Accident and GDPR
Discussion
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Many reasons. What if you had no right to the details but wanted to submit spurious claims, offer your hire car service etc etc.
So instead your will get claims made against the mib as the cyclist can't claim against the driver as they can't get the details... Effectively it becomes a hit and run claim; seems a great way to run up costs and make spurious claims worse because the insurer can't get involved from the start...If she has the registration for the vehicle she can apply for the insurance details via the MIB IIRC.
Since there was an injury the driver is obligated to provide the insurance details and failure to do so is an offence under the RTA.
I'd be reminding the police of this and requesting the details and doing it all in writing, then i'd be escalating it if no resolution via the complains process.
It might also be worth taking out a British Cycling membership to take advantage of their no win no fee solictors they provide, or else contacting a cycling specific claims management company.
Since there was an injury the driver is obligated to provide the insurance details and failure to do so is an offence under the RTA.
I'd be reminding the police of this and requesting the details and doing it all in writing, then i'd be escalating it if no resolution via the complains process.
It might also be worth taking out a British Cycling membership to take advantage of their no win no fee solictors they provide, or else contacting a cycling specific claims management company.
qwerty360 said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Many reasons. What if you had no right to the details but wanted to submit spurious claims, offer your hire car service etc etc.
So instead your will get claims made against the mib as the cyclist can't claim against the driver as they can't get the details... Effectively it becomes a hit and run claim; seems a great way to run up costs and make spurious claims worse because the insurer can't get involved from the start...If she has an incident number and, in this case, the other driver’s details are known to the police, it's not a hit and run in anyway.
ctc recommend these guys
https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclingcrashadvice
who seem to act like claims management folks do in a car crash. Get your gardener to give them a bell, they'll probably sort her out
https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclingcrashadvice
who seem to act like claims management folks do in a car crash. Get your gardener to give them a bell, they'll probably sort her out
Retroman said:
If she has the registration for the vehicle she can apply for the insurance details via the MIB IIRC.
Since there was an injury the driver is obligated to provide the insurance details and failure to do so is an offence under the RTA.
I'd be reminding the police of this and requesting the details and doing it all in writing, then i'd be escalating it if no resolution via the complains process.
It might also be worth taking out a British Cycling membership to take advantage of their no win no fee solictors they provide, or else contacting a cycling specific claims management company.
That's where you're wrong.Since there was an injury the driver is obligated to provide the insurance details and failure to do so is an offence under the RTA.
I'd be reminding the police of this and requesting the details and doing it all in writing, then i'd be escalating it if no resolution via the complains process.
It might also be worth taking out a British Cycling membership to take advantage of their no win no fee solictors they provide, or else contacting a cycling specific claims management company.
The driver appears to have complied with S170 RTA by giving his details when required......to the police.
The requirement is to Stop and, if required, provide you details.
If you provide your details to the police and no one else asks for them, you haven't committed an offence.
In this case it appears that the cyclist and witnesses didn't make a requirement of the driver to provide his details = no offence committed.
The police were in attendance and presumably took his details = no offence committed.
Another example - you hit a parked car. No one is around so you don't leave your details = no offence committed.
If however you don't report this in person at a police station within 24hrs = an offence has been committed.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
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)
popeyewhite said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
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)
Nibbles_bits said:
popeyewhite said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
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)
popeyewhite said:
It's not a GDPR issue. There is no confidential personal information involved. You could just get someone's name and address from the phone book to do what you describe!
It is a GDPR issue. To retain or disclose the information the Police need lawful authority. That the information might be available elsewhere held by someone else isn't relevant here. Your name, information about you and anything that might identify you is captured by the rules. The Police in this instance do have lawful authority to hand it to anyone who might reasonably need it so long as it's necessary to either undertake or investigate undertaking proceedings against the driver.
Nibbles_bits said:
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......
Surely the requirement is to do right and provide the details as necessary. Rather than just doing it if asked.
Otherwise if that's the case I can now legally avoid all claims against me, all I have to do is not stop at the scene of an accident, and then to satisfy S179 I will immediately report it. then there will be no way for the victim to find out who I was or who is my insurance company is as the police have decided they now don't pass on any details.
Or in the event that I did stop all I have to do is avoid the victim long enough for them to have a chance to ask for details and I am off the hook as it goes in the the category of "you didn't ask quick enough, ner ner na ner ner!"
Or better yet, the car is a company car and as it is registered to the business it can't give out the details of the driver due to GDPR... If it's good enough for the police then it's good enough for everyone else.
Yep. That's where the laws an arse.
"Required to do so" and "requested" are the same thing.
And yes. You could do your best to avoid anyone at an accident. You'd have to take some measures not to have your registration captured.
But you MUST report it to the Police.
If you don't, and the other driver does (as they should), I wouldn't rely on all the "the Police won't do nuffink" advice, because they will use and have used ANPR and CCTV to identify vehicles involved in collisions.
Then of course, because you've reported, the police can release you details to the insurance company of the other driver or the MIB or by whatever other means that the details could be shared.
Of course the right thing to do is exchange your details or leave some contact details on a vehicle if it's unattended.
But do people always do that? How many times have you had you car dinked, and no details have been left?
I doubt there's many people who can honestly say they've ALWAYS exchanged or left details when there’s been damage.
Damn, people even do it in our station car park.
There's no requirement for you to volunteer your details at the scene of an accident. The law states the minimum you MUST do is STOP, and you MUST report it to the Police. (As per your earlier copy and paste of S170).
I doubt that hiding behind GDPR from the police would be an option for you, for reasons already explained by others in this thread.
"Required to do so" and "requested" are the same thing.
And yes. You could do your best to avoid anyone at an accident. You'd have to take some measures not to have your registration captured.
But you MUST report it to the Police.
If you don't, and the other driver does (as they should), I wouldn't rely on all the "the Police won't do nuffink" advice, because they will use and have used ANPR and CCTV to identify vehicles involved in collisions.
Then of course, because you've reported, the police can release you details to the insurance company of the other driver or the MIB or by whatever other means that the details could be shared.
Of course the right thing to do is exchange your details or leave some contact details on a vehicle if it's unattended.
But do people always do that? How many times have you had you car dinked, and no details have been left?
I doubt there's many people who can honestly say they've ALWAYS exchanged or left details when there’s been damage.
Damn, people even do it in our station car park.
There's no requirement for you to volunteer your details at the scene of an accident. The law states the minimum you MUST do is STOP, and you MUST report it to the Police. (As per your earlier copy and paste of S170).
I doubt that hiding behind GDPR from the police would be an option for you, for reasons already explained by others in this thread.
Edited by Nibbles_bits on Tuesday 23 April 00:53
Edited by Nibbles_bits on Tuesday 23 April 00:55
Hugo Stiglitz said:
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)
It’s pretty clear that the police are doing the wrong thing here. If I was the OP, I would be submitting a complaint to the police.
This thread wins for making me most angry this week on PH.
The unfairness of the police behaviour is simply astonishing. To suggest that a potential victim of a crime should have to spend money up front to access information she is perfectly entitled to is pathetic. Shame on the police.
This is not GDPR by the way. It's something else.
OP - I'd raise a formal complaint with the police force in question. Ask for escalation to the Chief Constable.
Plus contact local MP and Home Secretary & Transport Secretary.
Finally I'd report the police force in question to the ICO for misuse of the GDPR legislation.
The unfairness of the police behaviour is simply astonishing. To suggest that a potential victim of a crime should have to spend money up front to access information she is perfectly entitled to is pathetic. Shame on the police.
This is not GDPR by the way. It's something else.
OP - I'd raise a formal complaint with the police force in question. Ask for escalation to the Chief Constable.
Plus contact local MP and Home Secretary & Transport Secretary.
Finally I'd report the police force in question to the ICO for misuse of the GDPR legislation.
oyster said:
This thread wins for making me most angry this week on PH.
The unfairness of the police behaviour is simply astonishing. To suggest that a potential victim of a crime should have to spend money up front to access information she is perfectly entitled to is pathetic. Shame on the police.
This is not GDPR by the way. It's something else.
OP - I'd raise a formal complaint with the police force in question. Ask for escalation to the Chief Constable.
Plus contact local MP and Home Secretary & Transport Secretary.
Finally I'd report the police force in question to the ICO for misuse of the GDPR legislation.
They've not been a victim of crime.The unfairness of the police behaviour is simply astonishing. To suggest that a potential victim of a crime should have to spend money up front to access information she is perfectly entitled to is pathetic. Shame on the police.
This is not GDPR by the way. It's something else.
OP - I'd raise a formal complaint with the police force in question. Ask for escalation to the Chief Constable.
Plus contact local MP and Home Secretary & Transport Secretary.
Finally I'd report the police force in question to the ICO for misuse of the GDPR legislation.
They're the injured party in a road traffic collision (or "an accident").
Road Traffic Incident – Vehicle Keeper Detail Disclosures
This document relates to requests for driver and / or registered vehicle keeper details from members of the public directly to police (either verbally or in writing, such as the S172 process). It does not apply to incidents where police attend a road traffic collision and involved parties exchange details with each other at the roadside.
• Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
• Damage Only collision - This requires the driver to provide their name, address and vehicle details to any person having reasonable grounds for requiring.
• Injury Collisions – This requires the driver to provide their name, address, vehicle details and insurance to any
person having reasonable grounds for requiring.
Failure to do so could be seen as non-compliance with the Act which means a driver could be guilty of an offence.
This would be a decision for the police to make based on the evidence available and prosecute where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. It is not the role of the police to further process this section 170 information and provide it to members of the public.
S170 RTA 1988 - Legal Narrative Detail · PNLD
• Data Protection Act 2018:
Information obtained as part of an investigation is processed under Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and must only be used for the police statutory functions where processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a competent authority.
The definition of statutory function for ‘law enforcement purposes’ is ‘purposes of the prevention, investigation,
detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security. As such, this information can not be further processed to members of the public for the use in civil proceedings, such as pursuing a claim through insurance companies for any injury or damages received.
• How Public Can Obtain Vehicle Keeper Details:
You can obtain vehicle keeper details by contacting the DVLA directly using the V888 form.
The DVLA can provide the vehicle keeper details when there has been a minor incident which has caused damage to your vehicle or property, or where the information is needed to deal with personal injury claims. This will be provided where ‘reasonable cause’ can be demonstrated.
The DVLA is the data controller of this information and is best placed to determine the legitimacy of any requests.
• Insurance Companies:
Insurance companies can contact the police directly should they require further information, such as collision reports and statements relating to an incident. There is already an established process for this and your insurance company will be able to provide further details if required. To enable your insurer to contact Police, all they will need is the vehicle index which is already in your possession following the alleged incident.
This document relates to requests for driver and / or registered vehicle keeper details from members of the public directly to police (either verbally or in writing, such as the S172 process). It does not apply to incidents where police attend a road traffic collision and involved parties exchange details with each other at the roadside.
• Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
• Damage Only collision - This requires the driver to provide their name, address and vehicle details to any person having reasonable grounds for requiring.
• Injury Collisions – This requires the driver to provide their name, address, vehicle details and insurance to any
person having reasonable grounds for requiring.
Failure to do so could be seen as non-compliance with the Act which means a driver could be guilty of an offence.
This would be a decision for the police to make based on the evidence available and prosecute where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. It is not the role of the police to further process this section 170 information and provide it to members of the public.
S170 RTA 1988 - Legal Narrative Detail · PNLD
• Data Protection Act 2018:
Information obtained as part of an investigation is processed under Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and must only be used for the police statutory functions where processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a competent authority.
The definition of statutory function for ‘law enforcement purposes’ is ‘purposes of the prevention, investigation,
detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security. As such, this information can not be further processed to members of the public for the use in civil proceedings, such as pursuing a claim through insurance companies for any injury or damages received.
• How Public Can Obtain Vehicle Keeper Details:
You can obtain vehicle keeper details by contacting the DVLA directly using the V888 form.
