false car insurance claim made against me

a.turner

lumixldn wrote: »

Is the fact that you received a call talking about you potential involvement in to a car accident not be considered as an incident to report to insurer based on what you interpret the T&C?

No because they've got no evidence you even own a car. Those calls are at best dubious practice on behalf of the law firms involved.

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

That isn't how the calls initiate though is it?
On your logic, you have an accident on a roundabout, as you believe the other person was at fault, then you do not inform the insurer since it's just another dink on your car?

I think you mentioned above the fact that have an accident and I am aware of it is the key, in this case I will definitely contact my insurer no matter who I think it is at fault.

However, in my case, I am not aware of any accidents on the day, simply receive a note won't be an incident to report to insurer as far as I'm concern.

lumixldn

a.turner wrote: »

No because they've got no evidence you even own a car. Those calls are at best dubious practice on behalf of the law firms involved.

Well they can search the policy or credit database (if you opt in for it) or pay the car database to get the car owners telephone to do target calls. I don't think we can simply assume they don't have evidence then not reported to insurer based on your logic.

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

I think you mentioned above the fact that have an accident and I am aware of it is the key, in this case I will definitely contact my insurer no matter who I think it is at fault.

However, in my case, I am not aware of any accidents on the day, simply receive a note won't be an incident to report to insurer as far as I'm concern.

Never mind what you think, if I have mentioned it , then refer to the post number.
Even in the post you think you read, accident wasn't mentioned, incident which may lead to a claim against the policyholder was.
The written note according to you wasn't a writ as it was not sealed etc, yet you decided to respond to the details on the 'writ' entering into a debate about the details around the incident. The other party believed thought that you as the driver of the vehicle caused their property some damage and negates the 'scam' as they have esculated it via the authorities.

a.turner

lumixldn wrote: »

Well they can search the policy or credit database (if you opt in for it) or pay the car database to get the car owners telephone to do target calls. I don't think we can simply assume they don't have evidence then not reported to insurer based on your logic.

They have your name and phone number bought from any mailing list not necessarily anything to do with motoring.

I doubt the MIB or DVLA entertain them and share anything.

lumixldn

a.turner wrote: »

They have your name and phone number bought from any mailing list not necessarily anything to do with motoring.

I doubt the MIB or DVLA entertain them and share anything.

It could be, for example, the car loan company or motor insurance company (a lot of people opt in)

DUTR

lumixldn wrote: »

It could be, for example, the car loan company or motor insurance company (a lot of people opt in)

They randomly phone numbers the same with the computer virus thing, my dad doesn't have or ever owned a car (or computer) and he gets these types of calls.

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

Never mind what you think, if I have mentioned it , then refer to the post number.
Even in the post you think you read, accident wasn't mentioned, incident which may lead to a claim against the policyholder was.
The written note according to you wasn't a writ as it was not sealed etc, yet you decided to respond to the details on the 'writ' entering into a debate about the details around the incident. The other party believed thought that you as the driver of the vehicle caused their property some damage and negates the 'scam' as they have esculated it via the authorities.

In my post i mentioned the T&C just state incident but not "incident which may lead to a claim against the policyholder".

Any random party can have escalated any 'incident' via the authorities if they want to, not even need to have any conversation to the other imaginary party. What matter is the facts and evidence. Should I not return the call on the day to deny existence of such incident, I would probably get the same false claim.

lumixldn

DUTR wrote: »

They randomly phone numbers the same with the computer virus thing, my dad doesn't have or ever owned a car (or computer) and he gets these types of calls.

As you said:

You may not think a certain way as and when it suits you.

I think we are way off the topic here

a.turner

lumixldn wrote: »

It could be, for example, the car loan company or motor insurance company (a lot of people opt in)

If it suits you to think that way carry on.