Can I find out (for free)if third party has insurance

Imnoexpert_2

Thank you all for your replies. It is an interesting topic. To answer a few points.

If I got the information and I don't think I will, I wouldn't do anything with it. I will find out soon enough from my insurance. I was just curious and hoped it would put my mind at rest.

Thanks Vaio I hadn't appreciated that the MIB system for uninsured motorists would save me from losing my NCB and excess. Though I think MIB itself has a £300 excess.

Aretnap -You make some good points. You may be a lawyer for all I know - I am not. You have quoted the first part of the relevant part of the DPA however it does go on to say:

"(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who shows—
(a)that the obtaining, disclosing or procuring—
(i)was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, "

and

"d)that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified as being in the public interest."

Since not having insurance is a crime it could be covered by this, and if revealing and publicising it is not in the public interest then I would be appalled.

I respect data protection and try to guard my own, and others own data and privacy however if I suspected my neighbour was abusing his wife, or running a drug den etc. I would consider it my duty as a citzen to procure any information I could to substantiate or refute my suspicions.

Of course you may argue that the police will find all this out and it is their job not mine to do so. Uninsured motorists are a major problem and it would be good if we were all able to help them stop this menace.

vaio

As the driver has been identified then I'm pretty sure there will be no excess under the MIB uninsured driver scheme.

Note however that if you wish to use the MIB and save your excess/NCB then you must not let your insurer handle it, you must do it.

One other thing that might be worth looking into is whether the car driven by the uninsured driver actually had *any* policy active at the time of the incident. If it did then that policy will pay even if it didn't specifically insure the driver.

dacouch

Personally I'd pay the £4, you get the Insurers details, policy number and telephone number for their third party claims department.

Imnoexpert_2

I did not have to wait long.

The third party was uninsured as I suspected.

Can you explain why you said it is best to go through the MIB direct and not through the solicitors appointed under my legal cover protection. Given this was a very serious accident I would prefer to be very careful in the way this is all handled.

I am keen to get my car replaced and not pay an excess to anyone and certainly not lose my NCB.

I have found out that NCB no longer deduct a £300 excess (the information on the website I looked at was out of date).

I am even more anti uninsured motorists as you can imagine!

D

vaio

Imnoexpert wrote: »

......Can you explain why you said it is best to go through the MIB direct and not through the solicitors appointed under my legal cover protection. Given this was a very serious accident I would prefer to be very careful in the way this is all handled.........

I said......

vaio wrote: »

........Note however that if you wish to use the MIB and save your excess/NCB then you must not let your insurer handle it, you must do it..........

this is because if your insurer pays out to you then they can't reclaim their costs from the MIB so you end up with fault claim & lost NCB.

If you don't claim from your own insurer then you (or your legal team) can go direct to the MIB thus you only end up with a non fault claim on your record & no impact on NCB

Quentin

The disadvantage of using MIB in your case is the long time this will take as opposed to making a claim off your insurer and getting things moving today.

Imnoexpert_2

Most grateful for your reply. I see now there is a distinction between the solicitors (appointed to us through our insurers as part of the legal cover) who I take it are MY solicitors and the insurers themselves.

To someone for whom this is (hopefully) a once in a lifetime thing to have to deal with an insurance company; the insurance company's solicitor; our solicitor; the insurers nominated car hire company; our own car hire company; the recommended Dr; the consultant pysios; the nominated local physios; the police; the company the police have impounded the car with; and the MIB and at the same time try and buy a replacement car and deal with our own injuries and mental distress is not easy. The lines get blurred.

Thanks again.

Aretnap

Imnoexpert wrote: »

Aretnap -You make some good points. You may be a lawyer for all I know - I am not. You have quoted the first part of the relevant part of the DPA however it does go on to say:

"(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who shows—
(a)that the obtaining, disclosing or procuring—
(i)was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, "

and

"d)that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified as being in the public interest."

Since not having insurance is a crime it could be covered by this, and if revealing and publicising it is not in the public interest then I would be appalled.

I respect data protection and try to guard my own, and others own data and privacy however if I suspected my neighbour was abusing his wife, or running a drug den etc. I would consider it my duty as a citzen to procure any information I could to substantiate or refute my suspicions.

Of course you may argue that the police will find all this out and it is their job not mine to do so. Uninsured motorists are a major problem and it would be good if we were all able to help them stop this menace.

It's a reasonable argument and I've no idea whether it's been tested in court, but I can see a number of good counter-arguments, such as...

What's the intent behind the exception? To allow law enforcement authorities to do their jobs unhindered? Or to allow every Tom, !!!!!! or Harry to snoop on his neighbours on the off-chance that they might be committing crimes? Interpreted too broadly the exception would undermine much of the intent behind the Act as a whole, so a narrow interpretation is likely to be preferable.

If you suspect that someone's committing a crime, the correct way to deal with it is usually to go to the police. The police are already involved in this case and they'll find out soon enough if the other guy was uninsured, whether or not you access the data - so in what sense is your checking it *necessary* for the detection of crime? If there was a crime, it will be detected whether you do it or not.

Then there's the fact that it's not a very good way of detecting crime. Again, all it will tell you is whether the car's insured now. If it's not, you still won't know whether the other guy was driving without insurance. For all you know the reason the car's uninsured now could be because it's been written off and it's sitting in a scrapyard, so the policy's been cancelled. The less relevant the information, the more difficult it would be to argue that it was necessary.

If you were a journalist trying to catch a politician committing a crime, like driving without insurance, you might be able to claim a public interest defence, but by your own admission you're not going to do anything with the information other than put your own mind at rest. Your curiosity is understandable, of course, but it has little to do with the public interest.

Finally there's the fact that making a false declaration (aka lying) isn't the sort of thing courts tend to look favourable on except in very unusual circumstances.

I'm not a lawyer, just a bloke with an opinion. IMO the exceptions to the DPA would be unlikely to apply to what you're asking about. I suspect that the debate is a little, erm, theological though - I'd be surprised if anyone had actually been prosecuted for misusing the free AskMID service, or if the arguments had ever been put to a court.

thenudeone

NewFolder wrote: »

As other people have said, how can it breach the DPA when they will give you the information, plus other information too, if you pay £4.

Because in order to get the information, the requester has to state that they have had an accident with the relevant vehicle and intend to make a claim against the driver / insurer (and therefore have a legitimate reason for the date holder to release the data)

If you haven't had an accident but agree to that statement and obtain the data, you are committing an offence, as already pointed out.

By making requesters to agree to the statement, the data holder has probably complied with their obligation to take reasonable steps to safeguard the data as required by the DPA.

Given that the database was set up by statute for the purpose (amongst others) of tracing insurance policies in cases of accident, I'd find it amazing for a court to treat disclosure in these circumstances as a breach of the DPA.

tasticz

wouldnt op be able to go to claims management companies who will claim off MIB once they have put op back in their original place?