Hit by uninsured driver - MIB claim

[goodatresearch]

I suppose the difference was that he rang from the scene of the accident and it occured in a very busy area during rush hour, traffic was being held up, it involved 3 cars and people could have been injured. My partner didnt tell the police whether anyone was hurt. Its very difficult for the police to ignore a call in these circumstances and easy to fob people off who walk in to the station.

 

Personally I would always call the police whilst on the scene of an accident of this type and ask the name of the person I was speaking to. Always cover your back. I'm glad you persisted and made the police at least go through the motions of doing their job.

 

 

I guess that was a bit of a success in itself, I struggled to get them to get up from their chair and walk to the front desk to take a report.

[dacouc]

Not insured.

 

If the car had held insurance and the driver had given his valid name the OP would have needed to claim against the Insurers of the car as they would be liable due to the Road Traffic Act.

 

This is the reason for my suggestion to see if the car itself was insured. The police could have informed the OP the driver at the time of the accident was not covered on the policy hence them saying not insured. A lot of police do not understand the RTA inside out

[goodatresearch]

Cars do not hold insurance, insurance only covers the people named on the policy for that car. The op has already said there was no insurance on the car meaning no one was insured to drive the car.

 

I really can't understand why the police are so slow. Its not hard to check who the registered keeper is and ask for an explanation i.e. was he driving; if not, who was; why was the car uninsured.

 

An insurer is not liable under the roaf traffic act for an uninsured driver, they are only liable for named drivers. To suggest otherwise would mean owners would be liable for accidents caused by car thieves.

 

If the car had held insurance and the driver had given his valid name the OP would have needed to claim against the Insurers of the car as they would be liable due to the Road Traffic Act.

 

This is the reason for my suggestion to see if the car itself was insured. The police could have informed the OP the driver at the time of the accident was not covered on the policy hence them saying not insured. A lot of police do not understand the RTA inside out

[dacouc]

Cars do not hold insurance, insurance only covers the people named on the policy for that car. The op has already said there was no insurance on the car meaning no one was insured to drive the car.

 

I really can't understand why the police are so slow. Its not hard to check who the registered keeper is and ask for an explanation i.e. was he driving; if not, who was; why was the car uninsured.

 

An insurer is not liable under the roaf traffic act for an uninsured driver, they are only liable for named drivers. To suggest otherwise would mean owners would be liable for accidents caused by car thieves.

 

Your view of car insurance is not how it works.

 

The Road Traffic Act section 151 2) b) is an infamous piece of legislation.

 

"151 Duty of insurers or persons giving security to satisfy judgment against persons insured or secured against third-party risks.

 

(2)Subsection (1) above applies to judgments relating to a liability with respect to any matter where liability with respect to that matter is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act and either—

 

(b)it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security."

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151

 

What that basically means is if a judgement is obtained against a driver irrespective of whether they're a named driver or not then the Insurers have to pay the third party claim.

 

The way Insurers tend to treat this (And how the MIB expect them to deal with it) is if the driver is identified then the Insurer of the vehicle has to deal with the claim.

 

So in effect if your friend borrowed your car (With or without your permission) and had an accident, if they were identified eg the police stopped them and took their details or they gave their correct details to the other driver then the Insurer has to deal with the claim. The same would apply to a car thief, if they're identified the Insurers pay under RTA 151, if they're not the Insurers do not have to pay.

 

So the Insurers can be liable for car thieves or even a friend or relative using your car whose, not named on the policy but is "identified"

 

Section 151 is why their is the possibility of the original insurers of your car being liable if you sell the car and do not cancel the policy and the new owner does not take out cover and subsequently have an accident in which they're identified. There's a famous case of this with regards to a motorcycle from last year.

 

In the OP's situation if there was a policy on the car and the driver who hit him was "identified" in a way that would satisfy the legislation then the Insurers would be liable and the MIB would certainly pass the claim to the Insurers to deal with the claim.

 

The above is a very rough summary of 151 2) B) as there can be some exceptions.

