Damage to car

Sandtree

Thrugelmir said:

Sounds like an insurance claim. Let them persue the matter. 

For £270?

Excess is going to mean the OP gets back little of that (if anything) and then a fault claim to declare for 5 years if the motorcyclist cannot be traced. 

Your entitled to claim, if the excess is below £270, but its unlikely to economical to do so - most would be economical with the truth too if they don't claim on future quote requests.

DB1904

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

Happens all the time, people massively underestimate the cost of repairs and so initially say to settle privately and later become a pain when they see the size of the bill.

Your insurers arent going to have too many more tools at their disposal than you have, they can reimburse the £270 less your excess but thats unlikely to be economical in the long run. Worth seeing if there is any "hit and run promise" but not sure if it'd be triggered given you have some details.

You could attempt reporting it to the police for refusing to exchange details but normally thats dealt with by a producer being sent to the DVLA address held against the registration but you dont have the reg. Maybe the cops would call him and get a better response than you.

Have you not spoken to your neighbour to try and get his name? After that maybe trawl social media for photos of him plus beloved bike to get a reg plate but you are on a bit of thin ice given he may have multiple bikes.

The only things they could establish with the registration number of his car (assuming it's insured and the bike was too) that the OP couldn't are his surname, home address, the registration number of the bike and the policy of insurance covering it at the time of the incident. But as you say not many more tools. 

I suspect doing a DVLA query on an unrelated vehicle in the hope the registered keeper is the same as the bike probably is against the T&Cs of the DVLA tool.

In my claims days dashcam footage was rare and the little there was was often poor quality (same as CCTV). In theory though dashcam footage could capture registrations plates of various potential witnesses but again I doubt the DVLA allows speculative queries.

[Deleted User] said:

There's small claims court.

How exactly do you go to the small claims @[Deleted User] when you only have the first name and mobile number of the person you are suing? 

Who suggested using the DVLA? All that info can be obtained from the insurance database.

DB1904

Sandtree said:

Charmiz said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

Happens all the time, people massively underestimate the cost of repairs and so initially say to settle privately and later become a pain when they see the size of the bill.

Your insurers arent going to have too many more tools at their disposal than you have, they can reimburse the £270 less your excess but thats unlikely to be economical in the long run. Worth seeing if there is any "hit and run promise" but not sure if it'd be triggered given you have some details.

You could attempt reporting it to the police for refusing to exchange details but normally thats dealt with by a producer being sent to the DVLA address held against the registration but you dont have the reg. Maybe the cops would call him and get a better response than you.

Have you not spoken to your neighbour to try and get his name? After that maybe trawl social media for photos of him plus beloved bike to get a reg plate but you are on a bit of thin ice given he may have multiple bikes.

The only things they could establish with the registration number of his car (assuming it's insured and the bike was too) that the OP couldn't are his surname, home address, the registration number of the bike and the policy of insurance covering it at the time of the incident. But as you say not many more tools. 

That's considerably more information that I have at the moment, and quite possibly enough to go to the small claims court, but would my insurer be willing to hand over the information so I could do that?

I would have thought that them handing over someone's details on a verbal assurance that I had a legitimate claim would be a Data Protection breach.

You and the insurance company have the same rights to ask for information from DVLA, indeed your insurers rights come from you... the difference is they have an automated system and probably goes under less review because its expected they only submit legitimate requests whereas you may ask for things for the wrong reasons.

There is no reason for the insurance company to involve the DVLA. 

Sandtree

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

Happens all the time, people massively underestimate the cost of repairs and so initially say to settle privately and later become a pain when they see the size of the bill.

Your insurers arent going to have too many more tools at their disposal than you have, they can reimburse the £270 less your excess but thats unlikely to be economical in the long run. Worth seeing if there is any "hit and run promise" but not sure if it'd be triggered given you have some details.

You could attempt reporting it to the police for refusing to exchange details but normally thats dealt with by a producer being sent to the DVLA address held against the registration but you dont have the reg. Maybe the cops would call him and get a better response than you.

Have you not spoken to your neighbour to try and get his name? After that maybe trawl social media for photos of him plus beloved bike to get a reg plate but you are on a bit of thin ice given he may have multiple bikes.

The only things they could establish with the registration number of his car (assuming it's insured and the bike was too) that the OP couldn't are his surname, home address, the registration number of the bike and the policy of insurance covering it at the time of the incident. But as you say not many more tools. 

