Accused of being in a car accident obtaining CCTV

BykerSands

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

You might also want to report this to Action Fraud

http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/report_fraud

No, just don't.

EdGasket

Why should the OP pass on fraudulent claims to the insurer? Surely if there is nothing to answer he could defend it without involving insurance if it ever went to court. Why get lumbered with declaring the incident for the next 5 years? The worry is that insurers will just settle because that is cheapest for them.

Sounds like the claiment got phoned up and pursuaded they have whiplash from an incidend they never actually had!

Quentin

EdGasket wrote: »

Why should the OP pass on fraudulent claims to the insurer?....

Mainly to cut out the hassle, and to stop you making matters worse. Your insurer has the right to handle all claims against you, otherwise you lose the right to have them pay if it's needed.


But also to comply with your policy conditions (which will "forbid" you from rejecting any claims against you)

Keep_pedalling

BykerSands wrote: »

No, just don't.

Would you like to expand on why?

EdGasket

Quentin wrote: »

Mainly to cut out the hassle, and to stop you making matters worse. Your insurer has the right to handle all claims against you, otherwise you lose the right to have them pay if it's needed.


But also to comply with your policy conditions (which will "forbid" you from rejecting any claims against you)

Well you look at it from a technical angle and assume all parties behave as they should. But what happens if the insurer fails to make any response within the 14 days or worse still denies receiving anything or generally just makes a hash of dealing with it? What if they decide to pay up because that is simplest for them and hey ho, it's not their no-claim bonus that is affected? Might have wished you had dealt with it yourself then.

stokesley

EdGasket wrote: »

Why should the OP pass on fraudulent claims to the insurer? Surely if there is nothing to answer he could defend it without involving insurance if it ever went to court. Why get lumbered with declaring the incident for the next 5 years? The worry is that insurers will just settle because that is cheapest for them.

Well, in my case, as I've said before, my insurer sent a photographer round to photograph my car; this exonerated me, I still have my no claims, and don't need to declare my mythical accident.

Marktheshark

Someone making a fraudulent claim to obtain monitory gain is covered by the fraud act 2006 section 2 "making a false declaration"
If it is the intention to obtain pecuniary advantage by that false statement or declaration against a person then the OP is a victim of attempted fraud.

The police are going large on insurance fraud at the moment and I would report it as attempted fraud, obtain a crime number, demand they seize the cctv and prosecute the person making the false declaration.

An offence under the fraud act 2006 is not a civil matter it is criminal and carries a custodial prison sentence.

narabanekeater

i'm happy to update this. The petrol station does not have CCTV. The paperwork has been sent to our insurance who are also sending someone to look at the car. My Oh has also been to the police who have given him a ref number to give our motor insurance. The thing that strikes me as bazaar is that to date we've had no claim forms from the 3rd parties solicitors. As it is a term and condition of insurance policies to inform them of any 'accident' id assume that the 3rd party has done so but we have had no papers. Or if they have simply gone to the no win no fee solicitors they havent adhered to their motor insurance policy in not letting them know.The alleged incident happened last Monday and the date on the letters from the no win no fee solicitors we have had are 2 days later. As for the diagnoses of whiplash I question this as no medical advise has been sought so how can a non medically qualified person diagnose whiplash

Quentin

You are adding 2 + 2 but getting 5.


(Your OP does say you got correspondence from the other side's solicitors which included details of the claim??)


When you are involved in a claim that you are making directly against the third party then there is no reason for the "guilty" third party to get two claims in (ie one from the individual (or his solicitor as you have) and another from his insurer - as the insurer has no claim to make!)


(In any case it's academic whether or not the other side complies with their insurance policy - or indeed whether or not they even have insurance - it doesn't make any difference to you!)

LABMAN

Is this a wee privately owned petrol station? I'm somewhat surprised that there's no CCTV to be honest. In the absence of proof which includes the fact there is absolutely no damage to your car the claimant will struggle to have a realistic claim. I suggest your OH does not even admit to being there. Let your insurance deal with it...that's what you pay them for.