You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hi all. Come back from holiday to a county court claim form.
Any legal experts in the house?
My wife crashed a couple of years ago. People involved put in spurious whiplash claims etc (didn’t see a doctor but were claiming injuries). The claim is yet to be settled. Received a county court claim for £2300, including things like car hire from the person involved in the crash.
Speaking to insurance tomorrow, but this has to be nonsense right? This is what insurance is for. I think it says a lot that the claim is still ongoing after two years.
Your insurers haven't settled without taking it to court. The claimants have had enough and they want to have it out with you and your insurers in court. Your insurers will advise you.
Yes, this. Speak to insurers. Don't reply to anything. That's what your insurance is for.
OTOH feel free to go ballistic at your insurers for making such an arse of it that you’ve ended up being dragged to court
Assuming you ticked the Motor Legal expenses cover box then let them deal with it .
OTOH they may have been defending a fraudulent claim for the last two years. And now the claimant is going last chance saloon.
Assuming you ticked the Motor Legal expenses cover box then let them deal with it .
No. This is a claim on the motor insurance.
No. This is a claim on the motor insurance.
I get that, but they have a county court claim against them. Even though its the insurers that need to settle things , i would still want to have the legal assistance there on my side in case the insurers have ****ed up.
Thanks all.
I think they’re trying to claim whiplash etc, our insurers aren’t playing and as Rich says, they’re trying it on.
Crash was less than 5mph. They claimed whiplash etc but didn’t provide evidence. Didn’t go to doctors etc.
Speaking to insurance tomorrow. Wife was really worried so thanks all for confirming what I thought.
I get that, but they have a county court claim against them. Even though its the insurers that need to settle things , i would still want to have the legal assistance there on my side in case the insurers have ****ed up.
Still no. Motor Legal Expenses is used for taking action against the third party causing the loss to recover Uninsured Losses - things like excesses, loss of earnings etc.
It can extend to other things too, but it's not for defending claims against you under the auspices of a motor insurance policy. That's what the motor insurance policy is specifically for. (And paying out compensation etc).
Does your insurance cover whiplash and the other parties car hire? if not possibly they have settled with the insurance company and they are going to court for that.
Chancers but be careful, chancers often know how it works more than everyone else.
Insurance covers everything - legal etc.
No this claim is for things like car hire. Seems very random. And, the claim is still ongoing. Nothing has been settled with anyone.
My daughter has recently had this as well,a claim for £5000+ for car hire while theirs was being repaired (daughter rear ended them). i was really quite concerned she would be shafted, lots of phone calls to her insurer resolved the claim eventually but before the 28 day limit.It seems my daughters insurance were dragging their heels regarding the payment and this action was seen as a last resort.
There is absolutely no way you can liable for anything personally. This is what your insurance policy is for.
Ask your insurance company to sort it out and do not reply to any correspondence, phone calls, etc that are targeted directly at you. It needs to go via your insurance company. It also sounds very dodgy!
This is how the law works. If insurers can't resolve it, the claimant issues proceedings.
It's usually a shock, but perfectly normal. Just notify your insurers what you've received and they'll tell you what they need you to do.
There is absolutely no way you can liable for anything personally.
Er, no. You ARE liable for everything personally! That's how the law works. But the insurer stands in your place to take over handling the legals and then (hopefully) payment.
Er, no. You ARE liable for everything personally! That’s how the law works. But the insurer stands in your place to take over handling the legals and then (hopefully) payment.
But the OP is insured. So the liability lies with the insurance company.
But the OP is insured. So the liability lies with the insurance company.
No, the legal liability is with the individual. The insurer agrees to indemnify them. Two separate legal matters that usually get rolled into one, but not always.
feel free to go ballistic at your insurers for making such an arse of it that you’ve ended up being dragged to court
I'm not here to stick up for insurance companies, but if it's a completely meritless claim or the claimants are being unreasonable, what is the insurance company supposed to do? Settle because the claimants have been unreasonable for two years?
No, the legal liability is with the individual. The insurer agrees to indemnify them. Two separate legal matters that usually get rolled into one, but not always.
I appreciate the person driving the car is the legal liability ultimately. But hopefully, our insurance companies remove any financial liability. But I agree with what you and Rich_s are saying.
You would hope so. But ultimately if they cock it up, the only recourse the claimant has is to sue the other driver directly . They have no legal relationship with your insurer.
I'm always surprised at the amount of people who don't seem to understand how car insurance, and by extension, the law around it, works, given that it's a compulsory requirement.
Currently reading Fake Law by the Secret Barrister which makes a very good case for how people's lack of understanding of our legal rights and processes makes it easy for the Press to misrepresent stories and allow the politicians to remove our rights and access to justice. Recommended reading.
I’m always surprised at the amount of people who don’t seem to understand how car insurance, and by extension, the law around it, works, given that it’s a compulsory requirement.
I presume the compulsory part follows on from the people are idiots part?
I’m always surprised at the amount of people who don’t seem to understand how car insurance, and by extension, the law around it, works, given that it’s a compulsory requirement.
I'm a bit surprised there are people who do, I pay for insurance so I don't need to.
politecameraaction
Free Member
I’m not here to stick up for insurance companies, but if it’s a completely meritless claim or the claimants are being unreasonable, what is the insurance company supposed to do? Settle because the claimants have been unreasonable for two years?
They are supposed to do what they (as the experts in this area) are paid for, handling the other party. If there is a fraudulent claim going on then the police should also be involved. At the very least they should've seen this coming and warned the policy holder. By the sound of it there has been zero progress in 2 years, so I wonder what they have actually done?
Don’t panic - it’s a standard move to try & move a stalemate on.
RTA small claims are administered through a govt portal if below certain limits & both sides in any such incident will “okay the game”. It is most likely the third party have been demanding payment & your insurer has simply asked for medical evidence to back it up (which I assume they’ve not had).
The portal & its protocols were intended to stop spurious claims and streamline the process but it didn’t really work too well initially. That’s probably why the whole thing was revamped a few months ago.
Whilst the claim is, correctly, against your wife but she has an insurance policy which agrees to indemnify her. Pass the court docs straight to them for immediate action & it should all just happen in the background.
.
How have they obtained your home address?
Premier Icon
Cougar
Full MemberHow have they obtained your home address?
DVLA can do that I believe, form V888
How have they obtained your home address?
Don't forget you are required to provide your details after an accident. I don't think the fact that there was some sort of accident is being denied.
DVLA can do that I believe, form V888
Ah, the courts will be able to request that. I was thinking the claimants had gone direct to the OP.
Don’t forget you are required to provide your details after an accident.
Name and car registration, not home address.
If you’re in an accident
If you have an accident causing damage or injury you must give the following to anyone with ‘reasonable grounds for requiring them’, for example an insurance company:
your name and address
the vehicle registration number
You also need to give the owner’s name and address if the vehicle is not yours.
You must report the accident to the police within 24 hours if you do not give your details at the time of the accident.
You must also report the accident to your insurance company, even if you’re not planning to make a claim.
From https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/if-youre-in-an-accident
Update.
Insurance company have settled injuries claim, they settled this some time ago (not sure why claim is still showing as open on our portal).
They have no record of the other party ever claiming for car hire etc, so this looks like a brand new claim, two years after the original accident. doing a bit of digging on the legal firm involved, it looks to me like a cold call "i see you were involved in an accident" type thing.
anyway Insurance company have said send it on to them, they will deal with it.
Name and car registration, not home address.
Nope. Address is a legal requirement too. It's so you can issue a summons as happened in the OP's case.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
"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."
EDIT: Too slow.
Name and car registration, not home address.
Nope. Address is a legal requirement too. It’s so you can issue a summons as happened in the OP’s case.
Nope, you should have kept reading……..
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
To the Police, who I'm guessing will take their name and address and be able to pass it on to an interested party?
Or they did when I dealt with motor claims but that was back in the last century.
If there is a fraudulent claim going on then the police should also be involved.
I regret to inform you that the police in this country are totally underfunded, understaffed and underskilled for fraud investigation; that Action Fraud is a complete waste of time; and that insurance companies and banks are magically expected to deal with all of this stuff.
if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring,
What "reasonable grounds" does some bloke at the roadside have to demand my home address? Bollocks to that, he could turn up on my doorstep later that night with a couple of big mates and a cricket bat for all I know.
Party A talks with their insurer who talks with party B's insurer who talks with party B. At what point does either party have reasonable grounds to know the other's address?
insurance companies and banks are magically expected to deal with all of this stuff.
Insurance companies and banks are paid to deal with all of this stuff. No magic required.
They're not - they pursue their own commercial interests. Many fraudulent claims are paid out because it's cheaper than fighting them. Insurers are not law enforcement agencies and they're not going to prevent future offending or prosecute fraudsters.
No, but they'll still be turning a net profit on your premiums or they wouldn't still be in business.
What “reasonable grounds” does some bloke at the roadside have to demand my home address?
A bloke by the roadside doesn't. So you don't provide them. As it clearly states. What are you fussing on about?
The notion that you're supposed to.
You're required to supply your details to someone with reasonable grounds to need them. Not just anyone.
There is no notion of being required to supply them to someone who doesn't have reason to need them.
Isn't that what I said?
Not the way I was reading it but I think I'm 'wrong' so sorry.
When you say 'some bloke by the roadside' I think you mean the other party in the collision, I was interpreting as some random bystander.
You don't have to give it to a random bystander with no reasonable grounds for needing it. You do have to give it to the other party; you were wrong in that originally, it's clear in the Gov regs that you do.
I guess if there was a genuine worry that doing so would lead to them coming round and hammering frozen sausages into your dog's exhaust pipe later then you could probably refuse but I guess then you would provide them to the police along with a reason why you've involved them. And if they're the type that will come round later, they'll probably pan you there and then anyway.
And if they’re the type that will come round later, they’ll probably pan you there and then anyway.
What if you've just been hit by the wrong relative? No, I wouldn't be providing my address to whoever else was involved, my insurance can deal with them at arms length (hopefully without a clenched fist held back).
You have a right to know another party’s address so you can make a claim against them for damages caused in the accident. The fact that an insurer will usually chase this on your behalf doesn’t mean that your statutory rights to serve a claim to that person (by post, to their address) are dismissed.
I know this from all the bullshit I went through when someone drove over my bike before driving away. Since I wasn’t driving a car, I couldn’t simply instruct my (non-existent) insurer to chase it. Without an address, you can’t file a small claims court proceeding against them. The police are useless and won’t just hand over details, citing data protection concerns.
The law is worded as is for a reason.
No, I wouldn’t be providing my address to whoever else was involved, my insurance can deal with them at arms length (hopefully without a clenched fist held back).
You'd be breaking the RTA then, or at least you'd have to report the accident to the police in place of providing "name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle."
You’d be breaking the RTA then, or at least you’d have to report the accident to the police
I think you'd be breaking the RTA if you didn't give your address to somebody who had reasonable grounds. As I read it, it's not a choice of giving it or reporting the accident. If you haven't given it to anyone, for the only acceptable reason that no qualifying person asked for it, you have to report it.
You have a right to know another party’s address so you can make a claim against them for damages caused in the accident. The fact that an insurer will usually chase this on your behalf doesn’t mean that your statutory rights to serve a claim to that person (by post, to their address) are dismissed.
The law is worded as is for a reason.
Someone understands at least
I think you’d be breaking the RTA if you didn’t give your address to somebody who had reasonable grounds.
Probably but if the reason was because you were (genuinely) scared they'd visit later I suspect the police would be OK about it.
Exactly, the police can get my address, the second party literally has no reason to have it since my insurance know and can provide such details to their insurance if needed.
still technically breaking the law though
When I was knocked off my bike the last didn't give me her address only phone no. Then her husband got involved and said I could do one.
The police gave me their address so I could pursue a claim against them...
Exactly, the police can get my address, the second party literally has no reason to have it since my insurance know and can provide such details to their insurance if needed.
If the insurers can't sort it out the other party may need your address to serve proceedings on, as has been explained more than once.
, the police can get my address, the second party literally has no reason to have it since my insurance know and can provide such details to their insurance if needed.
That's assuming both parties have insurers and choose to go through them and that the police are involved. None of that is necessarily true.
That’s assuming both parties have insurers and choose to go through them and that the police are involved. None of that is necessarily true.
Both parties have insurers - they need my name and reg.
One party doesn't have insurance - police are involved.
One party doesn't have insurance but lies about it - wouldn't take that chance, police are involved.
Frankly I don't see why you wouldn't involve the police.
In any scenario as long as I know their reg number then the appropriate authority can track them down via the DVLA. If it's cloned/unregistered/unlicensed/uninsured then any address they provide isn't going to be worth anything anyway!
