Very Minor Car Accident - Is settling outside insurance Legal??

InsideInsurance

haz25a wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that the driver and yourself must disclose the name of your insurers but no names and addresses or telephone numbers are needed.

Legally you sue the driver not the car nor the insurer. If you cannot identify the driver at the time of the accident there is no legal obligation for the insurer of the vehicle to pay out.

Telephone numbers arent required but a name certainly is and an address is highly beneficial as otherwise you issue proceedings against the person at the keeper of the car's address but if they turn round saying they've never heard of A N Other etc then you probably wont get anywhere

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Yes thanks I'm aware of the law,. I'm also aware of how criminals think,

Checking out this info with the police costs nothing

The police wont advise whether you should or shouldn't settle outside of the insurance policy.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

The police wont advise whether you should or shouldn't settle outside of the insurance policy.

Who was suggesting that?
The police will not say to you " this person has previous for fraud " etc as its data protection. But if for any reason they are looking for this person, or he's known to them, they may make you aware of what your best course of action will be. Bearing in mind he's got the young lady's address.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Who was suggesting that?

What are you suggesting the OP asks the police then?

hollydays

hollydays wrote: »

Who was suggesting that?
The police will not say to you " this person has previous for fraud " etc as its data protection. But if for any reason they are looking for this person, or he's known to them, they may make you aware of what your best course of action will be. Bearing in mind he's got the young lady's address.

See this .

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

See this .

That simply wont happen though.

They will advise it was a non injury RTC and as details have been exchanged its a case for the insurance company to deal with.

They wont divulge or imply any information about the other driver. Best course of action will be the standard response of let the insurance company deal with the situation.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

That simply wont happen though.

They will advise it was a non injury RTC and as details have been exchanged its a case for the insurance company to deal with.

They wont divulge or imply any information about the other driver. Best course of action will be the standard response of let the insurance company deal with the situation.

Duh!
Of course they will not divulge( er...Didn't I already say that?)
If their are wider implications they will point you in the right direction to take.
Eg
If they go away do some checks and come back and say - it's up to you what you do, you can be fairly sure there is nothing she needs to be aware of.
If they come back and say you should go through the insurance, then she'd be sensible to take that advice.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Duh!
Of course they will not divulge( er...Didn't I already say that?)
If their are wider implications they will point you in the right direction to take.
Eg
If they go away do some checks and come back and say - it's up to you what you do, you can be fairly sure there is nothing she needs to be aware of.
If they come back and say you should go through the insurance, then she'd be sensible to take that advice.

Your saying the police will imply what action to take based on their checks. Which in a way is disclosing without clearly saying.

They wont do any checks on the other driver as there is no need or requirement for them to do so. The standard advice will be to go through the insurance company.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Your saying the police will imply what action to take based on their checks. Which in a way is disclosing without clearly saying.

They wont do any checks on the other driver as there is no need or requirement for them to do so. The standard advice will be to go through the insurance company.

I'm not saying the police will even imply they have done checks.

" no need or requirement"
The police would be the best person to judge that, case by case.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

I'm not saying the police will even imply they have done checks.

" no need or requirement"
The police would be the best person to judge that, case by case.

There is no need or requirement. No offence has been committed - S170 of RTA has been complied with. To carry out checks on PNC/Force systems would be unauthorised and a breach of the Data Protection Act.