Crashed into but Refused to Stop

andygb

I would get back to the police and ask them to do their job properly. The OP said this:

"They have been to our house today and said that she is 87 years old, knew she did it and didnt want to stop! They aren't going to do anything about it but have given us her details and told us to go through our insurance."

The other person realised that they had caused an accident, and left the scene, without exchanging details. They did not report the accident to the police either.

This cannot possibly be described as a "no fault" accident.

I don't care how olod a person is, if they have an accident, then their insurance should pay for it - what is the problem with that?

andygb

Johno100 wrote: »

Why not? Either on or off the record I would want to know, otherwise a complaint over a failure to take action over the failure to stop and failure to report would result. That is the least the OP should expect.

Exactly.
The OP is ENTITLED to know this information as part of the "victims and witnesses" act.

andygb

RichardD1970 wrote: »

How do you know she didn't? The OP just says that they reported it to the police not whether the old lady did or didn't.

I think that you need to read the 4th paragraph of the first post.
The old lady did not report it, she left the scene and failed to report an accident.
It was the OP who reported it, and the old lady only admitted it when the police paid her a visit.

If I did that then I would be done for Driving without due care and attention, and failing to report an accident.
I would probably be looking at 6 - 9 points and a hefty fine.
Oh yes, I almost forgot, I would also be fully liable for the accident.

Aretnap

andygb wrote: »

I don't care how olod a person is, if they have an accident, then their insurance should pay for it - what is the problem with that?

Her insurance will pay for it, there's no problem with that. The Op can either approach them directly, or go through his own insurers, who will recoup any money they pay out from hers.

The OP is ENTITLED to know this information as part of the "victims and witnesses" act.

What is this victims and witnesses act of which you speak? Google brings up a statute in Illinois, and an as yet unenacted bill in Scotland.

If I did that then I would be done for Driving without due care and attention, and failing to report an accident.
I would probably be looking at 6 - 9 points and a hefty fine.
Oh yes, I almost forgot, I would also be fully liable for the accident.

Not necessarily. It's quite common for the police to take no further action over minor accidents, even if the driver leaves the scene. It's not something that only happens with old people. So long as insurance details get exchanged promptly. it's easier to leave it to them to sort out.

Oh and you wouldn't be fully liable - your insurers would be. As are her's.

Aretnap

Brian_the_gas_man wrote: »

I would not involve an insurance company unless I had to, as even involvement in a non fault accident goes on the insurers database and ridiculously will increase your insurance.

It's not remotely ridiculous - accident history is one of the factors insurers use to rate risk, and they find that there is a small correlation between even no fault accidents and future claims. The reasons for the correlation are interesting to speculate on, but the OP's case illustrates one of them - he lives near an old lady who bashes cars and drives off. Next time she does it there might be no witnesses, leaving his insurers to pick up the bill themselves.

Similarly if your car was stolen, that might not be your fault either, but it would still have an effect on your premiums in future, for reasons which are too obvious to be worth writing down.

There is no legal obligation I am aware of, to require motorists to involve insurance companies following an accident, if they are prepared and prefer to deal with repairs out of their own pocket.

There's no obligation to make a claim if you don't want to, but there is an obligation under your contract with the insurance company to inform them of all accidents, even if you don't intend to make a claim, and when you renew or take out a new policy there's an obligation to answer truthfully when you're asked "have you had any accidents in the last 5 years". If you don't tell the truth then in theory you could go to prison for fraud or more likely your insurer could just void your policy when you need it most. Many people don't tell their insurer about minor accidents which they fix themselves it's true, but now that the OP has been to the police and the old lady has (presumably) told her own insurers there's a record of the accident out there. If the OP wants to keep quiet and take the risk of his insurers finding out another way, that's up to him. To me it seems like a big risk to take for the sake of perhaps 5% on his premium.

mattyprice4004

zaax wrote: »

Claim on your insurance and they will claim if off hers - end of. You could ask the police that if she kills a child what will the Chief Constable do then?

NO!

Claim directly off their insurance, don't involve yours! Just make them aware of the incident.

andygb

Aretnap wrote: »

What is this victims and witnesses act of which you speak? Google brings up a statute in Illinois, and an as yet unenacted bill in Scotland.t necessarily.

About four years ago a drunken neighbour crashed into our car, and the police were involved. Unfortunately, when I tried to get the police to update me, they said that they were not able to as it would breach the data protection laws (don't you just love it when the police lie:mad:).
So, I got some advice from a mate who is a solicitor, and he said "Just mention the victims and witnesses act" - which I did, and which led to them giving me all kinds of information regarding the other drivers insurance, their court date, levels of alcohol in their system, and how much they had been fined and how long their ban was for.
I live in the garden of England - not Illinois;)

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/rights-of-victims-and-witnesses/your-rights-if-you-report-a-crime-to-the-police/index.html

andygb

As far as I can see, it is quite safe for the OP to go through their own insurance company, because the old lady has admitted liability for the accident, and for not stopping, so there will be no adjustment to the OP's NCB.

Prothet_of_Doom

RichardD1970 wrote: »

That is a rather large assumption to make from what the OP posted.

Yes she is old but the OP stated the conditions were bad and maybe she didn't want to stop because she might have felt intimidated in such a situation.

Not defending anyone's actions here but try not to jump to conclusions based on pre-conceived stereotypes from only the most basic of information.

I might have a blind spot when it comes to old people driving. My experience is that typically they are unable to see properly, they have poor anticipation, poor reaction times, and quite frankly are a menace to society.

Unfortunately my stereotype comes from a sample size of 3, My Grandad, my Father in Law, and a woman I gave advise about selling a 1992 mini cooper with 15K on the clock "It's worth 6K, not the £500 the garage are telling you dear"
All of them terrible drivers.
But too small a sample I grant you.

RichardD1970

andygb wrote: »

I think that you need to read the 4th paragraph of the first post.
The old lady did not report it, she left the scene and failed to report an accident.
It was the OP who reported it, and the old lady only admitted it when the police paid her a visit.

Where exactly does it say that? The 4th paragraph says

They have been to our house today and said that she is 87 years old, knew she did it and didnt want to stop! They aren't going to do anything about it but have given us her details and told us to go through our insurance.

It doesn't mention anything about whether the old lady reported it or not.