Was in a Car crash Accident today involving 4 cars?

Captaincodpiece

Tilt wrote: »

Which according to the RTA, is what needs to be done if the drivers havn't exchanged details, is it not? As I read it, both driver and owner had left the scene by the time the police arrived. So hopefully the OP informed the police that he/she didn't have the actual driver's details.

Follow me now?

Yeah, you're arguing for the sake of it.

Tilt

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Yeah, you're arguing for the sake of it.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::T:T:T:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Captaincodpiece

Tilt wrote: »

Which according to the RTA, is what needs to be done if the drivers havn't exchanged details, is it not? As I read it, both driver and owner had left the scene by the time the police arrived. So hopefully the OP informed the police that he/she didn't have the actual driver's details.

Follow me now?

Come on tilt you explain what needs to be done.

The op has had a crash and hasn't got the other drivers details. The police attended took a statement of evidence.

!!!!!! help us all follow you, because the RTA has been comlpied with as far as the OP is concerned.

arcon5

dacouch wrote: »

I'm sorry but you're wrong.

An Insurer is not liable under 151 if the policy does not provide cover for the use of the vehicle at the time of use by the uninsured driver eg using it to commute to work on a SDP only policy.

The above could also apply in certain circumstance if the car was stolen and was being used in a "prolonged criminal activity" by the thief then it's feasible for the Insurer to avoid being a section 151 Insurer.

I'll happily provide proof if you require

Okay, stop taking things out of context.

We know the vehicle WAS insured at the time of the incident. We don't know if the driver specifically was covered on the policy, but we do know the vehicle itself had a valid insurance policy in place at the time of the incident. It would only be if the driver at the time of the incident was unidentified that this would complication things as to the insurers obligations - but we already know that not to be the case here!

If you're saying somebody using a vehicle for commuting with only an SDP policy would enable to insurer to evade their obligations to a third party then feel free to provide proof. Rather than be obligued to cover third party obligations then pursue the policy holder for reimbursement.

dacouch

arcon5 wrote: »

Okay, stop taking things out of context.

We know the vehicle WAS insured at the time of the incident. We don't know if the driver specifically was covered on the policy, but we do know the vehicle itself had a valid insurance policy in place at the time of the incident. It would only be if the driver at the time of the incident was unidentified that this would complication things as to the insurers obligations - but we already know that not to be the case here!

If you're saying somebody using a vehicle for commuting with only an SDP policy would enable to insurer to evade their obligations to a third party then feel free to provide proof. Rather than be obligued to cover third party obligations then pursue the policy holder for reimbursement.

The reason for my original post on this matter was to echo Insideinsurance recommendation to not dob the driver in and risk complicating the matter. If Churchill realise they're a Section 151 Insurer they will stop the claim while they investigate the claim from their client's side. Insurers hate having to pay claims under the section 151 so they will go through their client with a fine tooth claim to see if they can void the policy from inception "Ab Initio" and avoid their obligations due to an intentional non disclosure. They will also look at all other possibilities for them to not have to pay.

As II recommended the easy method is to answer their questions truthfully but it would be fairly easy for it to not come up in conversation that the driver was not the the policyholder. This would be a lot easier than telling Churchill the driver was uninsured and risk the entire claim grinding to a halt,

The proof re the Insurers get out for the uninsured driver not complying to the policies use restrictions is contained in my link in post 86. If you read it you'll see the restriction I alluded to along with the other possible get out clauses for Insurers.

If you've ever seen an Insurers reaction to realising they have to pay a claim for a driver who is not a named driver on their policy and for whom they have not received the relevant premium and thus they're obliged under the RTA. You would not recommend someone in the OP's position eg TPF&T & by the sounds of it fairly skint and not that clued up on insurance if you had seen how Insurers react. Churchill have a fair amount of High Court cases where they challenge their obligations to pay unusual claims.

DirectDebacle

dacouch wrote: »

The reason for my original post on this matter was to echo Insideinsurance recommendation to not dob the driver in and risk complicating the matter.......

Interesting that you would recommend that crimes be concealed in order to simplify an insurance claim.

It would appear on the face of it that the driver and/or owner have possibly committed one or more of the following offences:

Careless driving.

Failing to stop after an accident.

Failing to report an accident.

Driving without insurance

Permitting another to drive without insurance

Fraud

Conspiracy

Not intended as an exhaustive list. More than likely this would be x3 as two other vehicles damaged in addition to the OP.

Tilt

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Interesting that you would recommend that crimes be concealed in order to simplify an insurance claim.

It would appear on the face of it that the driver and/or owner have possibly committed one or more of the following offences:

Careless driving.

Failing to stop after an accident.

Failing to report an accident.

Driving without insurance

Permitting another to drive without insurance

Fraud

Conspiracy

Not intended as an exhaustive list. More than likely this would be x3 as two other vehicles damaged in addition to the OP.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Captaincodpiece

Tilt wrote: »

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Maybe you should explain yourself a bit better because you only mentioned section 170 was it?

Tilt

Captaincodpiece wrote: »

Maybe you should explain yourself a bit better because you only mentioned section 170 was it?

Because it was the offence that stuck out a mile. The others are just possibilities that we don't know whether they were committed or not.

Captaincodpiece

Tilt wrote: »

Because it was the offence that stuck out a mile. The others are just possibilities that we don't know whether they were committed or not.

Odds are some others have but you had that offence in mind and it was addressed at the time because the police attended.