I suspect doing a DVLA query on an unrelated vehicle in the hope the registered keeper is the same as the bike probably is against the T&Cs of the DVLA tool.

In my claims days dashcam footage was rare and the little there was was often poor quality (same as CCTV). In theory though dashcam footage could capture registrations plates of various potential witnesses but again I doubt the DVLA allows speculative queries.

[Deleted User] said:

There's small claims court.

How exactly do you go to the small claims @[Deleted User] when you only have the first name and mobile number of the person you are suing? 

Who suggested using the DVLA? All that info can be obtained from the insurance database.

MID must have changed since I last used it... our system simply would return the insurer, policynumber and contact number for the insurer when we ran a MID query on a registration plate for a given date. It wouldnt bring back the name and address of the policyholder so that you could write to the third party about an unrelated vehicle.

We would do a DVLA query for £2.50 to get the details of the owner of a vehicle. 

DB1904

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

Happens all the time, people massively underestimate the cost of repairs and so initially say to settle privately and later become a pain when they see the size of the bill.

Your insurers arent going to have too many more tools at their disposal than you have, they can reimburse the £270 less your excess but thats unlikely to be economical in the long run. Worth seeing if there is any "hit and run promise" but not sure if it'd be triggered given you have some details.

You could attempt reporting it to the police for refusing to exchange details but normally thats dealt with by a producer being sent to the DVLA address held against the registration but you dont have the reg. Maybe the cops would call him and get a better response than you.

Have you not spoken to your neighbour to try and get his name? After that maybe trawl social media for photos of him plus beloved bike to get a reg plate but you are on a bit of thin ice given he may have multiple bikes.

The only things they could establish with the registration number of his car (assuming it's insured and the bike was too) that the OP couldn't are his surname, home address, the registration number of the bike and the policy of insurance covering it at the time of the incident. But as you say not many more tools. 

I suspect doing a DVLA query on an unrelated vehicle in the hope the registered keeper is the same as the bike probably is against the T&Cs of the DVLA tool.

In my claims days dashcam footage was rare and the little there was was often poor quality (same as CCTV). In theory though dashcam footage could capture registrations plates of various potential witnesses but again I doubt the DVLA allows speculative queries.

[Deleted User] said:

There's small claims court.

How exactly do you go to the small claims @[Deleted User] when you only have the first name and mobile number of the person you are suing? 

Who suggested using the DVLA? All that info can be obtained from the insurance database.

MID must have changed since I last used it... our system simply would return the insurer, policynumber and contact number for the insurer when we ran a MID query on a registration plate for a given date. It wouldnt bring back the name and address of the policyholder so that you could write to the third party about an unrelated vehicle.

We would do a DVLA query for £2.50 to get the details of the owner of a vehicle. 

So you weren't able to search on a postcode for vehicles insured at an address both present and historic?

Sandtree

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

Happens all the time, people massively underestimate the cost of repairs and so initially say to settle privately and later become a pain when they see the size of the bill.

Your insurers arent going to have too many more tools at their disposal than you have, they can reimburse the £270 less your excess but thats unlikely to be economical in the long run. Worth seeing if there is any "hit and run promise" but not sure if it'd be triggered given you have some details.

You could attempt reporting it to the police for refusing to exchange details but normally thats dealt with by a producer being sent to the DVLA address held against the registration but you dont have the reg. Maybe the cops would call him and get a better response than you.

Have you not spoken to your neighbour to try and get his name? After that maybe trawl social media for photos of him plus beloved bike to get a reg plate but you are on a bit of thin ice given he may have multiple bikes.

The only things they could establish with the registration number of his car (assuming it's insured and the bike was too) that the OP couldn't are his surname, home address, the registration number of the bike and the policy of insurance covering it at the time of the incident. But as you say not many more tools. 

I suspect doing a DVLA query on an unrelated vehicle in the hope the registered keeper is the same as the bike probably is against the T&Cs of the DVLA tool.

In my claims days dashcam footage was rare and the little there was was often poor quality (same as CCTV). In theory though dashcam footage could capture registrations plates of various potential witnesses but again I doubt the DVLA allows speculative queries.

[Deleted User] said:

There's small claims court.

How exactly do you go to the small claims @[Deleted User] when you only have the first name and mobile number of the person you are suing? 

Who suggested using the DVLA? All that info can be obtained from the insurance database.

MID must have changed since I last used it... our system simply would return the insurer, policynumber and contact number for the insurer when we ran a MID query on a registration plate for a given date. It wouldnt bring back the name and address of the policyholder so that you could write to the third party about an unrelated vehicle.

We would do a DVLA query for £2.50 to get the details of the owner of a vehicle. 

So you weren't able to search on a postcode for vehicles insured at an address both present and historic?

Not via MID, obviously could for anything insured within our group... whilst its not THAT many years ago our claims system at the time was still a green screen system in Windows wrapper; they had built proper GUIs for Sales & Service plus some for FNOL and 1st Party teams but us in technical claims were still on pure green screen. PF15 was a MID request if memory served me right, couldnt even do a MID query for anything other than the date of loss, would come up with a new screen with the result and the option to add it to the TP record (overwriting whatever TPI info was already there) or to discard it. 

My later boss I found out held a financial interest in the system and so why it had been retained when M&A work was done and acquisitions came with more modern systems suddenly made sense. 

From a GDPR perspective its not abundantly clear in what circumstances an insurer could justify getting the personal data of a whole street of people by doing a search on MID using a postcode.

DB1904

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

Happens all the time, people massively underestimate the cost of repairs and so initially say to settle privately and later become a pain when they see the size of the bill.

Your insurers arent going to have too many more tools at their disposal than you have, they can reimburse the £270 less your excess but thats unlikely to be economical in the long run. Worth seeing if there is any "hit and run promise" but not sure if it'd be triggered given you have some details.

You could attempt reporting it to the police for refusing to exchange details but normally thats dealt with by a producer being sent to the DVLA address held against the registration but you dont have the reg. Maybe the cops would call him and get a better response than you.

Have you not spoken to your neighbour to try and get his name? After that maybe trawl social media for photos of him plus beloved bike to get a reg plate but you are on a bit of thin ice given he may have multiple bikes.

The only things they could establish with the registration number of his car (assuming it's insured and the bike was too) that the OP couldn't are his surname, home address, the registration number of the bike and the policy of insurance covering it at the time of the incident. But as you say not many more tools. 

I suspect doing a DVLA query on an unrelated vehicle in the hope the registered keeper is the same as the bike probably is against the T&Cs of the DVLA tool.

In my claims days dashcam footage was rare and the little there was was often poor quality (same as CCTV). In theory though dashcam footage could capture registrations plates of various potential witnesses but again I doubt the DVLA allows speculative queries.

[Deleted User] said:

There's small claims court.

How exactly do you go to the small claims @[Deleted User] when you only have the first name and mobile number of the person you are suing? 

Who suggested using the DVLA? All that info can be obtained from the insurance database.

MID must have changed since I last used it... our system simply would return the insurer, policynumber and contact number for the insurer when we ran a MID query on a registration plate for a given date. It wouldnt bring back the name and address of the policyholder so that you could write to the third party about an unrelated vehicle.

We would do a DVLA query for £2.50 to get the details of the owner of a vehicle. 

So you weren't able to search on a postcode for vehicles insured at an address both present and historic?

Not via MID, obviously could for anything insured within our group... whilst its not THAT many years ago our claims system at the time was still a green screen system in Windows wrapper; they had built proper GUIs for Sales & Service plus some for FNOL and 1st Party teams but us in technical claims were still on pure green screen. PF15 was a MID request if memory served me right, couldnt even do a MID query for anything other than the date of loss, would come up with a new screen with the result and the option to add it to the TP record (overwriting whatever TPI info was already there) or to discard it. 

My later boss I found out held a financial interest in the system and so why it had been retained when M&A work was done and acquisitions came with more modern systems suddenly made sense. 

From a GDPR perspective its not abundantly clear in what circumstances an insurer could justify getting the personal data of a whole street of people by doing a search on MID using a postcode.

It's freely available to all police forces via the PNC, so it must be a good number of years since you used it. 

Grumpy_chap

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

Happens all the time, people massively underestimate the cost of repairs and so initially say to settle privately and later become a pain when they see the size of the bill.

Your insurers arent going to have too many more tools at their disposal than you have, they can reimburse the £270 less your excess but thats unlikely to be economical in the long run. Worth seeing if there is any "hit and run promise" but not sure if it'd be triggered given you have some details.

