Accident and GDPR
Discussion
The answer is you don't need a solicitor or an insurance company for the Police to be allowed to release the details.
Notwithstanding the guidelines written by the NPCC are badly written and contradictory, released in haste following the kerfuffle with Bulley and Lancashire Police last year.
Notwithstanding the guidelines written by the NPCC are badly written and contradictory, released in haste following the kerfuffle with Bulley and Lancashire Police last year.
essayer said:
A solicitor should be able to write to obtain the details, then you can add the costs of that to the claim?
That does seem to be an option, given that there's an injury claim to be made. If it was purely damage to the bike however, the small claims limit for property claims is £10,000. So assuming we're not talking about an ultra-expensive semi-pro spec bike, solicitor's fees wouldn't be recoverable and anything she paid a solicitor would be money she'd never see again, regardless of the outcome. The assumption that everyone who needs to claim as a result of a road accident has access to an insurance company or a solicitor who can request the details on their behalf is very flawed.
Forester1965 said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Then why, until last year, were we allowed to do it??
You're still allowed to do it, sometimes forces/officers wrongly choose not to. Also not really an argument for "making money" is it. If it was just about "making money", why didn't we, until last year, always insist people go via their insurance?
I always used to pass the details across. Saved me loads of paperwork.
Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 21st April 15:04
Having looked at it the money side's probably not a driver.
It looks more a case of knee jerk from Bulley, ICO guidance then a really poorly done NPCC guidance document then misinterpretation by police forces/individuals in the Police.
The law hasn't changed and there's no reason not to give an individual the details for the purposes of undertaking or ascertaining whether they can take legal action again the other party.
It looks more a case of knee jerk from Bulley, ICO guidance then a really poorly done NPCC guidance document then misinterpretation by police forces/individuals in the Police.
The law hasn't changed and there's no reason not to give an individual the details for the purposes of undertaking or ascertaining whether they can take legal action again the other party.
Aretnap said:
ConnectionError said:
I hope the cyclist is okay,
These events do highlight the sensible need for at least 3rd party cover when cycling.
How would 3rd party cover either help her claim from the driver, or even help her get the driver's details from the police?These events do highlight the sensible need for at least 3rd party cover when cycling.
But a more comprehensive cover, similar to car insurance, is best.
Nibbles_bits said:
Sorry OP, but we've been given explicit instructions.
We're no longer to share the details of drivers, vehicles or insurance where S170 hasn't been complied with at the roadside.
If you require the details of a driver/vehicle and they were exchanged by that driver at the time of the collision, you'll need your insurance company to request those details from the local Police Force.
That's GDRP for you (and the fact that insurance companies were getting their customers to ask for the details so that they didn't have to pay the fee)
Pedantic mode = We're no longer to share the details of drivers, vehicles or insurance where S170 hasn't been complied with at the roadside.
If you require the details of a driver/vehicle and they were exchanged by that driver at the time of the collision, you'll need your insurance company to request those details from the local Police Force.
That's GDRP for you (and the fact that insurance companies were getting their customers to ask for the details so that they didn't have to pay the fee)
S170 from the gov.uk said:
(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.
Noing the wording in bold above, It would reasonable to say that the injured party with a broken bike as a result of the collision would qualify as having reasonable grounds to the details of the driver and vehicle. If the injured party was taken away for medical treatment before any details were provided at the roadside (or at any point after) then is probably safe to say that S170 hasn't been complied with in this specific situation.
Forester1965 said:
Having looked at it the money side's probably not a driver.
It looks more a case of knee jerk from Bulley, ICO guidance then a really poorly done NPCC guidance document then misinterpretation by police forces/individuals in the Police.
The law hasn't changed and there's no reason not to give an individual the details for the purposes of undertaking or ascertaining whether they can take legal action again the other party.
That makes more sense to me. It looks more a case of knee jerk from Bulley, ICO guidance then a really poorly done NPCC guidance document then misinterpretation by police forces/individuals in the Police.
The law hasn't changed and there's no reason not to give an individual the details for the purposes of undertaking or ascertaining whether they can take legal action again the other party.
I can't open the link you shared.
Buzz84 said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Sorry OP, but we've been given explicit instructions.
We're no longer to share the details of drivers, vehicles or insurance where S170 hasn't been complied with at the roadside.
If you require the details of a driver/vehicle and they were exchanged by that driver at the time of the collision, you'll need your insurance company to request those details from the local Police Force.
That's GDRP for you (and the fact that insurance companies were getting their customers to ask for the details so that they didn't have to pay the fee)
Pedantic mode = We're no longer to share the details of drivers, vehicles or insurance where S170 hasn't been complied with at the roadside.
If you require the details of a driver/vehicle and they were exchanged by that driver at the time of the collision, you'll need your insurance company to request those details from the local Police Force.
That's GDRP for you (and the fact that insurance companies were getting their customers to ask for the details so that they didn't have to pay the fee)
S170 from the gov.uk said:
(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.
Noing the wording in bold above, It would reasonable to say that the injured party with a broken bike as a result of the collision would qualify as having reasonable grounds to the details of the driver and vehicle. If the injured party was taken away for medical treatment before any details were provided at the roadside (or at any point after) then is probably safe to say that S170 hasn't been complied with in this specific situation.
The police attended.
The details would have been given to the the police = S170 complied with.
Did anyone else ask for the details at the time?
Yes, but not given = S170 not complied with.
No, but given to police = S170 complied with.
No = S170 complied with (as long as reported with 24hrs)
Note it states "IF REQUIRED TO DO SO". The requirement to provide your details if "not required" at the scene is to report the accident at a Police station, in person, within 24hrs.
If the other party (or someone else having reasonable grounds to) doesn't make that request. Then the only recourse is to report the accident to the police themselves (in person within 24hrs). This might show that the other driver didn't report it and the police may investigate them......but it still doesn't entitle you to the details from the police after the incident.
I can't see any statutes on how long you must remain at the scene, or how long after the collision you can make that reasonable request......
So if she had been in/on a car or motorbike, she'd be able to get the details via an insurance company, but if she is on a bike or a pedestrian she's unable to get the details? Why is it OK to hand over the details to an Insurance company? How is that any different?
Anyway, the driver (an elderly lady) has volunteered to give up her driving licence following the incident, so the Police say they will be taking no further action. Which leaves the cyclist out of pocket by several thousand pounds for the bike, and unable to work as she still can't drive.
Anyway, the driver (an elderly lady) has volunteered to give up her driving licence following the incident, so the Police say they will be taking no further action. Which leaves the cyclist out of pocket by several thousand pounds for the bike, and unable to work as she still can't drive.
boyse7en said:
So if she had been in/on a car or motorbike, she'd be able to get the details via an insurance company, but if she is on a bike or a pedestrian she's unable to get the details? Why is it OK to hand over the details to an Insurance company? How is that any different?
Anyway, the driver (an elderly lady) has volunteered to give up her driving licence following the incident, so the Police say they will be taking no further action. Which leaves the cyclist out of pocket by several thousand pounds for the bike, and unable to work as she still can't drive.
Via a Solicitor perhaps??Anyway, the driver (an elderly lady) has volunteered to give up her driving licence following the incident, so the Police say they will be taking no further action. Which leaves the cyclist out of pocket by several thousand pounds for the bike, and unable to work as she still can't drive.
Especially as their bike is worth several thousand and she's not working.
Even if the police did take the driver to court, there's no guarantee the court would award your friend any compensation.
Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 21st April 20:06
Zigster said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Sorry OP, but we've been given explicit instructions.
We're no longer to share the details of drivers, vehicles or insurance where S170 hasn't been complied with at the roadside.
If you require the details of a driver/vehicle and they were exchanged by that driver at the time of the collision, you'll need your insurance company to request those details from the local Police Force.
That's GDRP for you (and the fact that insurance companies were getting their customers to ask for the details so that they didn't have to pay the fee)
I’m struggling to understand how you can’t provide relevant details to the injured party but you can to an insurance company. That doesn’t sound like a GDPR reason to me.We're no longer to share the details of drivers, vehicles or insurance where S170 hasn't been complied with at the roadside.
If you require the details of a driver/vehicle and they were exchanged by that driver at the time of the collision, you'll need your insurance company to request those details from the local Police Force.
That's GDRP for you (and the fact that insurance companies were getting their customers to ask for the details so that they didn't have to pay the fee)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff