Advice needed please - honesty over accident

ally18

She doesnt, that will be a relief as her excess is 500.

ilikewatch

ally18 wrote: »

Quote £325 which we were willing to pay. We just wanted to make sure her damage was repaired thats why we asked for the photo and a copy of the paid invoice.

I really dislike this attitude - does it matter what they spend the money on as long as the amount is reasonable considering the damage caused by your daughters negligence?

A few years ago some dozy teenager ran into the back of me - I told them that I'd be happy to take £200 cash instead of claiming from their insurance to which they agreed. Later that night, dad came round kicking off because he could repair it for £60 with a used bumper from eBay. Needless to say, I ended up deciding to get it repaired through an approved body shop, which necessitated 2 weeks car hire and £1K+ in parts and paint. Doubtless this cost them considerably more than £200 over the next 5 years in increased premiums.

Hermione_Granger

ChumLee wrote: »

I think if you check the road traffic act she is as they're asking for it. Or else your comment about pursuing her through the court is irrelevant.

There is no requirement in the RTA to give insurance details to another driver.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
All you have to give them is your name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle's registration number.

You have to give insurance details to the police if they request it but not to other drivers.

ChumLee

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

There is no requirement in the RTA to give insurance details to another driver.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
All you have to give them is your name and address, the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle's registration number.

You have to give insurance details to the police if they request it but not to other drivers.

Try again, that's at the scene and you've even contradicted the legislation you've provided in the link.

EdGasket

ilikewatch wrote: »

I really dislike this attitude - does it matter what they spend the money on as long as the amount is reasonable considering the damage caused by your daughters negligence?

Why? The OP is paying them good money to get their car repaired so surely they are entitled to see that it has been repaired if they want? Why should the TP profit out of it? Usually though you simply ask the injured party to sign to say that it is in full and finall settlement and that no further claim would be made.

colino

Pay up now and think yourself lucky. Clearly your daughter is trying to avoid the immediate hike, and for several years, that a new driver would get on their insurance by going direct. She has done £325 of damage, "which we were willing to pay" so what business do you think it is of yours what the wronged driver does with their compensation?
Funny how perpetrators only have, "slight accident"(s) which miraculously cause, "no damage to her car". Perhaps the other driver will now refuse you the soft option and force you through insurance if the other damage you claim was there was caused by other belligerent, new drivers. There is a very good reason that insurance is so high for new drivers.

ilikewatch

EdGasket wrote: »

Why? The OP is paying them good money to get their car repaired so surely they are entitled to see that it has been repaired if they want? Why should the TP profit out of it? Usually though you simply ask the injured party to sign to say that it is in full and finall settlement and that no further claim would be made.

As long as the quote is accurate then the TP wouldn't "profit" from it - they have suffered £x worth of damage due to someone else's negligence, they then receive £x to compensate them.for this.

Joe_Horner

ChumLee wrote: »

Try again, that's at the scene and you've even contradicted the legislation you've provided in the link.

Nope, HG is right in the case of non-injury accidents. The requirement to produce insurance only attaches to s.170(1)(a) - an accident where personal injury is caused to someone other than the driver - through s.170(5). A damage only accident, under s.170(1)(b), has no such requirement.

ChumLee

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Nope, HG is right in the case of non-injury accidents. The requirement to produce insurance only attaches to s.170(1)(a) - an accident where personal injury is caused to someone other than the driver - through s.170(5). A damage only accident, under s.170(1)(b), has no such requirement.

And you're sure about that are you?

Cornucopia

The difficulty is in knowing whether (at the scene) there is injury or not.