[The Phantom]

 

So the Insurers can be liable for car thieves or even a friend or relative using your car whose, not named on the policy but is "identified"

 

.

 

 

The above is quite correct. A work colleague was in a serious car accident whereby her car was in a serious collision with a stolen vehicle. Her boyfriend and herself were both injured and their car written off. The driver of the stolen car left the vehicle and ran off but was later detained by police. He was known to the police and had an outstanding warrant, he has since been given a prison sentence.

The damages my colleague suffered (personal injury and total loss of vehicle) was settled by the insurance of the stolen vehicle.

[Conniff]

The above is quite correct. A work colleague was in a serious car accident whereby her car was in a serious collision with a stolen vehicle. Her boyfriend and herself were both injured and their car written off. The driver of the stolen car left the vehicle and ran off but was later detained by police. He was known to the police and had an outstanding warrant, he has since been given a prison sentence.

The damages my colleague suffered (personal injury and total loss of vehicle) was settled by the insurance of the stolen vehicle.

 

 

I think you will find that all came under the claim for theft not a payment to the third party separately.

[The Phantom]

I really can't understand why the police are so slow. Its not hard to check who the registered keeper is and ask for an explanation i.e. was he driving; if not, who was; why was the car uninsured.

 

.

 

 

 

With that I agree. I can't see why it is such a laborious process. They will only write the registered keeper a letter, to which he has one month to reply. If he doesn't they will send him another letter recorded delivery to which he again has a month to reply. I think that in itself is too lenient considering it relates to an uninsured car being driven on public roads. The car is most likely still out there being driven around without insurance. Enforcement to get these cars off the road should be much swifter.

In my case I think the car is not registered to an individual but a company or something like that. I am thinking that because several people who ran the plate (insurance companies) all referred to the keeper or whoever showed up on their screen as 'them'

May be nothing but I noticed that twice. So made me wonder whether it comes up as a company car or registered to a car dealership or something like that rather than an individual ? The driver also looked like someone just getting home from a building site , stained jogging pants, several dirty & worn hoodies , old dirty trainers.

When the police ran the plate they didn't say anything about what came up on their screen, but when they asked for a description of the driver they asked whether I noticed any work wear, company logos or badges on his clothing.

So I think the car is registered not to an individual at all but a company or something.

[The Phantom]

I think you will find that all came under the claim for theft not a payment to the third party separately.

 

 

Entirely possible, she just said the other car albeit stolen was insured so that insurance in the end paid out.

[goodatresearch]

So it could be a fleet car insurance policy where all cars are insured by one policy? However if this was the case why did your insurance company say the car wasn't insured and the police give you a MIB booklet? Unless if you have fleet insurance the individual cars/vans aren't actually named on the policy?

 

It seems you have all you can do for now and should leave the MIB to conduct their own investigations.

 

I agree with you, I'm a bit shocked that the police are being so lenient. Not only could someone be driving round without insurance it could be someone without a license. Don't the police care about public safety? Shouldn't they be visiting the registered keeper rather than just writing to him/her?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With that I agree. I can't see why it is such a laborious process. They will only write the registered keeper a letter, to which he has one month to reply. If he doesn't they will send him another letter recorded delivery to which he again has a month to reply. I think that in itself is too lenient considering it relates to an uninsured car being driven on public roads. The car is most likely still out there being driven around without insurance. Enforcement to get these cars off the road should be much swifter.

In my case I think the car is not registered to an individual but a company or something like that. I am thinking that because several people who ran the plate (insurance companies) all referred to the keeper or whoever showed up on their screen as 'them'

May be nothing but I noticed that twice. So made me wonder whether it comes up as a company car or registered to a car dealership or something like that rather than an individual ? The driver also looked like someone just getting home from a building site , stained jogging pants, several dirty & worn hoodies , old dirty trainers.

When the police ran the plate they didn't say anything about what came up on their screen, but when they asked for a description of the driver they asked whether I noticed any work wear, company logos or badges on his clothing.

