Do i need to claim this when i take out my car insurance?

skyflyer_91

A year ago my car insurance at the time had to pay out for crash i never had, this was because the other party claimed from my insurance.

There was a witness who quoted my registration plate bumping into a car and driving off, the car owner not there only the witness who later left my registration plate details with the car owner when they returned
The car owner claimed on my insurance even though i refused to pay because i was adamant that i was not driving the car at the time and day (i had a signed register to say i was at university at that time of day - the exact time of the incident i was in class) i left the incurance company that year because i was not happy about their service and how even though i refused to pay until it was settled in civil court they still paid the damages for the other car.

My case went to court and i was found not guilty, there was not sufficient evidence of me being the driver and the case was dropped.

So please someone tell me even though i was found not guilty of the incident do i still need to claim this as i was found as not even being there at the time and not driving the car.

Please help

Quentin

Your court appearance is irrelevant (presumably mags not civil).

You will have this claim on your record (and presumably this claim impacted your ncd)

Until you can get it removed then you do need to disclose the claim. (Whatever the result of your poll)

(As you were found liable in the county court getting this overturned is not going to be straightforward!)

Spicy_McHaggis

You need to clarify you stood trial at a magistrates court.

Quentin

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

You need to clarify you stood trial at a magistrates court.

The op was found liable in the county court and that is the court case that needs overturning to get this off his record.

As posted ( assuming this was a decision made after a hearing) this won't be straightforward!

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

The op was found liable in the county court and that is the court case that needs overturning to get this off his record.

As posted ( assuming this was a decision made after a hearing) this won't be straightforward!

Have to say that wasnt my interpretation.

Sounds like the OP was charged with a criminal offence, presumably something like leaving the scene of an accident, but was found not guilty.

The insurer decided to settle the TP claim on the strength of the independent witness.


To the OP - civil and criminal law has different hurdle rates, for criminal law it is "beyond reasonable doubt" but for civil law its only "on the balance of probability". It is therefore possible for you to be found not guilty of a crime but liable for the consequences of said crime because you probably did but it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that you did.

As things stand, you have a fault claim against you and it would need to be declared. If you disagree with how your insurers handled it then register a complaint and escalate to the FOS if you are still unhappy afterwards and you may get the claim struck off but it'll take time to resolve.

Aretnap

If your insurance company paid out then a claim was made on your policy so yes, you have to declare it.

If you were subsequently acquitted in a criminal trial that's great, but it doesn't change the fact that the claim was made - and paid.

patman99

I would suggest re-reding the op's first post.
He states that 'i refused to pay until it was settled in civil court they still paid the damages for the other car'.

So, at this point, no Court action had been taken.

Then, he states 'My case went to court and i was found not guilty, there was not sufficient evidence of me being the driver and the case was dropped'.
So, he was not found liable by a Court.

I would contact the insurer responsible & ask them to reclaim the money as it has been found in Court that he is not liable and as such, the money was paid-out incorrectly.
If they refuse, then he could look at putting-in a claim for the extra costs he has/will incurr as a result of their negligence.

tberry6686

So, he was not found liable by a Court.

Can you point out where a court said he was not liable. All I can see is that the op was found not guilty of a driving offence. Nothing that says he was not liable.

Norman_Castle

tberry6686 wrote: »

Can you point out where a court said he was not liable. All I can see is that the op was found not guilty of a driving offence. Nothing that says he was not liable.

My case went to court and i was found not guilty, there was not sufficient evidence of me being the driver and the case was dropped.

So please someone tell me even though i was found not guilty of the incident do i still need to claim this as i was found as not even being there at the time and not driving the car.

Unlikely to be liable if you're not there.
OP Why were you in court?.

Aretnap

The OP said "not guilty" which is a verdict in a criminal court and completely separate from the issue of civil liability - the standards of proof are different for one thing. It's entirely possible for the criminal case to be dropped because there was insufficient evidence that he was the driver, and for him still to be wholly liable for the damage.

It's possible that he's getting his terms confused of course, but so far nothing he's said suggests that his insurers were wrong to pay the claim.

neilmcl

He also says his case was dropped so how could he be given a verdict, not guilty or otherwise.

OP, I think you need to come back and clarify some details.