Alleged accident - how much hassle are we in for?
Discussion
Alleged accident - how much hassle is my wife (read me) in for?
Earlier this week on her way to work she came across a bloke in a battered white van (not a straight panel) who was in her words being a prick to prove a point - stopping/blocking a harmless merge in congestion (central London).
At the time he alleged that during this event my wife had hit him, got out the van and became very aggressive (shouting, swearing, getting in her face and latterly stopping her from leaving). At the time, while being a bit shaken due to this actions, my wife told him that there had been no contact and that there was no damage and without swearing told him to go forth and multiply. At one stage her (female) colleague had got on the phone to the police as he became increasingly aggressive.
Her car has a dash am, just in case she saved the footage at the time - but I've not yet seen it - and although shaken she got on with her day thought nothing more of it. This morning a S172 re the above has come through the post alongside a request for her insurance details.
While I get that she has to name herself as the driver on the S172, for the separate form requesting insurance information, can we simply put "not necessary, no collision has happened, the third party can request their insurance company contact my own and you can check PNC for your own records" or do we have to do it? - I appreciate that details have to be exchanged after a collision but as that didn't happen that's null.
Obviously we don't want the hassle of them then going to our insurance company over nothing and having to prove a negative, while we have a new car due to arrive in 6m with indicative insurance costs already 6x the current and due to his actions at the time we don't want him having any of our details.
Thankfully the dashcam (although I've not seen it) should show no contact (although it will likely show the 2 in close proximity) and the pictures of the car taken for sale 3m ago show that there was damage (no visible difference) on that corner already.
Short version - can we fill out the S172 but not the insurance request form that comes with it, how do we best tell the
that's trying it on to go forth and multiply?
Earlier this week on her way to work she came across a bloke in a battered white van (not a straight panel) who was in her words being a prick to prove a point - stopping/blocking a harmless merge in congestion (central London).
At the time he alleged that during this event my wife had hit him, got out the van and became very aggressive (shouting, swearing, getting in her face and latterly stopping her from leaving). At the time, while being a bit shaken due to this actions, my wife told him that there had been no contact and that there was no damage and without swearing told him to go forth and multiply. At one stage her (female) colleague had got on the phone to the police as he became increasingly aggressive.
Her car has a dash am, just in case she saved the footage at the time - but I've not yet seen it - and although shaken she got on with her day thought nothing more of it. This morning a S172 re the above has come through the post alongside a request for her insurance details.
While I get that she has to name herself as the driver on the S172, for the separate form requesting insurance information, can we simply put "not necessary, no collision has happened, the third party can request their insurance company contact my own and you can check PNC for your own records" or do we have to do it? - I appreciate that details have to be exchanged after a collision but as that didn't happen that's null.
Obviously we don't want the hassle of them then going to our insurance company over nothing and having to prove a negative, while we have a new car due to arrive in 6m with indicative insurance costs already 6x the current and due to his actions at the time we don't want him having any of our details.
Thankfully the dashcam (although I've not seen it) should show no contact (although it will likely show the 2 in close proximity) and the pictures of the car taken for sale 3m ago show that there was damage (no visible difference) on that corner already.
Short version - can we fill out the S172 but not the insurance request form that comes with it, how do we best tell the
that's trying it on to go forth and multiply? Edited by kiethton on Friday 28th January 14:56
kiethton said:
Short version - can we fill out the S172 but not the insurance request form that comes with it, how do we best tell the that's trying it on to go forth and multiply?
On point 1, as there is no obligation to provide insurance details unless there is an injury, then just fill in the 172 and not the insurance. that's trying it on to go forth and multiply? As for go forth and multiply, you might be wise to see what the dashcam footage shows?
BertBert said:
kiethton said:
Short version - can we fill out the S172 but not the insurance request form that comes with it, how do we best tell the that's trying it on to go forth and multiply?
On point 1, as there is no obligation to provide insurance details unless there is an injury, then just fill in the 172 and not the insurance. that's trying it on to go forth and multiply? As for go forth and multiply, you might be wise to see what the dashcam footage shows?
BertBert said:
On point 1, as there is no obligation to provide insurance details unless there is an injury, then just fill in the 172 and not the insurance.
As for go forth and multiply, you might be wise to see what the dashcam footage shows?
This is not correct. Although there is no obligation to provide insurance details under s170 of the RTA unless there is injury, there is an obligation under s165 of the RTA if required by a constable even where there is no injury.As for go forth and multiply, you might be wise to see what the dashcam footage shows?
s165 RTA 1988 said:
165 Power of constables to obtain names and addresses of drivers and others, and to require production of evidence of insurance and test certificates.