So I think the car is registered not to an individual at all but a company or something.

[The Phantom]

That's what I would have thought, go round the registered keepers address straight away and see where the car is kept and ask for insurance papers. But they don't do that. Probably lack of resource.

It takes less time to print of a standard letter and pop it in the post with a reminder on someone's PC to follow it up in 4 weeks if no reply. I.e pop second letter in post and mark it as recorded and then put another reminder on your Calendar for another 4 weeks time.

Got to be easier than to go around someone's house, take a statement, having to file a report and maybe have to take some further actions. Just printing off letters got to be quicker and easier. Bulk processing and statistical procedures rather than actually doing something about the offence.

 

 

Going back to the registered keeper , it is at this stage just an assumption that the car is not registered to an individual as several people have used plural 'them' when referring rather than singular he / she. It was just an observation on my side. But it is a rather old vehicle (M plate (1995 ?) ) , old VW Polo. Could be

registered to a building company or something like that, but again I am just making assumptions. Nothing has been said or confirmed in detail.

 

 

I have done as much as I could at this stage. My car is going in for repairs on Friday, they will try and get it done before Christmas so I can get it back on the 22nd / 23rd latest, as I need it to go to work it is the only time I can get it done without having to hire a car (due to my company having a Christmas shutdown on 22/23.12 but the repair garage still open and working) , so only a small window for me to get it fixed .

 

 

I will report back with any news or updates as and when they emerge

[dacouc]

I think you will find that all came under the claim for theft not a payment to the third party separately.

 

The payment for the written off vehicle could have been paid by Phantom's work colleague's own Insurers assuming he had comprehensive cover or could have been paid by the Insurers of the stolen car as the thief was "identified". If the car thief had not been identified eg did a runner without trace then the stolen car's Insurers would not be liable under RTA section 151, it would be passed to the MIB as an uninsured drivers claim although the MIB tend to pass them back to the Insurer of the vehicle anyway as they may be classed as an article 75 Insurer although the liability is technically the MIB's.

 

The payment for the work colleague's personal injury would not have come off his own policy but would have been paid by the stolen car's Insurers under the third party liability section.

 

There are some get outs for Insurers of section 151 and also as an article 75 Insurer but they're quite compicated

[The Phantom]

Update:

Phoned MIB and they have confirmed they have received my claim and logged it, claims handler has been assigned but not much further development, I am still waiting for them to send me their internal reference number so I can submit my repair receipt (all done now) and the letter from the police.

Also the NWNF solicitors of my insurance company (Minster Law) have now contacted me and want to act for me. They will work on a no win no fee basis, success fee no more than 25%, they have e-mailed me their paperwork today to read.

I have received some physio for my neck which appears to be getting better which is good. I have almost full range again (i.e. can turn my head fully left and right which wasn't possible before)

[The Phantom]

Police contacted me today and have requested the photo I have taken of the other vehicle at the scene of the accident. So have sent that off to them.

I assume the registered keeper replied to them and told them the car is being kept off the road and wasn't being driven on that day or something like that.

 

Also Solicitors arranged for an appointment for a medical assessment for me which will be end of February.

[The Phantom]

MIB has now also contacted me and has started to progress my claim, they will send an investigator round to my house to 'take a statement' from me next week. Not sure why they can't take it from the police report, but apparently this person has to come and visit me at home.

My medical appointment is on the 24th of February. MIB wanted to arrange a medical appointment as well, but as I already have one through my solicitor I assume that will be enough but will have to wait and see what MIB says, waiting for their reply.

[Slimm]

Just a heads up, 25% is the maximum amount of your damages a solicitors can take, with 0% being the minimum. I'd be amused if they had really phrased it as 'no more than 25%' - that suggests you're getting a bargain when in fact they're taking the most they're allowed to.

 

 

The MIB investigation will give them a lot more info that the police report - a lot of forces disclose very little, if anything. The standard is probably a paragraph or two, with some being more helpful and others giving no more than the vehicle details.

