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

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

And driving while disqualified.

And again, something that will be picked up via the insurance company.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

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.

You or I don't know about the man.
That's the point I'm making.

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

You or I don't know about the man.
That's the point I'm making.

I dont know anything about the person I buy stuff off on ebay, dosent mean I phone the police and ask whether the items are stolen or obtained via fraud.

George_Michael

hollydays wrote: »

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 .

Not legally they don't.



Requesting checks on the PNC
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Once you are satisfied there is a genuine need to make a PNC check and you have enough details of the suspect you must submit the check the request as below: [/FONT][/FONT]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275136/PNC.pdf

Notice the important bits?
"genuine need" and "suspect". Police records can't be accessed on a whim for "pretty much who they like".

hollydays

You can't say I'm making it up. He may have.

hollydays

George_Michael wrote: »

Not legally they don't.



Requesting checks on the PNC
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Once you are satisfied there is a genuine need to make a PNC check and you have enough details of the suspect you must submit the check the request as below: [/FONT][/FONT]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/275136/PNC.pdf

Notice the important bits?
"genuine need" and "suspect". Police records can't be accessed on a whim for "pretty much who they like".

Correct we've been here already
Could you give an example of a sensible request they would turn down.
If your talking" I want to check who that woman is because I fancy her" -I think we can all agree that's the " pretty much" I was talking about?

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

I dont know anything about the person I buy stuff off on ebay, dosent mean I phone the police and ask whether the items are stolen or obtained via fraud.

ebay?
I think we've already established that that information is data protected.

hollydays

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

And again, something that will be picked up via the insurance company.[/QUOTE

Of course.

There is big difference between people who like to quote big tranches of the law, but actually have no experience of the practical application of it, and the police who do!

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

And again, something that will be picked up via the insurance company.[/QUOTE

Of course.

There is big difference between people who like to quote big tranches of the law, but actually have no experience of the practical application of it, and the police who do!

Sorry, you lost me with the last part. What are you referring to?

So your saying, everyone that is involved in a RTC and exchange details, should still contact the police incase the other driver has previous convictions for fraud or no driving licence?

powerful_Rogue

hollydays wrote: »

Correct we've been here already
Could you give an example of a sensible request they would turn down.
If your talking" I want to check who that woman is because I fancy her" -I think we can all agree that's the " pretty much" I was talking about?

And weve been over this numerous times already.

No crime has been committed, S170 RTA has been complied with. Its not a police issue. Its not justified, proportionate or necessary to do a check on the other driver. Its for the insurance company to deal with now.