they know he's at fault from the data recorded they will most likely roll over than publish the data to your insurers.

Head-Out-Of-Sand

Thanks - I did wonder if DPA would give them a reason to withhold it, although I might argue that it's information about me, seeing as it would shed light on exactly how much force went into my back/neck/brain!! (Yeh, bit of a stretch on the DPA wording I know!)

I mean, even if they don't let my side see it, I'm guessing they'll know from their side it's pretty damning, and that if it went to court a judge could most likely force them to reveal it. Which is probably why they've already tried to contact me, they'll see the force he's hit me and and want to box off my claim with a bag of sweets and a tenner.

I guess at the end of the day, he's hit my from behind, I was stationary with handbreak on at a red light, I have independent witnesses, and spent much of the following two days in hospital, and following weeks very poorly. Difficult for him to defend even if I don't have the telematics report really.

My curiosity is killing me though, I want to see it in writing!

Weird_Nev

I do not see how they could hide behind the DPA in this instance.
The data protection act is about the protection of information pertaining to personal privacy. The speed, direction of travel and force involved in the collision are collected by a little black box and reveal NO private information whatsoever about the driver of that vehicle. Certainly no more so than the numberplate on his car, or his name and address and insurance details such as he is obliged to provide by law when he is involved in a collision.

Moreover, that information is of great benefit to deciding who may be to blame for the collision.

Whilst I would not expect that data to be released to you (since you may not be able to correctly interpret it as a lay person) it would be of material benefit to your insurance company in handling the claim.

Tell them to get onto it.

zappahey

Head-Out-Of-Sand wrote: »

Oh, and in other news, his insurers have also attempted to call me to try the 'Third Party Capture' trick. That's a nasty little habit, now, isn't it?!!

I had to google this, never having heard of it before.

Why is it so bad?

peter_the_piper

The idea being to save costs for the insurance company to the detriment of the victim.
http://www.mass.org.uk/third-party-capture.html

Head-Out-Of-Sand

Thanks all. Have asked solicitor if they can look into it.

Tha TPC thing as Peter the Piper says is a way in which insurers try to persuade the non-fault party to let them 'assist' in their claim, I.e. they'll deal with both people's claims and 'get it settled nice and quickly', supposedly because they care deeply about the experience of the injured party.

In reality, it is often a way of gettin the IP to take a derisory early settlement which will be full and final, so if someone accepts a cheque for say £1000, thinks wahay, that'll pay for a holiday, then later finds the damage is more severe & they need regular physio/time off work/help doing everyday stuff like cleaning, cooking etc, it's toughies and they'll have to vover those costs on their own.

It would appear that the more unscrupulous insurers are going as far as discouraging the IP from seeking legal or medical advice before settling. It's legal, but seems pretty iffy to me!

ic

I guess it depends on the situation. Years ago a colleague at work drove into my parked car in the (otherwise empty) car park. He fessed up, and the following day his insurer rang me to arrange a courtesy car and paid for all repairs (at a dealership). I had no excess to pay, and simply notified my insurer of the accident. I didn't see the point of getting the insurers to argue about it - I just wanted my car to be repaired. If there are injuries, time off work, etc etc, then the situation changes and you want to know your insurer is working for your best interests.

What happens if both parties are insured by the same insurer?

Strider590

In some respects, if the 3rd part insurer knows they'll have to pay up, they'd much prefer to avoid your claim handler, because of the overinflated costs, like a tiny courtesy car costing them £150 a day.

Head-Out-Of-Sand

Im sure there are some good reasons for it, as ic said where there's minor damage and no injuries, but in this case, the guy appears to be economical with the truth, I got badly hurt and the car may be quite badly damaged, (although insurers have admitted liability now) i cant help but think there's a clear conflict of interest - their no.1 priority will be keeping their costs down, not making sure I get appropriate treatment/help. I also need to make sure my employers are reimbursed for sick pay, as I don't want to get in any more trouble than necessary for being off work.

I suppose they've decided to take the risk of insuring high risk drivers, so they just have to pay up when one of said drivers ploughs into stationary cars in full daylight on a clear day! Very frustrating. I was on the way to get petrol, and so very nearly went to a different petrol station. If only!!!

Joe_Horner

Weird_Nev wrote: »

I do not see how they could hide behind the DPA in this instance.
The data protection act is about the protection of information pertaining to personal privacy. The speed, direction of travel and force involved in the collision are collected by a little black box and reveal NO private information whatsoever about the driver of that vehicle.

It may count as personal data according to the DPA because he

"can be identified—
(a)from those data, or
(b)from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller"

The driving data [/i]must[/i] be linked to who he is so, given that driving record and all the cross-links between driving and policy details, you could identify exactly who it was driving.


If a court accepted that then it could also come under "sensitive personal data" as defined by the DPA, which has greater restrictions:

2 Sensitive personal data.

In this Act “sensitive personal data” means personal data consisting of information as to—
[...]
(g)the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence
[...]

If it showed evidence of dangerous dricving / speeding or similar then it might well fall within that definition.

Certainly, if I was an insurer with such data available, I'd be making a DPA case and wouldn't be handing it over easily - at least until it was absolutely clear things were going to court!