OT: accident, who's at fault?

[John MacLeod]

The chances of them being "interested" are minimal, but that's only marginally relevant. They're obliged to attend if there's been a Road Traffic Accident. And if you don't call them your insurance company will almost certainly deem you to have been guilty. Calling them is your only realistic defence against being accused by the other party, behind your back, of actions you didn't commit. And if you haven't called them, your insurance company can't fight your end. Copious contemporaneous photos from the actual scene are an enormous help. Especially photos of the culprit if you can get them without being assaulted :-). It's psychological warfare.

[tony sayer]

In article , Tim Streater scribeth thus

Same here. I thought it was only when there was injury or some other very good reason like the road being severely obstructed, but yes a few photos are worth a thousand words like I found out this last year when a moron hit a gate that swung round and walloped my motor a decent set of Pix shut his insurers up:)...

[tony sayer]

In article , Skipweasel scribeth thus

Indeed, the quote I had for the damage to my 15 Y/O vintage motah was twice what the car was worth. Seems its a bit of a racket car repair costs..

[tony sayer]

Eh?.,.

If that's so then surely the other part should have called them otherwise there're guilty of the same charge /offence?....

You cannot reasonably expect old Bill to come to every road accident in the UK there has to be a line drawn --somewhere-- surely?..

Agree re the Pix tho that is sensible..

[Ronald Raygun]

Wrong. You haven't read the above referred-to extract properly.

There is no obligation under 170(3) to report the accident to the police except when you do not give your name and address at the time of the accident if required to do so under 170(2).

There is no obligation under 170(5) to report unless 170(1a) applies, i.e. someone has been injured.

[Ronald Raygun]

Six pints and half a dozen chasers, eh?

[Andy Champ]

John, do you have a reference for that?

... and that?

Andy

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article , Phil L writes

Make sure you tell your insurer this, because as he has admitted responsibility, it's an open and shut case, he's to blame and his insurers are liable.

[Mike Clarke]

Doesn't the fact that he's admitted liability mean that although he's to blame his insurance company can refuse to accept liability and pass the entire responsibility over to him on the grounds that he's not entitled to speak on their behalf? I think the advice of insurance companies is to _never_ admit liability even if you think you are to blame. If this is the case then I suspect it's better if you "didn't hear" him admit it.

[Steve Firth]

Doesn't mean squat, unless there are witnesses and those witnesses are completely independent. The moron that drove into my car confessed all at the scene, then changed the story when they submitted their insurance claim. Since the only witness to the "confession" was my wife even my own insurers gave it no credibility. Had the same in Italy when a bloke sideswiped my car. Initially he was full of apologies and admitted that he'd been too busy reading road signs to look where he was driving. As soon as the police arrived he changed his tale to "the English drove into me".

[Steve Firth]

No, that's not correct. An insurer cannot waive their responsibilities to the third party. What you have stated is an urban myth of the same order as "if you're drunk you're not insured".

No, also bad advice. There's nothing to be lost by telling the truth, particularly if there are witnesses to what the third party said. Without witnesses there may be nothing to gain either since the bastard can just change their story and accuse the other party of telling lies. However it's best to disclose all relevant facts to one's insurers.

[Skipweasel]

The answer is to do what insurance companies advise. Don't discuss the details of the incident with anyone beyond "Here are my insurance details". Keep matters of opinion for the paperwork where there's a space for it.

[Mike Clarke]

Yes, I'd not thought about that aspect. I suppose they could refuse to pay for repairs to his vehicle but 3rd party liabilities would still apply.

But I wonder if they could claim that he'd contravened the terms of his insurance by admitting liability (if the policy told him not to) and that he was therefore not insured? You (or your insurers) would then have to recover costs from him or the insurance companies fund for uninsured claims - either of which would be tedious.

[ARWadsworth]

ISTR that some insurance companies remove the fully comprehensive insurance part of the policy if the driver is drunk. Of course that is not the same as saying you are not insured but it is probably where the myth started.

[Ronald Raygun]

With respect, it's bullshit to suggest that insurance companies would deem anything of the sort. After all, if the police are not called by either party, this means that *both* parties "failed" to call them, and your implication would have the insurance companies deem both parties guilty.

There is little [*] to be gained by calling the police, since they did not witness the accident. At best they could document the parties' statements of fact of what happened, without going into apportioning blame (that comes later). Anyone can do that, it doesn't have to be police.

[*] OK, there is one advantage (for the less to blame party) in getting the police (or some other independent party) to record the parties' versions of what happened while it's still fresh in everyone's minds. It gives the person who thinks they are most to blame less time in which to invent a scenario leading up to the accident which would have the effect of shifting some/most/all of the blame to the other party.

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article , Mike Clarke writes

I'm not sure about that, presumably it would depend on the small print of the specific policy. If the other party admits fault, then I would suggest it greatly weakens his insurer's position, and that is why they don't want their insured to discuss liability or admit fault at the scene.

In the half a dozen or so minor bumps I've had over the years where the other party has admitted fault, I've made sure their insurance company knows they did so on the claim. On two occasions I also persuaded the other party to sign a note admitting fault. In all cases the insurer accepted liability and paid out in full.

The advice to take photos is a good one. Before the days of camera phones, I used to keep a cheap disposable camera in the glovebox. That was very useful in proving fault in two accidents I had.

Yes, it is.

All I can say is that it seems to have worked for me. Would be interested to see what others think (perhaps we'd get an opinion in uk.legal.)

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article , Phil L writes

Your claim is against the other driver (and thereby his insurer, if he is insured). If you are sure you are not at fault, all you need do is _notify_ your insurer (making it clear this is a notification, not a claim), which will be a requirement of your policy.

I'd think if you progressed a claim via your insurer, they and the other party's insurer would be more likely to treat it as knock-for-knock, in which case you'll lose the excess, your NCB and see an increased premium at renewal.

[jgharston]

There are some instances where if you are breaking the law you are automatically uninsured, but those instances are laid down in law. The most common one is that plying for taxi trade without a plying for hire licence automatically and unconditionally invalidates your insurance. It is legally impossible to obtain insurance to insure yourself against the consequences of breaking the law.

JGH

[Skipweasel]

Though in that case the accident would not be a consequence of breaking the law, the accident could have happened just as easily were you licensed. Trying to insure yourself against the costs of being caught unlicensed - now that would certainly be covered.

Not that I'm disputing that plying for hire illegally voids your insurance, just that the wording doesn't quite work.

[tony sayer]

Are those policies still around to cover loss of licence for drink driving?...