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

gik

hollydays wrote: »

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.

Yes...100 percent. You should do so!

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

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.

What concerns could the OP have in this situation that warrants the intervention of the police? If in doubt, go through the insurance company and allow them to investigate. That's all the police will tell her to do.

If your hinting at the other driver may want to settle outside of the insurance company because he has no insurance - then the OP can get a check performed for £4.

http://www.askmid.com/

InsideInsurance

hollydays wrote: »

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..

So? The police will still tell them its a civil matter and that they should pass it to their insurers. If they dont want to pass it to their insurers then its for them to deal with.

The police dont become free civil law advice etc for those that decide they dont want to use their insurers.

Whilst I understand the theory of what you are trying to say you will simply not get the police interested in the matter and they will continue to tell you to inform your insurers.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

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.

If anyone is in a hole and continuing to dig, its certainly not me.

Clearly not for you, as you still harp on that the police can perform checks for the flimsiest of reasons. Ive been subject of many random PNC audits in the past where you have to explain your reasons for performing the check and then get a higher officer to assess whether the check was relevant. It then gets sent back and the reasons assessed again.

Your really struggling to understand that an accident that has complied with S170 of the RTC requires no intervention by the police and as such no checks. There is also no intel to be gained from this situation.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

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

There we go again. Editing your reply 6 minutes later to add the bit in bold.

Yup, unauthorised, as carrying out PNC checks or local checks on someone in this situation isnt relevant.

Certain criteria is used, a handy acronym used in law enforcement is JAPAN.

Justified
Authorised
Proportionate
Auditable
Necessary

I'll continue talking from experience, i'll allow you to continue talking from whichever orifice you see fit

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

There we go again. Editing your reply 6 minutes later to add the bit in bold.

Yup, unauthorised, as carrying out PNC checks or local checks on someone in this situation isnt relevant.

Certain criteria is used, a handy acronym used in law enforcement is JAPAN.

Justified
Authorised
Proportionate
Auditable
Necessary



I'll continue talking from experience, i'll allow you to continue talking from whichever orifice you see fit

Exactly. Lone female in collision with a male who tries to get money out of her. No justification at all there is there?:rotfl:
Go back to your desk.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Exactly. Lone female in collision with a male who tries to get money out of her. No justification at all there is there?:rotfl:
Go back to your desk.

Clutching at straws it seems. Nope, no justification at all.

Lone female in very minor car accident. Details exchanged. Male offers to settle outside of insurance.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Clutching at straws it seems. Nope, no justification at all.

Lone female in very minor car accident. Details exchanged. Male offers to settle outside of insurance.

Male has a string of convictions for fraud.

hollydays

And driving while disqualified.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Male has a string of convictions for fraud.

Ah, the making stuff up to fit your argument stage.

Completely and totally irrelevant to the current discussion. In which case if the OP goes via her insurance company, then the other drivers vehicle will have to undegro an inspection.