Car Insurance and disclosure

[JonnyG]

The exact wording of the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 170, para 2 is as follows:-
The driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle
must stop and, if required to
do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and
address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of
the vehicle

para 4 goes on to state:-
A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) ... above is guilty of an offence.

Your own opinion as to whether those grounds are reasonable is irelevant

sigh! some people. and please prey tell where the Insurance bit is in your statement! oh yes thats right its not and why? because as i stated earlier! you can in YOUR OPINION report it to the police in the curcumstances i stated which are the same curcumstances as the original topic!..insurance is what we were taiking abou, int which case it makes your opinion ,irrelevant!!!!!!!!!
please found the time to read ALL of section 170 and stay on topic ie insurance docs and not name and address details as i made no reference to that!!!!!!!! ..as you seem to have missed this large bit

5)If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, the driver of [F4a motor vehicle] does not at the time of the accident produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—

(a)to a constable, or

(b)to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has required him to produce it,

the driver must report the accident and produce such a certificate or other evidence.

This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage.

(6)To comply with a duty under this section to report an accident or to produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver—

(a)must do so at a police station or to a constable, and

(b)must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Regardless of the legal rights or wrongs of providing insurance and other details, It is a simple a pragmatic approach to offer the information, as its unlikely to disadvantage you. Giving the information is not an admission of guilt.

 

[JonnyG]

Regardless of the legal rights or wrongs of providing insurance and other details, It is a simple a pragmatic approach to offer the information, as its unlikely to disadvantage you. Giving the information is not an admission of guilt.

Hi prof. regardless of 'giving the information is not an admission of guilt' , insurance companies work on the cheapest option regardless and if it is deemed cheaper to pay up rather than fight a costly potentual loss many insurance companies now pay up regardless of the insuree guilt or not

 

[ProfJohnL]

Insurane companies are not Gods (though sometimes they seem to think they are), and therefore they can be wrong.
The insurane company has a duty of care to protect the interests of its customers. If it allows a claim which is unjust, then it might be open to a charge of acting fruadulenty by exposing its customer to a financial loss or expediture for which the customer is not liable.
And you should challenge it.
They are not serving your best interests if they simply keel over and accept blame on your behalf. That disadvanatages you unfairly when trying to set up new insurance by loading your premiums becasue you have claims allowed against you in the past.
It is a matter of public record that a significant proportion of cases brought to the Insurance Ombudsman (or whatever they are called at the time) are adjudicated in favour of the customer. That should tell you something.
It sometimes pays to remind them that they serve us not the other way round.

 

[Raywood]

The insurance companies do have a very difficult job trying to sort out who is right and who is wrong. I have seen claim forms from both parties to the same accident and they cannot even agree the layout of the road and it looks like two different accidents. In those cases you just have to decide who you believe and hope for the best.
In other cases things are not clear cut and you have to assess the risk. The cost of defending claims in court is far too high and when you weigh up the risk then you do have to look at your balance sheet sometimes. The idea is to compromise the claim rather than buy it off.
You will also get people who simply will not accept that they are wrong when it is clear they are and you simply cannot support them.
Insurance companies are commercial organisations and do not normally pay third party claims that are unwarranted or can be economically defended. They do have to be realistic and pragmatic however and cannot always satisfy the insures party and always remember the courts will bend over backwords to support the claimant in court. The result of many cases defies all logic in the way the judiciary finds ways to find for the claimant..
I do appreciate the complaints record of some is not good but that is more down to unfair treatment in settling the Insured parties own claims and those companies can be very tough on the third party ones. The level of successful complaints can be as low as 15% for some companies which suggests that they are doing better than many people believe and there is no doubt the Ombudsman does not favour the insurers.
At the end of the day however if you are pursuing a claim against the other party your insurer should not settle a claim by them without consulting you first and explaining their position, but you must make the insurer aware that you are claiming.