You could attempt reporting it to the police for refusing to exchange details but normally thats dealt with by a producer being sent to the DVLA address held against the registration but you dont have the reg. Maybe the cops would call him and get a better response than you.

Have you not spoken to your neighbour to try and get his name? After that maybe trawl social media for photos of him plus beloved bike to get a reg plate but you are on a bit of thin ice given he may have multiple bikes.

The only things they could establish with the registration number of his car (assuming it's insured and the bike was too) that the OP couldn't are his surname, home address, the registration number of the bike and the policy of insurance covering it at the time of the incident. But as you say not many more tools. 

I suspect doing a DVLA query on an unrelated vehicle in the hope the registered keeper is the same as the bike probably is against the T&Cs of the DVLA tool.

In my claims days dashcam footage was rare and the little there was was often poor quality (same as CCTV). In theory though dashcam footage could capture registrations plates of various potential witnesses but again I doubt the DVLA allows speculative queries.

[Deleted User] said:

There's small claims court.

How exactly do you go to the small claims @[Deleted User] when you only have the first name and mobile number of the person you are suing? 

Who suggested using the DVLA? All that info can be obtained from the insurance database.

MID must have changed since I last used it... our system simply would return the insurer, policynumber and contact number for the insurer when we ran a MID query on a registration plate for a given date. It wouldnt bring back the name and address of the policyholder so that you could write to the third party about an unrelated vehicle.

We would do a DVLA query for £2.50 to get the details of the owner of a vehicle. 

So you weren't able to search on a postcode for vehicles insured at an address both present and historic?

Not via MID, obviously could for anything insured within our group... whilst its not THAT many years ago our claims system at the time was still a green screen system in Windows wrapper; they had built proper GUIs for Sales & Service plus some for FNOL and 1st Party teams but us in technical claims were still on pure green screen. PF15 was a MID request if memory served me right, couldnt even do a MID query for anything other than the date of loss, would come up with a new screen with the result and the option to add it to the TP record (overwriting whatever TPI info was already there) or to discard it. 

My later boss I found out held a financial interest in the system and so why it had been retained when M&A work was done and acquisitions came with more modern systems suddenly made sense. 

From a GDPR perspective its not abundantly clear in what circumstances an insurer could justify getting the personal data of a whole street of people by doing a search on MID using a postcode.

It's freely available to all police forces via the PNC, so it must be a good number of years since you used it. 

Since when were insurers and police forces the same thing?

Sandtree

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

Happens all the time, people massively underestimate the cost of repairs and so initially say to settle privately and later become a pain when they see the size of the bill.

Your insurers arent going to have too many more tools at their disposal than you have, they can reimburse the £270 less your excess but thats unlikely to be economical in the long run. Worth seeing if there is any "hit and run promise" but not sure if it'd be triggered given you have some details.

You could attempt reporting it to the police for refusing to exchange details but normally thats dealt with by a producer being sent to the DVLA address held against the registration but you dont have the reg. Maybe the cops would call him and get a better response than you.

Have you not spoken to your neighbour to try and get his name? After that maybe trawl social media for photos of him plus beloved bike to get a reg plate but you are on a bit of thin ice given he may have multiple bikes.

The only things they could establish with the registration number of his car (assuming it's insured and the bike was too) that the OP couldn't are his surname, home address, the registration number of the bike and the policy of insurance covering it at the time of the incident. But as you say not many more tools. 

I suspect doing a DVLA query on an unrelated vehicle in the hope the registered keeper is the same as the bike probably is against the T&Cs of the DVLA tool.

In my claims days dashcam footage was rare and the little there was was often poor quality (same as CCTV). In theory though dashcam footage could capture registrations plates of various potential witnesses but again I doubt the DVLA allows speculative queries.

[Deleted User] said:

There's small claims court.

How exactly do you go to the small claims @[Deleted User] when you only have the first name and mobile number of the person you are suing? 

Who suggested using the DVLA? All that info can be obtained from the insurance database.

MID must have changed since I last used it... our system simply would return the insurer, policynumber and contact number for the insurer when we ran a MID query on a registration plate for a given date. It wouldnt bring back the name and address of the policyholder so that you could write to the third party about an unrelated vehicle.

