Non fault accident, driver failed to stop...

Quentin

Kirsty.victoria wrote: »

I will probably instruct a solicitor if I have no luck with TP insurers.......

You both do need to get your own legal representative to deal with your PI claims - you can see the conflict of interest were you to rely on the TP insurer to deal with your injury compensation.

Kirsty.victoria

I would much rather go through the TP insurance at this stage, however I think they will take time admitting liability especially if they have only just been notified of the crash.

The pressing issue for me is having a car to drive and this is what is swaying me towards AMC. I will contact TP again tomorrow if I hear nothing and I will then approach an AMC.

I will of course seek legal advice regarding personal injury, however I will definitely not rush into any settlements until I have an idea of potential long term damage. My pain is being reasonably managed by diazepam and codeine at the moment but these are only very short term.

Thanks everyone!

Aretnap

arcon5 wrote: »

It's my understanding if the car was stolen and the insurer is unable to identify the driver then they are liable to third parties legally anyway.... irrespective of what the policy holder may think of that.

Not quite.

If the driver CAN be identified then the third party insurer is obliged to pay, even though the car was stolen (though the procedure for forcing them to pay can be a little convoluted).

If the driver CANNOT be identified then the third party insurer cannot be required to pay, and it falls to the MIB to compensate the innocent party under the Untraced Drivers Agreement.

Aretnap

Kirsty.victoria wrote: »

I will of course seek legal advice regarding personal injury, however I will definitely not rush into any settlements until I have an idea of potential long term damage.

Very wise. However you can start the ball rolling with a solicitor while you're waiting to find out whether there's any long term damage.

My pain is being reasonably managed by diazepam and codeine at the moment but these are only very short term.

Speak to your doctor before driving while you're taking either of those drugs. And get well soon.

missile

Kirsty.victoria wrote: »

That is indeed what I meant. I did intend to contact TP insurance but I think if they haven't been in touch already then they are disputing liability (possibly on the grounds that the car was nicked)

As far as we were concerned, we reported the accident promptly and gave the police all the information they required. Perhaps we should have called 999 however there were no immediate life threatening injuries, plus we were both in shock. The fact that multiple patrol cars witnessed the collision and didn't stop suggested it wasn't a 'police emergency'

It has only been 5 days and if your insurers are as slow as mine they will have done nothing. 3rd party insurers will wait until they hear from their insured. You have nothing to loose by contacting TP insurers. The sooner you know if car was stolen / owner disputes liability the better?


Police will rarely attend an incident where no one is injured, too much paperwork. However, if you ask them, they ought to follow up a driver who did not stop / report the incident.


Under 25, you may have difficulty getting a hire car via ACM?
If you do decide to use an ACM company, be sure to read the small print before you sign any contract.

dacouch

Aretnap wrote: »

Not quite.

If the driver CAN be identified then the third party insurer is obliged to pay, even though the car was stolen (though the procedure for forcing them to pay can be a little convoluted).

If the driver CANNOT be identified then the third party insurer cannot be required to pay, and it falls to the MIB to compensate the innocent party under the Untraced Drivers Agreement.

The MIB may pass it back to the Insurer to deal with as an Article 75 Insurer to pay under the umbrella of the MIB but out of the Insurers funds

Astronaughtwannabe

Kirsty.victoria wrote: »

I would much rather go through the TP insurance at this stage, however I think they will take time admitting liability especially if they have only just been notified of the crash.

The pressing issue for me is having a car to drive and this is what is swaying me towards AMC. I will contact TP again tomorrow if I hear nothing and I will then approach an AMC.

I will of course seek legal advice regarding personal injury, however I will definitely not rush into any settlements until I have an idea of potential long term damage. My pain is being reasonably managed by diazepam and codeine at the moment but these are only very short term.

Thanks everyone!

Lots of anecdotes on here.

Best advice given at post #29

You'd be best advised, given the circumstances, NOT to wait for the third party insurer to make an offer. Their investigations will probably take a while and any driver who has done a runner will be quite capable of giving their insurer the runaround - so don't expect an expedient settlement.

Take your own legal advice. There's no reason that you will be left without transport.

Tilt

For future reference (and for the benefit of anyone else) the police MUST be requested to attend RTCs involving injuries. They can also be saked to attend RTCs resulting from a traffic offence being committed BUT they have been known to fob people off on that one. A good tip is to tell them that the road is blocked.

As for the OP's predicament, well this should be pretty straight forward (assuming the information is accurate). If the OP has fully comp insurance then under the circumstances, the insurers should be fighting his/he corner by getting their policy holder back on the road asap. However, a hire car is an 'uninsured loss' which means the cost (unless written in the policy) is initially the responsibility of the OP who then should claim the cost directly from the TP. At the very least the OP's insurers should be advising him/her accordingly but as usual, you only find out how good (or bad) your insurers are in situations like this.

Quentin

Tilt wrote: »

For future reference (and for the benefit of anyone else) the police MUST be requested to attend RTCs involving injuries........

No. This is incorrect.


You don't have to request the police attend an incident where injury is involved at all.

Tilt

Quentin wrote: »

No. This is incorrect.


You don't have to request the police attend an incident where injury is involved at all.

Actually I didn't put it correctly. I should of said "must be reported" rather than "requested to attend".