Non Fault Accident - Culprit Insured by the Same Insurance Company as Ours

jimbo6977

Aretnap said:

DiaHeart said:

Thank you, @csgohan4. We've still got time till January until renewal, hopefully it will be solved by then. If the TP denies involvement, would this be a case that MIB could handle?

No, the MIB is essentially an insurer of last resort - it will not cover losses which are covered by any insurance policy, including your own. So if you have comprehensive insurance you will have to use that - or make a claim through the other car's third party cover if you can. 

To make a claim through the other car's third party cover you need to be able to prove the identity of the driver - at least on the balance of probabilities. That's obviously easier if the owner admits driving, or says who it was, but it's not impossible if he doesn't. Did the witnesses see the driver well enough to identify him (or at least tell the difference between father and son)? 

not necessarily.
the insurer 'in the broadest sense' of the car has to deal with third party claims arising from the use of the car (they become what's known as the "Article 75 insurer"). The insurer can of course try to claim monies back from the thief, but thieves tend not to have identifiable assets!

but first you need to establish
1. is the car's apparent identity genuine?
2. was it stolen?
3. did it cause the damage to your vehicle?

based on the above posts I would think that none of these is fully established yet. 

it could take a while....

Aretnap

jimbo6977 said:

Aretnap said:

DiaHeart said:

Thank you, @csgohan4. We've still got time till January until renewal, hopefully it will be solved by then. If the TP denies involvement, would this be a case that MIB could handle?

No, the MIB is essentially an insurer of last resort - it will not cover losses which are covered by any insurance policy, including your own. So if you have comprehensive insurance you will have to use that - or make a claim through the other car's third party cover if you can. 

To make a claim through the other car's third party cover you need to be able to prove the identity of the driver - at least on the balance of probabilities. That's obviously easier if the owner admits driving, or says who it was, but it's not impossible if he doesn't. Did the witnesses see the driver well enough to identify him (or at least tell the difference between father and son)? 

not necessarily.
the insurer 'in the broadest sense' of the car has to deal with third party claims arising from the use of the car (they become what's known as the "Article 75 insurer"). The insurer can of course try to claim monies back from the thief, but thieves tend not to have identifiable assets!

An Article 75 claim is still a MIB claim though. The Article 75 insurer deals with the claim on behalf of the MiB rather than the MiB  paying for it out of their own funds, but the claim is still dealt with under MiB rules. Which means that subrogated claims are not covered, nor are any losses which the OP could claim for under their own insurance policy.

Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act OTOH does require an insurer to cover all claims arising out of the use of the car where the driver is not covered by the policy - including subrogated claims and claims which would be covered by the victim's own insurance - but only if the driver can be identified.

jimbo6977

Aretnap said:

jimbo6977 said:

Aretnap said:

DiaHeart said:

Thank you, @csgohan4. We've still got time till January until renewal, hopefully it will be solved by then. If the TP denies involvement, would this be a case that MIB could handle?

No, the MIB is essentially an insurer of last resort - it will not cover losses which are covered by any insurance policy, including your own. So if you have comprehensive insurance you will have to use that - or make a claim through the other car's third party cover if you can. 

To make a claim through the other car's third party cover you need to be able to prove the identity of the driver - at least on the balance of probabilities. That's obviously easier if the owner admits driving, or says who it was, but it's not impossible if he doesn't. Did the witnesses see the driver well enough to identify him (or at least tell the difference between father and son)? 

not necessarily.
the insurer 'in the broadest sense' of the car has to deal with third party claims arising from the use of the car (they become what's known as the "Article 75 insurer"). The insurer can of course try to claim monies back from the thief, but thieves tend not to have identifiable assets!

An Article 75 claim is still a MIB claim though. The Article 75 insurer deals with the claim on behalf of the MiB rather than the MiB  paying for it out of their own funds, but the claim is still dealt with under MiB rules. Which means that subrogated claims are not covered, nor are any losses which the OP could claim for under their own insurance policy.

Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act OTOH does require an insurer to cover all claims arising out of the use of the car where the driver is not covered by the policy - including subrogated claims and claims which would be covered by the victim's own insurance - but only if the driver can be identified.

Of course you are right and thanks for the correction. 
Good luck to the OP in identifying the driver. 

DiaHeart

but first you need to establish

1. is the car's apparent identity genuine?
2. was it stolen?
3. did it cause the damage to your vehicle?

based on the above posts I would think that none of these is fully established yet. 

it could take a while....

True. At least point 3 can be proven as there is plenty of photographic evidence, plus the police should have been able to establish that when they came and picked up the vehicle at fault. There was a clear mark left by the tires showing the trajectory the vehicle and the damages suffered by both cars match without a doubt. At least 4 neighbours as eye witnesses apart from my husband.

DiaHeart

Hi All, it's been 2 months since my first post here and the situation is exactly the same. Our car is still parked on the side of the road, the police told us we must pay for them to release the report, the TPI insurer said they didn't even apply for the report and they can't give us any details regarding the incident. We were thinking of using our legal cover to get some legal advice, but the legal company used by our insurer sent us their papers and apparently we also have to pay for the legal advice. I have no idea what to do next. Should we give in and go ahead with our insurer (same as TPI)? Should we employ an accident management company? How can we press people into doing their job? How can we find out what exactly happened with our vehicle? Please help.