We would do a DVLA query for £2.50 to get the details of the owner of a vehicle. 

So you weren't able to search on a postcode for vehicles insured at an address both present and historic?

Not via MID, obviously could for anything insured within our group... whilst its not THAT many years ago our claims system at the time was still a green screen system in Windows wrapper; they had built proper GUIs for Sales & Service plus some for FNOL and 1st Party teams but us in technical claims were still on pure green screen. PF15 was a MID request if memory served me right, couldnt even do a MID query for anything other than the date of loss, would come up with a new screen with the result and the option to add it to the TP record (overwriting whatever TPI info was already there) or to discard it. 

My later boss I found out held a financial interest in the system and so why it had been retained when M&A work was done and acquisitions came with more modern systems suddenly made sense. 

From a GDPR perspective its not abundantly clear in what circumstances an insurer could justify getting the personal data of a whole street of people by doing a search on MID using a postcode.

It's freely available to all police forces via the PNC, so it must be a good number of years since you used it. 

But I asked the Q for insurance companies... police have different systems, powers etc than an insurance company. So my question still stands on the basis an insurer could justify under GDPR gathering that amount of personal data?

Our process was to do MID first, if that came back with a hit then approach the identified insurer. If not hit was found or the insurer didnt respond or said their insured denied the event then we did the DVLA search for the registered keeper. In this case the OP wants the owner of a bike but only has the reg of a car they believe is owned by the same person and so knowing the insurer of a car isnt going to be any help.

DB1904

Grumpy_chap said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

DB1904 said:

Sandtree said:

Happens all the time, people massively underestimate the cost of repairs and so initially say to settle privately and later become a pain when they see the size of the bill.

Your insurers arent going to have too many more tools at their disposal than you have, they can reimburse the £270 less your excess but thats unlikely to be economical in the long run. Worth seeing if there is any "hit and run promise" but not sure if it'd be triggered given you have some details.

You could attempt reporting it to the police for refusing to exchange details but normally thats dealt with by a producer being sent to the DVLA address held against the registration but you dont have the reg. Maybe the cops would call him and get a better response than you.

Have you not spoken to your neighbour to try and get his name? After that maybe trawl social media for photos of him plus beloved bike to get a reg plate but you are on a bit of thin ice given he may have multiple bikes.

The only things they could establish with the registration number of his car (assuming it's insured and the bike was too) that the OP couldn't are his surname, home address, the registration number of the bike and the policy of insurance covering it at the time of the incident. But as you say not many more tools. 

I suspect doing a DVLA query on an unrelated vehicle in the hope the registered keeper is the same as the bike probably is against the T&Cs of the DVLA tool.

In my claims days dashcam footage was rare and the little there was was often poor quality (same as CCTV). In theory though dashcam footage could capture registrations plates of various potential witnesses but again I doubt the DVLA allows speculative queries.

[Deleted User] said:

There's small claims court.

How exactly do you go to the small claims @[Deleted User] when you only have the first name and mobile number of the person you are suing? 

Who suggested using the DVLA? All that info can be obtained from the insurance database.

MID must have changed since I last used it... our system simply would return the insurer, policynumber and contact number for the insurer when we ran a MID query on a registration plate for a given date. It wouldnt bring back the name and address of the policyholder so that you could write to the third party about an unrelated vehicle.

We would do a DVLA query for £2.50 to get the details of the owner of a vehicle. 

So you weren't able to search on a postcode for vehicles insured at an address both present and historic?

Not via MID, obviously could for anything insured within our group... whilst its not THAT many years ago our claims system at the time was still a green screen system in Windows wrapper; they had built proper GUIs for Sales & Service plus some for FNOL and 1st Party teams but us in technical claims were still on pure green screen. PF15 was a MID request if memory served me right, couldnt even do a MID query for anything other than the date of loss, would come up with a new screen with the result and the option to add it to the TP record (overwriting whatever TPI info was already there) or to discard it. 

My later boss I found out held a financial interest in the system and so why it had been retained when M&A work was done and acquisitions came with more modern systems suddenly made sense. 

From a GDPR perspective its not abundantly clear in what circumstances an insurer could justify getting the personal data of a whole street of people by doing a search on MID using a postcode.

It's freely available to all police forces via the PNC, so it must be a good number of years since you used it. 

Since when were insurers and police forces the same thing?

Both have access to the same database.