(1)Any of the following persons—
(a)a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road, or
(b)a person whom a constable or vehicle examiner has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road or other public place, or
(c)a person whom a constable or vehicle examiner has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage),
must, on being so required by a constable or vehicle examiner, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination.
(2)Those documents are—
(a)the relevant certificate of insurance (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,
(b)in relation to a vehicle to which section 47 of this Act applies, a test certificate issued in respect of the vehicle as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and
(c)in relation to a goods vehicle the use of which on a road without a plating certificate or goods vehicle test certificate is an offence under section 53(1) or (2) of this Act, any such certificate issued in respect of that vehicle or any trailer drawn by it.
Cat(1)Any of the following persons—
(a)a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road, or
(b)a person whom a constable or vehicle examiner has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road or other public place, or
(c)a person whom a constable or vehicle examiner has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage),
must, on being so required by a constable or vehicle examiner, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination.
(2)Those documents are—
(a)the relevant certificate of insurance (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,
(b)in relation to a vehicle to which section 47 of this Act applies, a test certificate issued in respect of the vehicle as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and
(c)in relation to a goods vehicle the use of which on a road without a plating certificate or goods vehicle test certificate is an offence under section 53(1) or (2) of this Act, any such certificate issued in respect of that vehicle or any trailer drawn by it.
If nothing happened then the whole thing is fraudulent so report him for fraud.
Do you have any witnesses to the nothing happened event?
I suspect as he has reported an incident the system needs you to do as requested even though in your view nothing happened, would not complying make your situation worse?. I would also guess the insurance company need to be made aware of the incident because a claim could be on the way but highlight you believe it is fraudulent.
I would also take photos of your vehicle and the scene so it is recorded if it turns into a real claim.
Do you have any witnesses to the nothing happened event?
I suspect as he has reported an incident the system needs you to do as requested even though in your view nothing happened, would not complying make your situation worse?. I would also guess the insurance company need to be made aware of the incident because a claim could be on the way but highlight you believe it is fraudulent.
I would also take photos of your vehicle and the scene so it is recorded if it turns into a real claim.
Cat said:
BertBert said:
On point 1, as there is no obligation to provide insurance details unless there is an injury, then just fill in the 172 and not the insurance.
As for go forth and multiply, you might be wise to see what the dashcam footage shows?
This is not correct. Although there is no obligation to provide insurance details under s170 of the RTA unless there is injury, there is an obligation under s165 of the RTA if required by a constable even where there is no injury.As for go forth and multiply, you might be wise to see what the dashcam footage shows?
s165 RTA 1988 said:
165 Power of constables to obtain names and addresses of drivers and others, and to require production of evidence of insurance and test certificates.
(1)Any of the following persons—
(a)a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road, or
(b)a person whom a constable or vehicle examiner has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road or other public place, or
(c)a person whom a constable or vehicle examiner has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage),
must, on being so required by a constable or vehicle examiner, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination.
(2)Those documents are—
(a)the relevant certificate of insurance (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,
(b)in relation to a vehicle to which section 47 of this Act applies, a test certificate issued in respect of the vehicle as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and
(c)in relation to a goods vehicle the use of which on a road without a plating certificate or goods vehicle test certificate is an offence under section 53(1) or (2) of this Act, any such certificate issued in respect of that vehicle or any trailer drawn by it.
Cat(1)Any of the following persons—
(a)a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road, or
(b)a person whom a constable or vehicle examiner has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road or other public place, or
(c)a person whom a constable or vehicle examiner has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage),
must, on being so required by a constable or vehicle examiner, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination.
(2)Those documents are—
(a)the relevant certificate of insurance (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,
(b)in relation to a vehicle to which section 47 of this Act applies, a test certificate issued in respect of the vehicle as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and
(c)in relation to a goods vehicle the use of which on a road without a plating certificate or goods vehicle test certificate is an offence under section 53(1) or (2) of this Act, any such certificate issued in respect of that vehicle or any trailer drawn by it.
gottans said:
If nothing happened then the whole thing is fraudulent so report him for fraud.
Do you have any witnesses to the nothing happened event?
I suspect as he has reported an incident the system needs you to do as requested even though in your view nothing happened, would not complying make your situation worse?. I would also guess the insurance company need to be made aware of the incident because a claim could be on the way but highlight you believe it is fraudulent.
I would also take photos of your vehicle and the scene so it is recorded if it turns into a real claim.
