Advice needed please - honesty over accident

ChumLee

Cornucopia wrote: »

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

I don't think you can injure and unattended vehicle but Joe Horner obviously hasn't read I posted at the scene before he jumped in with both feet obviously misunderstanding the road traffic act and referring to section 170.

Joe_Horner

ChumLee wrote: »

I don't think you can injure and unattended vehicle but Joe Horner obviously hasn't read I posted at the scene before he jumped in with both feet obviously misunderstanding the road traffic act and referring to section 170.

No, I haven't misunderstood it at all. You're thinking of S.154, but that only applies when a claim is made and "on demand by or on behalf of the person making the claim".

Since, initially, the owner of the other car hadn't demanded insurance details, there was no offence committed by not giving them. This sub-thread grew out of your post:

ChumLee wrote: »

Yes, you can't force the innocent third party into having the repair done for cash. If he's asking for insurance details she must provide them before she commits any further offences.

and the fact that she hadn't committed any previous offence for there to be a further one added to. In that context, there was no requirement for her to provide insurance details unless they were asked for, which they hadn't been.

If you wish to change the context to suit your inaccurate post above then that's up to you but don't be surprised when people spot what you're trying to do

ChumLee

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, I haven't misunderstood it at all. You're thinking of S.154, but that only applies when a claim is made and "on demand by or on behalf of the person making the claim".

Since, initially, the owner of the other car hadn't demanded insurance details, there was no offence committed by not giving them. This sub-thread grew out of your post:



and the fact that she hadn't committed any previous offence for there to be a further one added to. In that context, there was no requirement for her to provide insurance details unless they were asked for, which they hadn't been.

If you wish to change the context to suit your inaccurate post above then that's up to you but don't be surprised when people spot what you're trying to do

So now you've done your research you accept there is a requirement to provide insurance when there is no injury?

And while you're on saying no offence has been committed can you show me where leaving a note on the windscreen in mentioned in the road traffic act?

Joe_Horner

ChumLee wrote: »

So now you've done your research you accept there is a requirement to provide insurance when there is no injury?

And while you're on saying no offence has been committed can you show me where leaving a note on the windscreen in mentioned in the road traffic act?

Didn't need to "research" it but, unlike you, I'm able to hold a whole thread in my head at one time rather than only remembering the bit I'm trying to troll at that moment. Hence giving the correct advice that in the context it arose there was no need to give insurance in the absence of injury. As I said, you can try to change the context in your trolling efforts if you want but it'll be noticed

As for leaving a note, not a problem. You're required under s.170(2) to stop and give name and address details to anyone with reasonable grounds to have them. In this case that would be the owner of the other car.

The Act doesn't specify how you give those details and there's a basic principle in English law that everything which is not forbidden is allowed, so the law doesn't need to mention notes on windscreens for them to be acceptable - indeed, it should only mention them (to forbid them) if they're not allowed!

A note (clearly received by the owner because they made contact) means that the details were given. Not only that, in order to place a note on the screen she must have stopped. So no offence occurred because bot requirements - to stop and to give the details - were met.

Had she left a note that got removed, or rained on, or blew away, then there might be grounds for an offence because the details wouldn't be received but that's not the case here.

Try again..... :rotfl:

Mercdriver

My word the constant bickering in these threads really helps the OPs so much...

ChumLee

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Didn't need to "research" it but, unlike you, I'm able to hold a whole thread in my head at one time rather than only remembering the bit I'm trying to troll at that moment. Hence giving the correct advice that in the context it arose there was no need to give insurance in the absence of injury. As I said, you can try to change the context in your trolling efforts if you want but it'll be noticed

As for leaving a note, not a problem. You're required under s.170(2) to stop and give name and address details to anyone with reasonable grounds to have them. In this case that would be the owner of the other car.

The Act doesn't specify how you give those details and there's a basic principle in English law that everything which is not forbidden is allowed, so the law doesn't need to mention notes on windscreens for them to be acceptable - indeed, it should only mention them (to forbid them) if they're not allowed!

A note (clearly received by the owner because they made contact) means that the details were given. Not only that, in order to place a note on the screen she must have stopped. So no offence occurred because bot requirements - to stop and to give the details - were met.

Had she left a note that got removed, or rained on, or blew away, then there might be grounds for an offence because the details wouldn't be received but that's not the case here.

Try again..... :rotfl:

I think someone ie you needs to read section 170 again as no one required her to provide the details so it should have been reported. :;)

straighttalker

Think yourself lucky that he's only asking for £325. If I were you, I'd pay it and that will be the end of the whole episode.

It doesn't matter whether he uses the money to repair the car or not. The alternative is he goes to your daughter's insurance and she has a claim against her for the next five years. This will cost more than the £325 you are paying now.

Even insurer's themselves offer cash in lieu of repair payments so the aggrieved party can spend the money on whatever they want.

Zandoni

straighttalker wrote: »

Think yourself lucky that he's only asking for £325. If I were you, I'd pay it and that will be the end of the whole episode.

It doesn't matter whether he uses the money to repair the car or not. The alternative is he goes to your daughter's insurance and she has a claim against her for the next five years. This will cost more than the £325 you are paying now.

Even insurer's themselves offer cash in lieu of repair payments so the aggrieved party can spend the money on whatever they want.

Agree 100% best to pay the money. Make sure you get a receipt which states that it's a full settlement for the damage.

jbainbridge

It's got nothing to do with you if they get the work done or not. As has been said get a receipt saying it is full and final settlement.

George_Michael

I agree.
When talking about bodywork repairs, £325 doesn't go very far nowadays and whether the car owner uses the money to get their vehicle repaired or simply keeps it in their pocket in order to cover the slight drop in value of their motor because of the damage is irrelevant.
Pay them the money ensuring that a "full and final" receipt is received.