 

 

For a straightforward soft tissue injury a single medical report is almost certain to be sufficient, MIB are unlikely to want to obtain their own unless dealing with a high value injury or you have a complex medical history.

[The Phantom]

I was initially thinking of progressing the claim myself through the MIB without a solicitor but then decided to let a solicitor handle it. Of course 25% is quite a chunk and I didn't really think it was a bargain, but on the other hand it may just be less hassle to let them deal with it...

[The Phantom]

Just a quick query … I am a bit confused about this. About two years ago I was in a collision with another car in a mini roundabout. The other car pulled out of a road to my left and hit me on the front left wing of my car. I tried to take evasive action but couldn’t avoid him hitting me. Nobody was injured, the damage to my car was minor, the front wing had popped off, I managed to push it back in place and it clipped back in OK, so I didn’t want to make anything off it, worrying an insurance company may write my car off due to age and mileage, as it wasn’t my fault I didn’t think much more about it and eventually forgot all about it. I did report the incident to my insurers though as a matter of course.

It was only when I got my insurance renewal through I noticed something was wrong as my no claims discount had dropped and a claim had appeared. My insurance premiums were increased by almost £10.- a month. When I phoned and queried this my insurance company said the other party from this incident had made a claim against me for damages and personal injury which my insurance company disputed and it was now pending further action by the other party. In the meantime I am paying increased premiums for an accident that wasn’t my fault.

The insurers say the other party has three years (??) in which they can still file a court claim so the case will remain open. Apparently the other party told my insurers they would submit medical evidence and repair costs to their car which hasn’t materialized yet.

But in all this time I am paying increased premiums.

If after three years they fail to file a claim am I getting this money refunded ? My insurers haven’t really answered this although I asked them several times. Once they just said they can only defend this claim as I have only got TPFT and they can’t claim anything on my behalf.

But that is not what I am asking. If the other party never files a case who is refunding my money I am overpaying at the moment ?

If it went to court and they lost I suppose I could make a counter claim against them, but what if they never take it to court (mainly because they have no case really ?)

[Cardiff Devil]

This unfortunately is the risk you take if you don't report an incident immediately. The other party may say "No harm no foul, don't worry about it" but the minute you drive away, there's nothing to stop them making a claim. Unfortunately by that point you will have lost the chance to back yourself up by taking photos as evidence, speaking to witnesses etc.

 

If this person has made a claim against your insurance some time after the event, at the very least your insurer should have contacted you to inform you of the claim against you and to get your version of events. Did they explain why they did not do this? I can understand why you wouldn't want to get your insurers involved after a minor bump but the problem here is proof. Even if he admitted liability at the time, good luck convincing your insurer of this after 2 years. He could simply deny it and it'd be your word against his. Something similar happened to me a few years ago. Minor bump in slow traffic, no damage to either vehicle. Other driver (who was alone in his car) said "don't worry, it's fine". 2 weeks later I had a claim form land on my doormat with him claiming whiplash for himself and a fictional passenger, with said fictional passenger also acting as a witness. Nothing I could do about it, it was my word against "two" of theirs. No police were called at the time and no independent witness details were available. My insurers weren't interested in fighting it as it was simply cheaper to pay out two whiplash claims than to challenge it. This is just one of many issues with the system as it exists today.

 

Unfortunately insurers can and will increase your premium, even after a non fault accident. Their reasoning for this is that apparently if you have a non fault accident, you are more likely in future to be at fault in an accident. This is of course total BS as there's not a single scrap of independent evidence to support this, but this is par for the course with insurers. However, if they've paid out to the other party then they will have deducted your no claims bonus as well, since it's classed as a fault claim. If they haven't paid out well they should in theory reinstate your no claims bonus, and in theory reimburse your increase in premiums based on the reduction of no claims, but not for the increase in premium having declared an incident.

