Had an accident, it turns out I'm not insured, it wasn't my fault

GDB2222

AndyMc..... wrote: »

But if the car park is a public place how do you suggests he gets round their request to provide insurance details?

It clearly was a public space, and he doesn't have insurance, so he can't give them insurance details. So, all he can do is just say he's dealing with it himself. Not ideal, but what else can he do?

Hopefully, he now has insurance, but I'm not betting on that.

He reverses into another car and then denies it's his fault. Plus it's not his fault he's uninsured. Plus he can't afford to pay for the damage. (Not his fault, natch.) So, he's in deep, deep trouble, but possibly there's a tiny bit of wriggle room? I agree it's probably grasping at straws.

On the plus side for him, insurance companies are just interested in dealing with claims as efficiently as possible. Reporting drivers to the police is time-consuming and not part of the remit. Just so long as he doesn't get somebody's back up by ignoring their letters.

2357

As an innocent party who got hit by a negligent driver, my insurers and my claims management car were able to tell me immediately who the at fault driver was insured with. There's no way the innocent third party here and their insurers will not have realised what's going on.
The more the at fault party makes life difficult for the unlucky innocent party the more they are likely to make sure he doesn't get away with what he's done in my opinion.
Initially I hadn't thought of reporting the driver in my case to the police but after 8 weeks of him being obstructive I'd had a little time to do some research and discovered that his negligence constituted dangerous driving therefore I did report him. If he'd admitted it and my car had been repaired quickly I'd never have done so much digging on road traffic law.

2357

As an innocent party who got hit by a negligent driver, my insurers and my claims management company were able to tell me immediately who the at fault driver was insured with. There's no way the innocent third party here and their insurers will not have realised what's going on.
The more the at fault party makes life difficult for the unlucky innocent party the more they are likely to make sure he doesn't get away with what he's done in my opinion.
Initially I hadn't thought of reporting the driver in my case to the police but after 8 weeks of him being obstructive I'd had a little time to do some research and discovered that his negligence constituted dangerous driving therefore I did report him. If he'd admitted it and my car had been repaired quickly I'd never have done so much digging on road traffic law.

Retrogamer

AndyMc..... wrote: »

But if the car park is a public place how do you suggests he gets round their request to provide insurance details?

Although there is a legal obligation to have insurance in this instance, there is no obligation to provide insurance details unless someone is injured.

alchemist.1

GDB2222 wrote: »

It clearly was a public space, and he doesn't have insurance, so he can't give them insurance details. So, all he can do is just say he's dealing with it himself. Not ideal, but what else can he do?

Hopefully, he now has insurance, but I'm not betting on that.

He reverses into another car and then denies it's his fault. Plus it's not his fault he's uninsured. Plus he can't afford to pay for the damage. (Not his fault, natch.) So, he's in deep, deep trouble, but possibly there's a tiny bit of wriggle room? I agree it's probably grasping at straws.

On the plus side for him, insurance companies are just interested in dealing with claims as efficiently as possible. Reporting drivers to the police is time-consuming and not part of the remit. Just so long as he doesn't get somebody's back up by ignoring their letters.

You're grasping at straws. They would just ask the their insured to do it /if not a template letter.

AndyMc.....

Retrogamer wrote: »

Although there is a legal obligation to have insurance in this instance, there is no obligation to provide insurance details unless someone is injured.

Section 154 of the road traffic act says otherwise.

lisyloo

AndyMc..... wrote: »

And that's why I said if it were private, which a supermarket car park is not. It would be irrelevant how they got there if it were private as that is where the accident occurred.

Supermarket car parks are usually private land and not part of the public highway, they are however a public place. So privately owned land can be a public place.

In the context of an accident claim I agree it wouldn't matter.
In the context of a police prosecution the yes it would be beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle never went on public road I.e. Would have to have stayed in the supermarket car park. I think the supermarket could dispute that if the police choose to pursue it.

AndyMc.....

lisyloo wrote: »

Supermarket car parks are usually private land and not part of the public highway, they are however a public place. So privately owned land can be a public place.

In the context of an accident claim I agree it wouldn't matter.
In the context of a police prosecution the yes it would be beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle never went on public road I.e. Would have to have stayed in the supermarket car park. I think the supermarket could dispute that if the police choose to pursue it.

The supermarket couldn't dispute it, their car park is a public place and you'd need insurance.

Retrogamer

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Section 154 of the road traffic act says otherwise.

So it does!

lisyloo

I agree he needs insurance.
People saying you don't on private land are talking about private places (like private farms) not public places.