Crashed into but Refused to Stop

Retrogamer

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Where exactly does it say that? The 4th paragraph says
It doesn't mention anything about whether the old lady reported it or not.

Would you like a spade to dig a little deeper?
This is where a rational mind is beneficial. I.e why would the police visit the lady to find out if she had done what was claimed, if she done her duty and reported it to the police station as she should?

RichardD1970

Doesn't say that the police visited her, just that they had spoken to her and she admitted that she did it.

Read what is written not what you think is written.

andygb

Retrogamer wrote: »

Would you like a spade to dig a little deeper?
This is where a rational mind is beneficial. I.e why would the police visit the lady to find out if she had done what was claimed, if she done her duty and reported it to the police station as she should?

It really is not worth us wasting our time is it?:D

Clutching at straws comes to mind;)

Maybe the police visited her on the off chance

---

?
Maybe they had visited her about her cat being abducted by aliens, and she "fessed up" out of blind panic:D

Aretnap

andygb wrote: »

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

Cheers. There doesn't seem to be an actual act, at least not one with that name. If there was, Google would have heard of it. but there is a code of practice for victims of crime, mentioned in that link, which may be what you and/or your mate were thinking of (full details here).

RichardD1970

andygb wrote: »

It really is not worth us wasting our time is it?:D

Clutching at straws comes to mind;)

Maybe the police visited her on the off chance

---

?
Maybe they had visited her about her cat being abducted by aliens, and she "fessed up" out of blind panic:D

Indeed, maybe, maybe, maybe.

That is the point I was trying to make.

No one here knows but certain people have jumped to conclusions based on the very little, one sided "evidence" in the OP.

andygb

RichardD1970 wrote: »

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

The previous paragraph said:

"She (the OP's wife)reported it to the police together with the registration plate and the police said they would investigate."

It was following this that they reported back to the OP.
Had the old lady reported the accident, then the police would have been duty bound to contact the OP's wife.

Brian_the_gas_man

Aretnap wrote: »

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.

It is ridiculous - in my opinion.

Since I am the customer and therefore, last time I checked, master and not servant in the relationship with an insurance company, and knowing that large organisations cannot be trusted to automatically do what is right for the customer, I say that a vehicle being struck by another motorist whilst stationary, or even unoccupied is not grounds for either database records or an increase in premium.

Since I regularly get phoned by third parties enquiring about accidents I've recently supposedly had, when it haven't, as these insurance companies have made money by selling my incorrect details, I figure that, contractually or not, the less you tell them the better.

Lum

Brian_the_gas_man wrote: »

Since I am the customer and therefore, last time I checked, master and not servant in the relationship with an insurance company

Unfortunately since you are legally required to have insurance, this isn't strictly true.

"That's a nice premium you have there... it'd be a shame if something... happened to it".

Moto2

Brian_the_gas_man wrote: »

It is ridiculous - in my opinion.

Since I am the customer and therefore, last time I checked, master and not servant in the relationship with an insurance company, and knowing that large organisations cannot be trusted to automatically do what is right for the customer, I say that a vehicle being struck by another motorist whilst stationary, or even unoccupied is not grounds for either database records or an increase in premium.

I can see their point TBH
They don't really want unlucky customers raising the premiums for the rest of us.
No smoke without fire IMO

Aretnap

Since I am the customer and therefore, last time I checked, master and not servant in the relationship with an insurance company, and knowing that large organisations cannot be trusted to automatically do what is right for the customer, I say that a vehicle being struck by another motorist whilst stationary, or even unoccupied is not grounds for either database records or an increase in premium.

LOL. I do rather like the idea that the customer is entitled to decide the company's pricing structure. I think I'll try it next time I'm in Tesco. "I'd like a bottle of your finest champagne please. I'm master in this relationship, and you're a large company so inherently untrustworthy, so I say you should sell it to me for the same price as you sell Blue Nun. Here's a fiver. What do you mean, no? That's ridiculous!"

I think you might be confusing the concept of "customer" with the concept of "monarch".

You are master in one sense - you get to choose which company you insure with, and as there are a number out there which don't load premiums for no fault claims, you can always choose to insure with one of them if you feel strongly about it.

Since I regularly get phoned by third parties enquiring about accidents I've recently supposedly had, when it haven't, as these insurance companies have made money by selling my incorrect details, I figure that, contractually or not, the less you tell them the better.

Fair enough. Just don't whinge if you end up losing everything you own if you have a big accident and your insurers find out that you've lied to them. Happened to this woman, I believe, and as I recall she did whinge quite a bit.