Car Accident Caused Injury

Shaun_of_the_Dead

AdrianC wrote: »

And one that may well render the policy effectively useless, should the misrepresentation come to light at claim time.

It'll certainly reduce it to third party only and they may come after you for costs.

Aretnap

Itsjustsammy19 wrote: »

So even though solicitors are involved do you think the worst that could happen is his premiums going up?

Presumably his premium has already gone up if it's been a year and his insurers have already paid out for the damage to the car(s). The injury claim is unlikely to have much, if any, further effect. The fact that he's had an at fault accident is much more important as far as his future premiums go than the exact size of the eventual settlement - many insurers don't even ask how much the claim was for.

Your boyfriend should be prepared for the possibility that he'll get some letters from solicitors threatening to take him to court, or even actual court papers. This sounds alarming but is actually a normal part of the process and nothing to worry about. Basically if the third party and his insurers can't agree on the injury claim, the third party will have to take legal action. Any legal action would be taken against your BF personally because he's the one who (allegedly) caused the injuries, so ultimately liability lies with him. The other driver can't sue the insurer directly unless he's claiming that the insurance company injured him. So instead he sues your BF, and your BF asks his insurance company to deal with the claim on his behalf, which they'll do under the terms of his policy. If he does get any legal correspondance he should pass it on to his insurer immediately and should not attempt to deal with it himself. Rest assured that even if he does end up being taken to court, it will still be his insurer that ends up putting its hand in its pocket at the end of the day, not him personally.

It is possible (though not particularly likely) that he might end up being called to court as a witness, so I suppose the worst thing that might happen is that he has to take a day off work to go and give his version of events. But don't worry - even if it doesn't go well he will lose very little beyond pride. He pays his insurance company good money precisely so that when things like this happen it's their problem, not his, so let them worry about it.

Car_54

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

I don't think a pecuniary advantage has been an offence since the change of the fraud act. It's a straight forward misrepresentation come renewal time.

The Fraud Act 2006 only changed the terminology - it now talks of making a “gain”,or causing other(s) to suffer a “loss”.

The effect is the same. Lying (or withholding information) to make a gain or avoid a loss is still fraud.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

Car_54 wrote: »

The Fraud Act 2006 only changed the terminology - it now talks of making a “gain”,or causing other(s) to suffer a “loss”.

The effect is the same. Lying (or withholding information) to make a gain or avoid a loss is still fraud.

So there is still an offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage or has its been removed?

AdrianC

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

So there is still an offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage or has its been removed?

Like he said - the terminology has changed.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/3

Car_54

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

So there is still an offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage or has its been removed?

No. That was an offence under the Theft Act 1968. The relevant sections were repealed by the 2006 Fraud Act, and the offence replaced by that of fraud.
The relevant types here are fraud by false representation (section 2) and fraud by failing to disclose information (s. 3).

Shaun_of_the_Dead

Car_54 wrote: »

No. That was an offence under the Theft Act 1968. The relevant sections were repealed by the 2006 Fraud Act, and the offence replaced by that of fraud.
The relevant types here are fraud by false representation (section 2) and fraud by failing to disclose information (s. 3).

So given Section 16 of the Theft Act was repealed what have I said that's wrong?

Shaun_of_the_Dead

AdrianC wrote: »

Like he said - the terminology has changed.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/3

But you said.

AdrianC wrote: »

Indeed. Both are trying to obtain a pecuniary advantage through deception.

Section 16 of the Theft Act no longer exists.

AdrianC

I don't know whether you're aware of this, but I'm not the CPS, and that post was not a formal charge sheet heading for a criminal court...

Car_54

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

But you said.



Section 16 of the Theft Act no longer exists.

But obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception is still a crime, it’s simply that those are no longer the words used in the charge.