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

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

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 and rta to the police " ( why would you when you don't need to.

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?

Your making it up as you go along now. Its not an intelligence report as there is no relevant intel. Its just a report, which will be noted on the system that the OP called and nothing else.

- OP Ive been involved in a car accident and we have exchanged details. The other driver now wants to settle outside of the insurance"

- Police Im afraid this isnt a police matter as you have both complied with the Road Traffic Act. You will need to deal with your insurance company.

First of all its "Police can do check on whoever they want", now you've changed it to "Police can do checks on who they want after receiving an Intelligence report".

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Your making it up as you go along now. Its not an intelligence report as there is no relevant intel. Its just a report, which will be noted on the system that the OP called and nothing else.

- OP Ive been involved in a car accident and we have exchanged details. The other driver now wants to settle outside of the insurance"

- Police Im afraid this isnt a police matter as you have both complied with the Road Traffic Act. You will need to deal with your insurance company.


First of all its "Police can do check on whoever they want", now you've changed it to "Police can do checks on who they want after receiving an Intelligence report".

I know you'd love to argue all day but I think you'll find an intelligence report is just a general term not set out in the statute!

Of course everyone knows police can't do checks for unlawful reasons eg to do a favour for a friend, but yes they do do checks pretty much on who they want .
I haven't changed it, is there anything else I can correct you on?

As for "
- OP Ive been involved in a car accident and we have exchanged details. The other driver now wants to settle outside of the insurance"

Since when did the op need advice about their obligations under the Rta?
I think you're going round in circles..

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

I know you'd love to argue all day but I think you'll find an intelligence report is just a general term not set out in the statute!

Of course everyone knows police can't do checks for unlawful reasons eg to do a favour for a friend, but yes they do do checks pretty much on who they want .
I haven't changed it, is there anything else I can correct you on?

I think your getting yourself very muddled as to what an Intelligence Report is. I deal with them daily across law enforcement agencies. In fact theres quite a bit of legislation that encompasses intelligence, especially 5x5x5.

No, no and no again. Police don't do checks on "pretty much who they want". Its a heavily monitored system and all checks have to have valid reasons which are documented. In this situation it would be an unauthorised check as there is no reason for the police to carry out a check.

In your post a page back you said
"The police can do checks on whoever they want"

Now your saying
"The police can do checks on who they want after receiving an intelligence report"

No need to get snidey in your replies.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

I know you'd love to argue all day but I think you'll find an intelligence report is just a general term not set out in the statute!

Of course everyone knows police can't do checks for unlawful reasons eg to do a favour for a friend, but yes they do do checks pretty much on who they want .
I haven't changed it, is there anything else I can correct you on?

As for "
- OP Ive been involved in a car accident and we have exchanged details. The other driver now wants to settle outside of the insurance"

Since when did the op need advice about their obligations under the Rta?
I think you're going round in circles..

Sorry, you edited and added to your post since I replied.

We are indeed going around in circles. Your saying the OP should contact the police to "report intelligence".

Im saying there is no need to involve the police as the law has been complied with, its in the hands of the insurance company and there is nothing either the OP or the police will gain from, in the words of the OP a "very minor car accident" being reported.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Neill1981 wrote: »

- For her benefit he won't claim if she pays him £250, this should cover the damage

This is blackmail. Tell him to prove it was her fault, through his insurance. If he calls again, the number you need is 999

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Sorry, you edited and added to your post since I replied.

We are indeed going around in circles. Your saying the OP should contact the police to "report intelligence".

Im saying there is no need to involve the police as the law has been complied with, its in the hands of the insurance company and there is nothing either the OP or the police will gain from, in the words of the OP a "very minor car accident" being reported.

What have I edited since you replied?

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

What have I edited since you replied?

Dear oh dear.

Your quote in post 44 shows your original post, which you then edited to add what is shown in the quote in post 45.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Sorry, you edited and added to your post since I replied.

We are indeed going around in circles. Your saying the OP should contact the police to "report intelligence".

Im saying there is no need to involve the police as the law has been complied with, its in the hands of the insurance company and there is nothing either the OP or the police will gain from, in the words of the OP a "very minor car accident" being reported.

No I am saying if the op has concerns he should discuss his concerns with the police.
It's not in the hands of the insurance companies at all yet.
You are saying if you've got concerns there is no point in speaking to the police.
You've said people go outside of insurance to save money and their ncb, well that's one reason but there could be others.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I think your getting yourself very muddled as to what an Intelligence Report is. I deal with them daily across law enforcement agencies. In fact theres quite a bit of legislation that encompasses intelligence, especially 5x5x5.

No, no and no again. Police don't do checks on "pretty much who they want". Its a heavily monitored system and all checks have to have valid reasons which are documented. In this situation it would be an unauthorised check as there is no reason for the police to carry out a check.

In your post a page back you said
"The police can do checks on whoever they want"

Now your saying
"The police can do checks on who they want after receiving an intelligence report"

No need to get snidey in your replies.

Yes we've already been over the" police have to document a reason for doing a check" :rotfl:
It's fairly obvious isn't it?
When in a hole , stop digging.
Unauthorised check lol.. Your talking bull poo

gik

hollydays wrote: »

What have I edited since you replied?

You edited your last couple of posts...possibly while someone was in the process of replying?