She had her colleague with her at the time (lift share to work). I'll take a look at the video later - for obvious reasons don't want this going to the insurance company (and likely dragging on, impacting her NCB for however many years until sorted, over nothing).Do you have any witnesses to the nothing happened event?
I suspect as he has reported an incident the system needs you to do as requested even though in your view nothing happened, would not complying make your situation worse?. I would also guess the insurance company need to be made aware of the incident because a claim could be on the way but highlight you believe it is fraudulent.
I would also take photos of your vehicle and the scene so it is recorded if it turns into a real claim.
The car is now filthy - will get some photos this weekend
I'm assuming here the police have issued the s172 (Notice of Inteneded Prosecution) which is very odd as the normal response if there is no injury etc is sort the matter out between insurance companies. In which case the other parties insurers would find out who you are insured with and notify them who would them notify you.
It appears here the other party has given a embellished story to the police for them to get involved. In which case speak to the OIC. For several years police policy has been reeled in to stop wasting time on car accidents that are best left to insurers when there is no or minor legal infringment that would unlikley result in prosecution. I believe recently HMI have criticised forces for failing to set Road Traffic as a priority but I still can't see this as one.
Similar happened to my father in law and arrived from his insurers a few months after he'd driven following me on a trip to collect a car. Alleged he hit a car at a roundabout and drove off. It was complete bks and we told the insurers that. It went away and heard nothing again. what they did to close the loop or further investigate I don't know.
It appears here the other party has given a embellished story to the police for them to get involved. In which case speak to the OIC. For several years police policy has been reeled in to stop wasting time on car accidents that are best left to insurers when there is no or minor legal infringment that would unlikley result in prosecution. I believe recently HMI have criticised forces for failing to set Road Traffic as a priority but I still can't see this as one.
Similar happened to my father in law and arrived from his insurers a few months after he'd driven following me on a trip to collect a car. Alleged he hit a car at a roundabout and drove off. It was complete b
ks and we told the insurers that. It went away and heard nothing again. what they did to close the loop or further investigate I don't know.kiethton said:
Thanks for this - letter seems to have come from Sidcup and there is no PC next to their name (civilian?) - assume we can ignore the insurance request then (or send a picture of the MID ok check).
Or you could just provide the insurance details. If the other party has contacted their insurer and given them your wife's registration they (the insurer) will already have access to your insurer's details. Providing the details to the police will have no bearing on whether or not your insurer does/doesn't become involved in this.Cat
Edited by Cat on Friday 28th January 18:17
Cat said:
Or you could just provide the insurance details. If the other party has contacted their insurer and given them your wife's registration they will already have access to your insurer's details. Providing the details to the police will have no bearing on whether or not your insurer does/doesn't become involved in this.
Cat
Indeed - we just don't want to risk them being passed on to the nutcase....Cat
kiethton said:
Cat said:
Or you could just provide the insurance details. If the other party has contacted their insurer and given them your wife's registration they will already have access to your insurer's details. Providing the details to the police will have no bearing on whether or not your insurer does/doesn't become involved in this.
Cat
Indeed - we just don't want to risk them being passed on to the nutcase....Cat
kiethton said:
Indeed - we just don't want to risk them being passed on to the nutcase....
You will be providing your wife's name, date of birth, address etc. in response to the 172 request. If the details were to be passed to the nutcase surely the least of your worries will be that he now knows you are insured with Churchill.Cat
Just seen the video and it shows:
1) third party blocking my Mrs merging at a pinch point of parked/stationary cars, tailgating the van in front to block her and mouthing profanities/hand gestures as he does so.
2) third party steering toward my Mrs after stationary to get closer/intimidate her
3) no evidence (car rocking or visual) of any contact
4) van driver getting out of the van, yelling swear words and being very aggressive to a couple of youngish women
Factual statement for the S172 drafted and it'll be posted in the next few days, ex the insurance form - reading the cover letter it asks for both forms to be sent back but the cover letter mentions that its only the S172 which needs to be (legally) returned. I think it's an arse covering exercise following a report of failing to exchange details.
1) third party blocking my Mrs merging at a pinch point of parked/stationary cars, tailgating the van in front to block her and mouthing profanities/hand gestures as he does so.
2) third party steering toward my Mrs after stationary to get closer/intimidate her
3) no evidence (car rocking or visual) of any contact
4) van driver getting out of the van, yelling swear words and being very aggressive to a couple of youngish women
Factual statement for the S172 drafted and it'll be posted in the next few days, ex the insurance form - reading the cover letter it asks for both forms to be sent back but the cover letter mentions that its only the S172 which needs to be (legally) returned. I think it's an arse covering exercise following a report of failing to exchange details.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff