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

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

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.

Wrong.............

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Wrong.............

Please divulge

hollydays

Police to can do checks on who they want.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Police to can do checks on who they want.

Completely and totally wrong. There has to be a valid reason to conduct a check and that reason documented.

InsideInsurance

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.

Police wont go away and do checks. They will tell you it is a civil matter and between you, him and the insurers and that you should raise your concern with your insurer.

If you push they will say that there is a special agreement between the police and insurers/ banks etc that the insurer does the investigation and if they believe there is a strong case then they will pass the completed file over to the police for any criminal prosecutions.

This isnt strictly true but is in practice how it works most of the time. My ex used to work in counter fraud for an insurance firm and most those they catch they just decline/ cancel the policy/ reject the claim etc. A moderate proportion they may load to CIFAS for the fraud that they committed. Only the largest cases did they actually pass over to the police at the end of their investigation for criminal prosecution.

hollydays

A young lady is in a collision with a person who has her address but doesn't give his . He seems to want to bypass the usual channels . She has no idea what documentation he possesses in relation to the car.
If this intelligence report is received the police don't need a court order to do a check..get real..

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

A young lady is in a collision with a person who has her address but doesn't give his . He seems to want to bypass the usual channels . She has no idea what documentation he possesses in relation to the car.
If this intelligence report is received the police don't need a court order to do a check..get real..

Get real? Thats rich!

They both complied with S170 of the RTA. A lot of people ask to settle outside of the insurance company as sometimes it cheaper in the long run.

The OP does not need to know what documents he posses in relation to the car - thats for the insurance company to deal with.

This isnt an intelligence report - its someone reporting an RTC to the police that dosent need to. Again, as the RTA has been complied with - the police will not and do not need to conduct any checks.

You lost all credibility when you incorrectly said "police can do checks on who they want"

hollydays

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Police wont go away and do checks. They will tell you it is a civil matter and between you, him and the insurers and that you should raise your concern with your insurer.

If you push they will say that there is a special agreement between the police and insurers/ banks etc that the insurer does the investigation and if they believe there is a strong case then they will pass the completed file over to the police for any criminal prosecutions.

This isnt strictly true but is in practice how it works most of the time. My ex used to work in counter fraud for an insurance firm and most those they catch they just decline/ cancel the policy/ reject the claim etc. A moderate proportion they may load to CIFAS for the fraud that they committed. Only the largest cases did they actually pass over to the police at the end of their investigation for criminal prosecution.

The op up till now hasn't decided which route they are going to take.

If they do go through the insurer, all that no doubt applies..

philatio

If you are in any doubt at all (which you are.. cos you posted this topic) then let the insurance deal with it.
Like someone above said.. thats why you pay them. There's so many ways you could get shafted here.
If he calls again just say "I'm letting my insurance company deal with it.. you need to speak to them"

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Get real? Thats rich!

They both complied with S170 of the RTA. A lot of people ask to settle outside of the insurance company as sometimes it cheaper in the long run.

The OP does not need to know what documents he posses in relation to the car - thats for the insurance company to deal with.

This isnt an intelligence report - its someone reporting an RTC to the police that dosent need to. Again, as the RTA has been complied with - the police will not and do not need to conduct any checks.

You lost all credibility when you incorrectly said "police can do checks on who they want"

I'm well aware of the Road Traffic Act thanks.

I never said the op did need to know what documents he possesses.

No one has suggested " reporting" it to the police " ( why would you when you don't need to) .Its simply running a scenario past them .

Yes that is an intelligence report .do you not understand that is what that would be classes as? In order to justify why they did a check.

The police can do checks on who they want after receiving an Intelligence report.
Did you not know that?