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

InsideInsurance

peter_the_piper wrote: »

The idea being to save costs for the insurance company to the detriment of the victim.

An alternative view is that it saves costs for the insurer and increases settlement to the victim to the detriment of the solicitors, ambulance chasers, credit hire and other vultures wanting to make a quick buck from you and whos costs often outweigh the value of settlement that you receive



The DPA is irrelevant to this situation. It is not your data and therefore you have no direct legal right to demand to see it. In any circumstances like this only a court or the police can force disclosure.

On the basis they are trying the "third party capture trick" then clearly they are admitting liability, or at least are willing to deal with the case on a without prejudice basis, and therefore any data in the telematics device is irrelevant.

PS. Employers are never reimbursed for sickpay, its just one of those joys of running a business.

Head-Out-Of-Sand

I guess it depends on how scrupulous the insurers are - there are a lot of stories about insurers pressuring injured parties into accepting inappropriately low settlement amounts to shut down the claim. Doesn't really seem to be in the IPs best interests to settle before getting legal or medical advice. If the solicitors help me to get an appropriate settlement then let them claim their fees. (Don't get me wrong - I wasnt impressed by the 'ambulance chaser' types either, especially the ones who tried to call before if got off yhr phone reporting yhe accident claim to my insurers). Two sides to it really, there are bad insurers and bad solicitors. His insurers seem like gits, my solicitors seem decent (dealt with my partners no fault claim after he was hit by someone).

There's little evidence that TPA increases settlement to the claimant, in fact most complaints against the practice point to the opposite - they want a quick cheap settlement.

Besides, bit of a moot point really as have zero intention of taking them up on it. Just don't like the idea of people being screwed over. And if people don't want to pay my solicitors' fees, I woukd kindly invite them to refrain from ploughing into the back of my stationary car at 30mph

In terms of sick pay, employers can indeed be reimbursed for it - my partner's employer was after his no fault accident, and I've confirmed that I will be claiming back on behalf of my employer. Dont see why anyone else should pay for this guys being a dangerous driver!

Head-Out-Of-Sand

Btw I raised DPA in terms of it being used as a reason not to let my insurers see the report, I.e. that he would state it is his personal information and therefore covered by DPA. The bit about me was a joke ;-)

mcfisco

InsideInsurance wrote: »

An alternative view is that it saves costs for the insurer and increases settlement to the victim to the detriment of the solicitors, ambulance chasers, credit hire and other vultures wanting to make a quick buck from you and whos costs often outweigh the value of settlement that you receive

Now, I'm prepared to accept that at face value but who is it a lot of the time that 'introduces' the claimant to these reptiles?
As I see it, they are indeed saving the cost to themselves and possibly increasing the payout to the claimant but they probably actively do the opposite when the boot is on the other foot and their customer is the claimant in order to earn commission from it.

Weird_Nev

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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:



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!

Yes, but he is legally obliged to provide his name, address and insurance details to the aggrieved party at the outset! It's a requirement of the RTA after a collision!

I fail to see what more personal information a set of data about the vehicles movements immediately before the crash can reveal.

Head-Out-Of-Sand

Weird_Nev wrote: »

Yes, but he is legally obliged to provide his name, address and insurance details to the aggrieved party at the outset! It's a requirement of the RTA after a collision!

I fail to see what more personal information a set of data about the vehicles movements immediately before the crash can reveal.

Just on that point - he failed to provide his insurance details, then switched his phone off so I couldn't get them. Luckily my insurance co found them as had his name, address & reg no. Silly man.

Weird_Nev

Sounds like a wonderful individual. So glad phones have decent cameras nowadays. Makes capture of evidence so much easier.

Buzby

A court can seek full disclosure - and a solicitor can explicitly ask for any data (GPS DVR etc). The police also routinely look at GPS logs for speed info prior to an accident. The driver cannot refuse to provide it if the data exists.

However, it is a big leap from knowing the data exists, to assuming simply because of the insurer used - and that may be a huge mistake. Never expect any third party to help with your case - your own DVR protects you even more.

Head-Out-Of-Sand

Thanks, I suspect I won't need it, just going into Columbo/Marple mode I guess. I'll admit that im a bit of a control freak and ive just felt ive wanted to get back control of the situation Just so angry that he seems to have been clearly driving without due care and attention, and then also clearly lied to try to blame another driver (despite having a box in the car that would disprove this! Idiot!) and he's clearly had driving convictions before as he referred to 'just getting his clean licence back' before the accident during the aftermath!

Have had a horrible time since crash, had severe concussion which I had no idea could feel so awful - at times I've wished i would just pass out so i didnt have to ferl so sick. Back & neck are terribly sore & I've had problems with memory & confusion which, although apparently normal are really quite frightening. If he's that bad a driver he shouldn't keep being given chances to hit people - that junction is v busy and if there hadnt been cars in front of him he could easily have killed pedestrians at that crossing, as he clearly wasnt looking at the road. The only hope is that this crash might price the idiot off the road and make it a bit safer from the rest of us.

Head-Out-Of-Sand

Oh and seriously considering getting cameras for the car after all this!