Accident, can i claim??

lucan0606

I was involved in a car accident where technically it was my fault (although i believe the other driver was speeding). I have 3rd party fire and theft. The other driver has claimed vehicle hire through my insurance company - bit is claiming through his for the car damage. My main concern is that the number plate he was displaying was not legal - the reg number does not show up as any car and has no tax/mot/allocation to a car since 2010 (i assume he has it on retention but uses it? the reg and car was on the drivers MID database only. As he was legally not meant to be on the road - can i make any claim against my losses based on him being on the road against the law? there were no injuries for either of us. Rgds. Lawrence

spadoosh

If its your fault it doesnt matter what they do or dont have. You caused them losses and as such they should be recompensed. Its up to the police if they wish to take issue with the legalities of the vehicle.

This is exactly why you have insurance. You pay them to sort this stuff out, let them. Its not your job, you dont have the expertise and in all honesty you'd probably do a worse job of handling it than your insurer.

lucan0606

Thanks, pity.. i was only 3rd party F+T!!

Aretnap

No, to make a claim against him you have to prove that the accident resulted from negligence on his part - which usually means bad driving. You can't claim simply because his car was untaxed or somesuch, unless you could somehow show that the lack of tax directly caused the collision.

It's not enough to say "well if his car was untaxed he shoudln't have been on the road". In fact if he'd got his credit card out and taxed his car before he set off the accident would still have happened in exactly the same way - so his lawbreaking didn't contribute to the accident at all.

He might still find himself being fined for driving an untaxed car - but that's a separate matter from his civil claim against you for negligence. Its the same deal if you drive into the back of someone at traffic lights and it turns out that the driver is drunk - he gets banned for drink driving, but you (or your insurer) still end up with the bill for the damage.

Quentin

Although the third party is only so far claiming his uninsured losses from you (your insurer), and has used his own policy for repairs it is your insurer who will end up paying the lot!

trailingspouse

When I first started work, in the claims department of a well-known insurer, it was explained to me that 'Just because someone has done something wrong, you don't have a God-given right to hit them'.

Whether that's parking somewhere outrageous (in the example above, my client had hit someone who was parked on a roundabout, and was trying to claim that they were partly responsible), or not having all the right paperwork, you still shouldn't hit them.

angrycrow

This is why tpft cover is a really bad idea. You may well have paid more for tpft than you could have paid for comp.

debtdebt

"Technically" it was your fault. So it WAS your fault? Come on OP, I need cheering up, tell us the accident circumstances.

Tilt

lucan0606 wrote: »

I was involved in a car accident where technically it was my fault (although i believe the other driver was speeding). I have 3rd party fire and theft. The other driver has claimed vehicle hire through my insurance company - bit is claiming through his for the car damage. My main concern is that the number plate he was displaying was not legal - the reg number does not show up as any car and has no tax/mot/allocation to a car since 2010 (i assume he has it on retention but uses it? the reg and car was on the drivers MID database only. As he was legally not meant to be on the road - can i make any claim against my losses based on him being on the road against the law? there were no injuries for either of us. Rgds. Lawrence

How? AFAIK he would have to go through his own insurance for that. Your insurers will only settle the claim once liability has been full established.

Moving onto the tax/mot status, IF the tp's car is showing as not having a current mot/tax, then under the continuous insurance/tax regs, then AFAIK his insurance would be invalid.

So how did you find out the number plate he was displaying was not legal? And what makes you think that you were at fault?

angrycrow

Tilt wrote: »

How? AFAIK he would have to go through his own insurance for that. Your insurers will only settle the claim once liability has been full established.

His own insurance would only pay hire if he has a hire add on on his policy. Far more likely his own insurers referred him onto a credit hire provider.

Tilt wrote: »

Moving onto the tax/mot status, IF the tp's car is showing as not having a current mot/tax, then under the continuous insurance/tax regs, then AFAIK his insurance would be invalid.

This statement is totally wrong. Tax is irrelevant to insurance. Lack of mot does not invalidate the insurance as long as the car was road worthy at the time of the accident.

Warwick_Hunt

Tilt wrote: »

Moving onto the tax/mot status, IF the tp's car is showing as not having a current mot/tax, then under the continuous insurance/tax regs, then AFAIK his insurance would be invalid.

No, you misunderstand that. If it’s taxed it must have insurance, it can be insured and sorn. The insurance would be valid and he commits the offences of no tax or mot in the given circumstances.

Unless of course you have evidence of a no insurance offence when driving an untaxed and unmot’d car to a prebooked mot test?