The DVLA can provide the vehicle keeper details when there has been a minor incident which has caused damage to your vehicle or property, or where the information is needed to deal with personal injury claims. This will be provided where ‘reasonable cause’ can be demonstrated.
The DVLA is the data controller of this information and is best placed to determine the legitimacy of any requests.
• Insurance Companies:
Insurance companies can contact the police directly should they require further information, such as collision reports and statements relating to an incident. There is already an established process for this and your insurance company will be able to provide further details if required. To enable your insurer to contact Police, all they will need is the vehicle index which is already in your possession following the alleged incident.
Nibbles_bits said:
S170 RTA 1988 - Legal Narrative Detail · PNLD
• Data Protection Act 2018:
Information obtained as part of an investigation is processed under Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and must only be used for the police statutory functions where processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a competent authority.
The definition of statutory function for ‘law enforcement purposes’ is ‘purposes of the prevention, investigation,
detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security. As such, this information can not be further processed to members of the public for the use in civil proceedings, such as pursuing a claim through insurance companies for any injury or damages received.
Oh (my bold below).• Data Protection Act 2018:
Information obtained as part of an investigation is processed under Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and must only be used for the police statutory functions where processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out by a competent authority.
The definition of statutory function for ‘law enforcement purposes’ is ‘purposes of the prevention, investigation,
detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security. As such, this information can not be further processed to members of the public for the use in civil proceedings, such as pursuing a claim through insurance companies for any injury or damages received.
Data Protection Act 2018 said:
s36(4) Personal data collected for any of the law enforcement purposes may not be processed for a purpose that is not a law enforcement purpose unless the processing is authorised by law.
And then this...Data Protection Act 2018 said:
Schedule 2 (5)(3)The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data where disclosure of the data—
(a)is necessary for the purpose of, or in connection with, legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings),
(b)is necessary for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or
(c)is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights,to the extent that the application of those provisions would prevent the controller from making the disclosure.
(a)is necessary for the purpose of, or in connection with, legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings),
(b)is necessary for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or
(c)is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights,to the extent that the application of those provisions would prevent the controller from making the disclosure.
Forester1965 said:
Nibbles_bits said:
Via a Solicitor perhaps??
Especially as their bike is worth several thousand and she's not working.
Why would they need a solicitor to request the details?Especially as their bike is worth several thousand and she's not working.
If the applicant is an insurance company or a solicitor, it is reasonable to rely on the request.
If it is a member of the public more effort is needed to ensure the police are not liable for the cyclist's friend turning up at the RK's address demanding compensation to avoid an insurance claim etc.
Gobbledegook. Who can make sense of that? I work in a Hospice where arguably the data we keep is far more sensitive than that kept by the Police relating to RTAs, and by those standards it's not a GDPR issue, but maybe there IS a difference where the Police are concerned. Pity the wording is completely indecipherable.
Zeeky said:
Because they need to satisfy themselves that the purpose for which they are disclosing the information is the purpose for which the person making the request will use it for.
If the applicant is an insurance company or a solicitor, it is reasonable to rely on the request.
If it is a member of the public more effort is needed to ensure the police are not liable for the cyclist's friend turning up at the RK's address demanding compensation to avoid an insurance claim etc.
As has been pointed out, cyclists and pedestrians need not be represented by insurers or lawyers. The DVLA mentioned above is irrelevant because they do not know who was driving at the time, they are only interested in the registered keeper. The injured party has no power to compel a registered keeper to say who was driving (the Police do, however).If the applicant is an insurance company or a solicitor, it is reasonable to rely on the request.
If it is a member of the public more effort is needed to ensure the police are not liable for the cyclist's friend turning up at the RK's address demanding compensation to avoid an insurance claim etc.
The RTA says anyone with reasonable grounds is entitled to the relevant information. This was the unambiguous intention of Parliament. That intention doesn't change because, for example, the injured party was incapacitated and unable to request it by the roadside. The DPA allows controllers to disapply the regulations and disclose information in certain purposes. It doesn't place an obligation on the controller to do any more than believe it's for that purpose. There's no obligation on the person making the disclosure request or controller to prove the data won't be abused. That's not a step required by the law.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff