Dishonesty - Dave E
Have you read the article in today's press regarding the driver who caused an accident, initally admitted fault, than denied it claiming the other driver was to blame? He was only caught out because some kid took some 'photo's with his mum's camera while he waited for her to give some details, said mum witnessed accident.

What bothers me is that this scoundrel would have technically got away with a knock for knock if it had not been for the evidence. Even so as it is all will suffer is a reduction in no claims bonus, assuming he had any. Surely there is a case to answer in respect of his dishonesty in trying to delude the insurance companies involved?
Dishonesty - Gen
Ah...if you only knew the number of people who lie in court under oath and nothing is done about that either...

Dishonest maybe, but way down the scale.
Dishonesty - Mark (RLBS)
>>What bothers me is that this scoundrel would have technically got away with a knock for knock if it had not been for the evidence. Even so as it is all will suffer is a reduction in no claims bonus, assuming he had any.

Search the Backroom on knock for knock, it doesn't mean what you think. In the paragraph above there is no difference between the two possible results.
Dishonesty - Dwight Van Driver
Lie in Court Gen? Only Lords do that.

WE commoners, as P.U. will no doubt agree, merely prevaricate.

DVD
Dishonesty - IanT
There is a technical point here - all (or most) insurance companies advise their clients never to admit liability. I'm sure I have come across a policy saying that an admission of liability could invalidate your insurance.

My Direct Line policy doesn't go quite that far:

"We shall not be liable in respect of ... any liability accepted by agreement or contract unless that liability would have existed otherwise".

Therefore the "dishonest" driver was right to retract his admission of liability.

Ian
Dishonesty - SteveH42
Admitting liability can't invalidate a policy - it would be an unreasonable condition apart from anything else. You may be advised not to admit liability in case later evidence points to the other party being at fault, as any admission of liability could be binding though.
Dishonesty - Mark (RLBS)
>>Admitting liability can't invalidate a policy

It can give them grounds for recovering some money from you though, if you materially increased their losses.
Dishonesty - DavidHM
"We shall not be liable in respect of ... any liability accepted by agreement or contract unless that liability would have existed otherwise"

I agree with Mark. I don't think they would actually sue you having paid out already, but they might refuse to pay out.

For instance, imagine you are waiting at red traffic lights and some idiot rams you without braking. You get out and, sarcastically or otherwise, apologise and say it's all your fault.

You've accepted liability for that. However, if they then refuse to pay out and you want them to do so, rather than face the hassle of proving that actually, you were just waiting there, perhaps because you have protected NCB anyway, it's tough. They will go after the other guy's insurer, or at least reserve the right to.
Dishonesty - SteveH42
Yes, that was sort of what I was meaning. By admitting anything you potentially let yourself in for some expense. The insurer can't refuse to pay out, but the can recover from you anything they wouldn't have to have paid had you not prejudiced the conclusion of the incident.