Unfortunately you have involved them which will just complicate things. ... but just telling them for reference about the incident >>
As I read it, it seems Alanovich has told his insurers "for information only" - see
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=79243&...e
.. now it is more difficult to prove that it was that particular incident that caused the damage. >>
I think we may be jumping the gun a bit here. The 3rd party (including the insurer) has not yet responded, and has therefore neither denied nor accepted liability. I think OP should wait for a response.
|
I think we may be jumping the gun a bit here. The 3rd party (including the insurer) has not yet responded and has therefore neither denied nor accepted liability. I think OP should wait for a response.
It's a long time to say yes or no. When a TP hit me, MoreThan, his insurance company admitted full liability within days. No fuss, no messing about. I did have photos of the other driver's car and mine which probably helped.
I assume the TP is just keeping stum hoping that it will go away.
|
I assume the TP is just keeping stum hoping that it will go away. >>
It is precisely to avoid that sort of delaying tactics that the EU regs deal with. The 3rd party is for all purposes here one and the same as the Insurer. The driver can ignore his Insurer, but the Insurer cannot ignore you claiming and suing from them directly. If their driver fails to give a statement, it is their problem. At the moment, they are asking for time (too long IMO) to get a response from the driver.
|
Is there any way of finding the name of the other driver's insurance company if he refuses to give it?
It's just that as more people realise the right way to go about things is to claim against the other driver's insurer, I can see a certain type of other driver refusing to give out the information.
Is the other driver obliged by law to give the name of his insurer, or just his own name and address?
|
Is there any way of finding the name of the other driver's insurance company if he refuses to give it? >>
Yes, one way is here:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=78...0
Is the other driver obliged by law to give the name of his insurer, or just his own name and address? >>
summary here:
www.dft.gov.uk/collisionreporting/reporting.asp
full Act here, see section 170:
www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_14
note, AFAIK, if there is injury, "produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act - .. ".
|
From the authoritative links kindly provided by jbif - above - the other driver is obliged to give his insurance details.
From my amateur reading of the Road Traffic Act, there might be a distinction between an accident in which damage is caused and one in which personal injury is caused.
In any event, it seems the AskMID website will come across with the info for a small fee, so perhaps best to rely on that if things turn ugly at the roadside.
As ever, it's the injured party that is put to all the time, trouble and expense.
|
|
|
|
Sec 154 Road Traffic Act 1988
Duty to give information as to insurance or security where CLAIM made:
(1) A person against whom a claim is made in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act must, on demand by or on behalf of the person making the claim?
(a) state whether or not, in respect of that liability?
(i) he was insured by a policy having effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act or had in force a security having effect for those purposes, or
(ii) he would have been so insured or would have had in force such a security if the insurer or, as the case may be, the giver of the security had not avoided or cancelled the policy or security, and
(b) if he was or would have been so insured, or had or would have had in force such a security?
(i) give such particulars with respect to that policy or security as were specified in any certificate of insurance or security delivered in respect of that policy or security, as the case may be, under section 147 of this Act, or
(ii) where no such certificate was delivered under that section, give the following particulars, that is to say, the registration mark or other identifying particulars of the vehicle concerned, the number or other identifying particulars of the insurance policy issued in respect of the vehicle, the name of the insurer and the period of the insurance cover.
So yes if a claim is to be made against them they are required to provide insurance details.
Cannot force them though, but they could be prosecuted. There is no time limit for providing the requested details but 14 days is deemed to be 'reasonable'.
Section 154 was added due to a loophole in Section 170, which is that there is no requirement to furnish insurance details in a 'non injury' collision.
Edited by Fullchat on 13/10/2009 at 20:17
|
When I was involved in an accident a couple of years ago I reported it to my insurance company that evening. When I gave them the details of the third party vehicle the first question I asked them was whether the vehicle was insured. They replied that there was insurance and told me the name of the TP's insurers.
So, my advice is, don't bother paying money to askmid.com when you can get the information via your own insurance company for nothing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you not have time to sound your horn??
My first reaction was to check around me to see if I could move out of the way, by the time I'd done that it was too late to get into reverse, so I did hit the horn. He still hit me. I don't think he knew where the sound was coming from. It all happened in a split second really.
|
My first reaction was to check around me to see if I could move out of the way .......
SQ
You did everything you could then to avoid it. The other drivers sounds a right dozy beggar!
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 14/10/2009 at 10:52
|
|
My sister's car was hit by a van. Details were swapped. The other driver then denied any liability. My sister took him to court. Took eighteen months. Her barrister destroyed him in five minutes. The more he lied the deeper in the mire he got.
|
Just thought I'd update this thread with the latest news.