When I was knocked off my bike the last didn’t give me her address only phone no. Then her husband got involved and said I could do one.
Which is better than him coming round your door as I alluded to.
Anyway, from the link to the RTA 1988:
(2) 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.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
So as long as it's reported it's not an offence. I would argue that in 2021 the requirement for giving an address is a great deal less than when the act passed royal assent in 1988 thanks to digitalisation and databases.
Which is better than him coming round your door as I alluded to.
You missed the point of what I put. I actually needed their address and they didn't give it me. The police looked it for me and gave it to me - not the other way round.
When you say ‘some bloke by the roadside’ I think you mean the other party in the collision, I was interpreting as some random bystander.
I did. Sorry for the poor wording.
You don’t have to give it to a random bystander with no reasonable grounds for needing it. You do have to give it to the other party; you were wrong in that originally, it’s clear in the Gov regs that you do.
(and several posters saying similar)
The legislation states:
"if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address"
What reasonable grounds does the other driver have for needing my address? None whatsoever, it goes through the insurance who will handle all that.
(Aside, I notice that this legislation as written here makes no allowance for female drivers.)
The police are useless and won’t just hand over details, citing data protection concerns.
Funny, that. Can't imagine why.
I don't want some random halfwit potentially with a grievance knowing where I live and I would be very cross if the police just handed out my personal details to anyone who asked. That's a massive security concern.
If two years on after an incident the other party suddenly felt the need to start court proceedings then it can still be passed via their solicitor / my insurer / the DVLA / the courts. There is no reason for Joey F. Bollocks to know my home address directly and it could potentially put me and my family in danger if someone were to divulge that.
So as long as it’s reported it’s not an offence. I would argue that in 2021 the requirement for giving an address is a great deal less than when the act passed royal assent in 1988 thanks to digitalisation and databases.
I wholly agree with everything else you wrote, and I agree also with this too in that it shouldn't much matter these days. But it's problematic in that it's still in current legislation. Saying "you don't need that any more" with a Jedi handwave isn't going to help in a court case.
It's a tactic to put pressure on your insurers to settle (I did it myself when someone crashed through our garden wall (hit the accelerator instead of brake). After two years of bollocks I splashed out £200 on a small claims action myself. Their insurers settled - quite indignantly by the way - more or less straight away.
Saying “you don’t need that any more” with a Jedi handwave isn’t going to help in a court case.
A court case that can't happen if there's no address to serve proceedings on.
Stupid forum logged me out and lost my long response.
I needed the address so I could serve court papers to a guy who ran me off the road when I was cycling, damaging my bike, before driving off failing to give any details. I was not insured for cycling so it wasn't sufficient to just say "ah yes but in 2020 it's all digital."
It may not, in some (most?) circumstances, be practically necessary to obtain someone's address if they're involved in a collision with you. However, with my experience I would 100% demand it from anyone involved in an accident with me. I would guess that it doesn't have to be a home address, but it does have to be somewhere legal papers could be served. Legally, you have a right to this information and it gives you more options if the usual insurance route fails for whatever reason.
(2) 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.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
So as long as it’s reported it’s not an offence.
The highlighted bit is funny wording, IMO. Is the 'or' in that sentence inclusive or exclusive? One way of reading it could "A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) above is guilty of an offence." They could have said 'either' but they did not .
"A person who fails to comply with either subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence."
Superficial: ss2 says that you have to stop and give your deets to anyone that asks for it; ss3 says if you didn't give your deets to someone (eg because they left or were unconscious or forgot to ask), then you have to report it. "OR" is correct because it ought not to be possible to breach both: either someone asked for your details and you gave them, or no-one asked and you reported it.
(Aside, I notice that this legislation as written here makes no allowance for female drivers.)
Traffic cops hate this one loophole!!! Actually, s6(a) of the Interpretation Act 1978 takes care of that.
I suspect that even if the other party wasn't of this mind, by the time they've had to deal with us average STW'er explaining that the wording of the RTA is ambiguous and anyway in this day and age there's no need to exchange addresses when mobile numbers will do and whatever you can deal with my insurers then even the Dalai Lama would be opening a can of fist pie for you.
even the Dalai Lama would be opening a can of fist pie for you.
There's a comedy sketch right there🤣