 

As insurance companies are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) there are strict rules on how they handle customer complaints. It'd be worth making an official complaint if you haven't done so already as it sounds like they're stringing you along. Once you've made a complaint to the insurer, if they're still fobbing you off you have the right to complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Financial firms hate complaints to FOS since they have to pay FOS for every complaint received, regardless of the final ruling. A threat of a FOS complaint might put the frighteners up them to get them to sort themselves out. However you are expected to have exhausted the company's internal complaints procedures first before approaching the FOS.

 

Good luck.

[The Phantom]

Thanks for your reply !!

Yes, I did report it at the time ( you have to inform your insurers even if it is not your fault)

They logged it and it was left at that.

 

I noticed something was wrong when I got my renewal through the post around six months after the event, my no claims years had been reduced to only one year, hence my premiums went up.

When I queried it they said it was because of this pending claim.

They haven't paid out as they are disputing liability but have still reduced my No claims anyway as the claim could still be made through a court against them for three years after the accident.

They were supposed to receive some medical evidence and engineering reports and what have you all but haven't actually received anything.

They say the other party may still take this to court, so they have to keep it open and while they do that I have to pay increased premiums as they have reduced my no claims.

They have asked whether I would attend court as a witness if it should go that far, as there are no police reports, no photos, no witnesses or anything. Just his word against mine. Not sure what a judge would make of something like this ?

It is all very bizarre and I am paying for it.

So I was wondering whether they would not have to refund me if after three years they never had to pay out anything...

[The Phantom]

Had my medical report and seems to be OK, but currently not happy with Minster Law.

They are very slow to respond to queries or not at all.

When I initially signed up with them part of the paperwork I had to fill out was my expenses / uninsured losses. I sent that back and they confirmed receipt. Now they have sent an e-mail asking me for the same information again. When I asked them why they didn't reply.

It took them almost two weeks to respond and that wasn't even a response to my query.

My case handler simply said as it was a case of an 'untraceable driver' it had to go to a different department and she would pass it over to them. My new case handler would be in contact 'in due course'.

But they knew that the driver was untraceable as he had provided false information from the beginning. So only now they cottoned on to that and my case has been sitting with the wrong department for months ?

Not surprisingly I got a bit stroppy and told them that wasn't acceptable and 'in due course' is not an acceptable time frame after the case has been sitting with them for over two months.

Aaargh.

[Ganymede]

If you're still with the same insurers they will probably refund you.

 

You need to press them for an answer.

[Slimm]

Probably a credit to next premium, but be warned roundabout accidents with no witnesses do often go 50-50.

 

 

The good news is that if the other side haven't evidenced their claim they probably don't fancy their chances. Generally speaking an adult involved in a motor accident in England/Wales has 3 years to issue court proceedings, then a further 4 months to serve them.

[The Phantom]

Probably a credit to next premium, but be warned roundabout accidents with no witnesses do often go 50-50.

.

 

The claims department said they would expect it to go 50/50 in a court, but how can it be 50 percent my fault if someone hits me in a roundabout coming from the left. The damage on the cars alone proves the point of impact. On his car as much as mine.

So what could I possibly have done to make it 50% my fault ? Being there in the first place and not going home a different route maybe.

I find that disturbing that based on an imaginary claim by someone causing an accident a judge could possibly rule that way. If the claimant is unable to prove their case it should never be a 50/50. You could accuse anybody of anything then. I find that very hard to believe.

 

But even if it went 50/50..does that mean each party will pay for their own damage or each others ?

[Slimm]

You're assuming the other driver says what actually happened instead of just making something up that fits the damage and hoping the Judge buys it. It's not like they'll have told their solicitors that you had the right of way and then they pulled in front of you.

 

 

50:50 means the defendant pays 50% of the claim, or in the case of RTA's their insurers do.

[The Phantom]

. It's not like they'll have told their solicitors that you had the right of way and then they pulled in front of you.

 

.

 

what other scenario is there in a roundabout when you hit someone from the left ? He can't really say he came from the right as there is no entry into that roundabout from the right. I was going straight on and he came from the left and hit me. What story could he make up to make it my fault ?