I wrote to my insurers telling them that I'd be writing to the third party's insurers, as per jbif's advice to mention the European Legislation. I have not yet written directly to the other insurer, however my insurer have contacted mw with the following response which they have now received from the other insurer:
"The third party insurers have agreed to deal with your claim on a ?without prejudice? basis. This means that whilst they are unable to admit liability for the incident, they are unable to dispute the matter further, this could be due to number of reasons, but in most cases it will be down to the other party not having reported the claim, not completing a claim form or there being indemnity issues with their policy. As such they are willing to deal with your claim as per their obligations under the terms of the Road Traffic Act. On this basis we are prepared to waive/reimburse your policy excess and your no claims bonus (NCD) will be unaffected.
Please bear in mind that until such time as reimbursement of our losses has been received from the third party insurers they reserve the right to withdraw this agreement at anytime. Should this be the case, and if liability cannot be agreed in your favour, we can amend the NCD decision, and in such circumstances, we reserve the right to request return of your excess payment."
I suppose that, in English, this means that they other insurer will cough up, and I won't be out of pocket regarding my NCD and excess, although my next premium may be higher as I've reported an accident. However, the other insurer could change their mind and if so my insurer will clobber me. At which stage I'd still be able to take the third party's insurer to court, right?
Seems like it might well work out OK, apart from my premium increasing a wee bit.
|
Result!
Looks like they have done what they are paid to do.
Can't see why your next premium should be higher providing they recover their costs. Unless the simple fact that you have been involved in an incident makes you more of a risk. I should know better, of course we are talking insurance companies here.
|
|
|
Seems like it might well work out OK, apart from my premium increasing a wee bit. >>
Alanovich: include a figure in your claim, for the premium increase for 5 years, based on data given here
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=77...2
www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/item.htm?id=6566
|
Well the Mazda is in the bodyshop today. It's getting a new bumper and a new internal beam behind it, both parts have been ordered in advance and they have told me I should get the car back within 2 days.
Which is nice.
Except I've been given a Vauxhall Insignia as a courtesy car. A 2.0 CDTi, 6 speed manual hatch with what appears to be a very high spec (to my used-to-poverty-spec-motors eye). It even has DAB on the radio, nice to get Radio 5 in high quality.
Lovely car, very well built and goes like a steam train. I'm really quite taken with it. Loads of power, handles nicely, smashing interior with extremely comfortable driver's seat. All the controls are very easy to use and instinctive and I've found a perfect driving position. Except the handbrake operation. It is a little button on the centre console, much like an electric window button. One needs ones foot on the brake pedal to operate it. Feels a bit weird, is this one of these famous electric handbrakes? If so, I suppose I would get used to it but it feels unnatural to start with. The clutch is quite lively, bite is very sudden and the pedal has a good, solid feel. Perhaps a bit on the heavy side. Gear change is direct, positive and has a real feeling of quality.
The engine delivers the power instantly across the rev band, with only a slight, almost imperceptible lack of power at the very bottom of the range. But in comparison to the 2.0TDi PD in our Touran, this feels far superior. It's also far, far quieter. Much more "petrol like", if you like.
Overall I'm very impressed, and that's from someone who has always been unkeen on Vauxhalls generally. It feels smaller than it is, which is odd, but nice. Seems like a very good design, although reward visibility could be better. The rear window is a bit of a letter box, and a funny shaped one at that. But nice job, GM, I might add it to the shortlist for when the Mazda needs replacing.
|
Overall I'm very impressed and that's from someone who has always been unkeen on Vauxhalls generally.
As per the advert from the 80's - once driven, forever smitten ;o)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you not have time to sound your horn??
I was involved in a similar accident many years ago, and believe me, when someone unexpectedly reverses towards you, it's too easy to freeze for the critical seconds! Luckily, in my case, all that happened was that the spotlights (enormous Cibies, very a la mode in the early 70s!) were pushed into my bonnet of my Mini making a couple of dents. Luckily the guy agreed it was his fault and reimbursed me cash for the damage. Very gentlemanly.
|
> Did you not have time to sound your horn??
>
>>>>>in about 1976 i had just fitted a new wing to my van and was in the petrol station behind a car when he started reversing towards me,i blew and blew the horn (colonel bogie i think) anyway he ran into me,i couldnt reverse as a car was behind me,i got out and called the driver some right names but he made wimpering noises and shook his hands about,he then got a piece of paper and a pen and wrote on it
I AM DEAF
we had a chuckle he filled my tank up for me as compo and it was off to blackpool for a free trip
happy days
tell the young ones that and they dont believe you
(im still waiting for the insurance asseser to come and view my car from its injuries 6 weeks ago,wish i had taken the hire car now as that would have bumped the other insurer up the watsit to come and see me quicker,ive learned my lesson well mind)
|
|
|
|
|
