Hit and run car accident and credit hire

DullGreyGuy

MarcoM said:

DullGreyGuy said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

nyermen said:

More knowledgeable will be along, but I understand that the car being insured at all is sufficient if necessary.  Hence incidents between third parties and cars with TWOC (taken without owners consent) and so on, are still covered.

Unfortunately its more nuanced than that...

Under 151(2)(b) of the RTA an insurer has to satisfy any judgements made against a driver of their insured vehicle if it would have been covered had it been an any driver policy. This tends to get called the RTA Insurer.

Under Article 75 of the MIB's articles of association similarly an insurer has to settle any unsatisfied judgements made against a driver of its insured vehicle

To be able to get a judgement against someone they have to be identified and so in a TWOC situation only if the thief is caught will the insurer have any liability to third parties. 

Instead people have to go through the Untraced Driver Agreement from the MIB. It hasn't stopped lawyers from trying, in a well known case a law firm issued proceeding against "the person unknown driving the car" and LV as co-defendants. The Supreme Court however threw it out saying it wasn't possible to sue an unknown person and as the person was unknown LV was not RTA insurer.

martinbainbridge1975 said:

there will be minimum RTA cover on the vehicle, which covers third party liability

Only if the driver is identified. 

the insurer of the vehicle will pay the claims under RTA cover on a without prejudice basis, it is an absolute minefield, I don't miss working in insurance 

Not for an untraced driver

Most commonly comes up with a stolen vehicle where it subsequently crashes into something/one and is abandoned. Was a real pain because the FNOL team kept registering them as a second claim because it was painful to have to call IT to change the original claim from Theft to RTC to be able to capture the TP details and deal with any approaches from them, their insurers or other representatives.

Only had two cases where the thief was identified, the rest of them we repudiated liability as untraced driver.

Where the driver was traced then yes we'd deal as RTA insurer rather than requiring the third party to get judgement against the driver to avoid the legal costs it adds. Some insurers wont though as their maths shows the legal costs are offset by those who abandon their claim  and so claims closed as withdrawn. 

so in that case would the credit hire go after the victim for costs?
if so could the victim argue that the credit hire have not due diligence on the accident / driver?

They should be informed of the circumstances beforehand and then they make their own decision on if to risk hire or not. As per the other thread, there is always the MIB Untraced Driver Agreement for uninsured losses like hire.

Ultimately you need to read your agreement before signing it and ask Qs etc before to them. There are plenty of cases where a claim initially appears to be a normal claim where the parties exchanged details and it only comes to light later that the vehicle was on cloned plates and the driver gave bogus information or that the vehicle had been stolen whilst the owner was on holiday etc. 

Ordinarily as long as you've not withheld information and support them in their recovery efforts what they cannot recover for any reason gets written off. 

martinbainbridge1975

DullGreyGuy said:

MarcoM said:

DullGreyGuy said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

nyermen said:

More knowledgeable will be along, but I understand that the car being insured at all is sufficient if necessary.  Hence incidents between third parties and cars with TWOC (taken without owners consent) and so on, are still covered.

Unfortunately its more nuanced than that...

Under 151(2)(b) of the RTA an insurer has to satisfy any judgements made against a driver of their insured vehicle if it would have been covered had it been an any driver policy. This tends to get called the RTA Insurer.

Under Article 75 of the MIB's articles of association similarly an insurer has to settle any unsatisfied judgements made against a driver of its insured vehicle

To be able to get a judgement against someone they have to be identified and so in a TWOC situation only if the thief is caught will the insurer have any liability to third parties. 

Instead people have to go through the Untraced Driver Agreement from the MIB. It hasn't stopped lawyers from trying, in a well known case a law firm issued proceeding against "the person unknown driving the car" and LV as co-defendants. The Supreme Court however threw it out saying it wasn't possible to sue an unknown person and as the person was unknown LV was not RTA insurer.

martinbainbridge1975 said:

there will be minimum RTA cover on the vehicle, which covers third party liability

Only if the driver is identified. 

the insurer of the vehicle will pay the claims under RTA cover on a without prejudice basis, it is an absolute minefield, I don't miss working in insurance 

Not for an untraced driver

Most commonly comes up with a stolen vehicle where it subsequently crashes into something/one and is abandoned. Was a real pain because the FNOL team kept registering them as a second claim because it was painful to have to call IT to change the original claim from Theft to RTC to be able to capture the TP details and deal with any approaches from them, their insurers or other representatives.

Only had two cases where the thief was identified, the rest of them we repudiated liability as untraced driver.

Where the driver was traced then yes we'd deal as RTA insurer rather than requiring the third party to get judgement against the driver to avoid the legal costs it adds. Some insurers wont though as their maths shows the legal costs are offset by those who abandon their claim  and so claims closed as withdrawn. 

so in that case would the credit hire go after the victim for costs?
if so could the victim argue that the credit hire have not due diligence on the accident / driver?

They should be informed of the circumstances beforehand and then they make their own decision on if to risk hire or not. As per the other thread, there is always the MIB Untraced Driver Agreement for uninsured losses like hire.

Ultimately you need to read your agreement before signing it and ask Qs etc before to them. There are plenty of cases where a claim initially appears to be a normal claim where the parties exchanged details and it only comes to light later that the vehicle was on cloned plates and the driver gave bogus information or that the vehicle had been stolen whilst the owner was on holiday etc. 

Ordinarily as long as you've not withheld information and support them in their recovery efforts what they cannot recover for any reason gets written off. 

there may be an option available to pay a premium to insure yourself against being liable for the credit hire charges.

I have seen cases where some way down the line the hire car has been withdrawn due to a change of some nature jeopardising the recovery.

If you have dash cam footage that identifies the other car then this should be handed to the police - to trace the owner and identify the driver.  failing to identify the driver at the time is an offence as is leaving the scene of an accident 

MarcoM

martinbainbridge1975 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

MarcoM said:

DullGreyGuy said:

martinbainbridge1975 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

nyermen said:

More knowledgeable will be along, but I understand that the car being insured at all is sufficient if necessary.  Hence incidents between third parties and cars with TWOC (taken without owners consent) and so on, are still covered.

Unfortunately its more nuanced than that...

Under 151(2)(b) of the RTA an insurer has to satisfy any judgements made against a driver of their insured vehicle if it would have been covered had it been an any driver policy. This tends to get called the RTA Insurer.

Under Article 75 of the MIB's articles of association similarly an insurer has to settle any unsatisfied judgements made against a driver of its insured vehicle

To be able to get a judgement against someone they have to be identified and so in a TWOC situation only if the thief is caught will the insurer have any liability to third parties. 

Instead people have to go through the Untraced Driver Agreement from the MIB. It hasn't stopped lawyers from trying, in a well known case a law firm issued proceeding against "the person unknown driving the car" and LV as co-defendants. The Supreme Court however threw it out saying it wasn't possible to sue an unknown person and as the person was unknown LV was not RTA insurer.

martinbainbridge1975 said:

there will be minimum RTA cover on the vehicle, which covers third party liability

Only if the driver is identified. 

the insurer of the vehicle will pay the claims under RTA cover on a without prejudice basis, it is an absolute minefield, I don't miss working in insurance 

Not for an untraced driver

Most commonly comes up with a stolen vehicle where it subsequently crashes into something/one and is abandoned. Was a real pain because the FNOL team kept registering them as a second claim because it was painful to have to call IT to change the original claim from Theft to RTC to be able to capture the TP details and deal with any approaches from them, their insurers or other representatives.

Only had two cases where the thief was identified, the rest of them we repudiated liability as untraced driver.

Where the driver was traced then yes we'd deal as RTA insurer rather than requiring the third party to get judgement against the driver to avoid the legal costs it adds. Some insurers wont though as their maths shows the legal costs are offset by those who abandon their claim  and so claims closed as withdrawn. 

so in that case would the credit hire go after the victim for costs?
if so could the victim argue that the credit hire have not due diligence on the accident / driver?

They should be informed of the circumstances beforehand and then they make their own decision on if to risk hire or not. As per the other thread, there is always the MIB Untraced Driver Agreement for uninsured losses like hire.

Ultimately you need to read your agreement before signing it and ask Qs etc before to them. There are plenty of cases where a claim initially appears to be a normal claim where the parties exchanged details and it only comes to light later that the vehicle was on cloned plates and the driver gave bogus information or that the vehicle had been stolen whilst the owner was on holiday etc. 

Ordinarily as long as you've not withheld information and support them in their recovery efforts what they cannot recover for any reason gets written off. 

there may be an option available to pay a premium to insure yourself against being liable for the credit hire charges.

I have seen cases where some way down the line the hire car has been withdrawn due to a change of some nature jeopardising the recovery.

If you have dash cam footage that identifies the other car then this should be handed to the police - to trace the owner and identify the driver.  failing to identify the driver at the time is an offence as is leaving the scene of an accident 

Police and main insurer both have footage identifying reg no and showing accident. Credit comp has been told the guy ran away so they must be able to claim from mib at worst.

martinbainbridge1975

the registration number will identify the owner and the insurer, if this was me as one line of enquiry, I would go on the MID website pay £10 to obtain the insurance company details and make a 3rd party report to them stating they insure the said vehicle

DullGreyGuy

martinbainbridge1975 said:

the registration number will identify the owner and the insurer, if this was me as one line of enquiry, I would go on the MID website pay £10 to obtain the insurance company details and make a 3rd party report to them stating they insure the said vehicle

You can throw away £10 if you want... the OP's insurers (and credit hire company) will have already got the TPI details and sent a letter of claim. 

MarcoM

I've decided to refuse the credit hire. will now ask the insurer to find another solution. They sent me TCs of the credit hire and there was nothing about mitigation and the obligation on me to reduce costs. 
the garage have said they can give me a courtesy car if needed; I will now go back to my insurer.