police protecting who?

[gog]

One of my drivers was involved in an accident, yesterday, in which a car approaching form opposite direction, lost control overtaking on a bend, spun around, side swiped my vehicle and three cars which were following!
My driver was unable to question the errant driver, as he was unconscious, so after giving his details to the police, left, thinking that all necessary information would be available from the police.
Upon contacting the police today I am told that they cannot release any info as it is contrary the data protection act, hence I am unable to claim against his insurance and I am thousands of pounds out of pocket.
Is this correct? and is there any way to find out the identity and details of the driver, I find it hard to believe that the police protect someone who has smashed 4 vehicles and severely injured 3 innocent people.

[esselte]

gog said:

One of my drivers was involved in an accident, yesterday, in which a car approaching form opposite direction, lost control overtaking on a bend, spun around, side swiped my vehicle and three cars which were following! My driver was unable to question the errant driver, as he was unconscious, so after giving his details to the police, left, thinking that all necessary information would be available from the police. Upon contacting the police today I am told that they cannot release any info as it is contrary the data protection act, hence I am unable to claim against his insurance and I am thousands of pounds out of pocket. Is this correct? and is there any way to find out the identity and details of the driver, I find it hard to believe that the police protect someone who has smashed 4 vehicles and severely injured 3 innocent people.

What does your insurer say about it?Surely they can release info which the guy has to give anyway?What happens in situations where this guy would have been DOA?

[bluepolarbear]

gog said:

Is this correct? and is there any way to find out the identity and details of the driver, I find it hard to believe that the police protect someone who has smashed 4 vehicles and severely injured 3 innocent people.

The police are talking shite again. If you get any grief just contact DVLA direct with the reg and they will give you the registered owner details.

[Dwight VanDriver]

As damage was caused your vehicle (no injury to yourself or passengers) you are entitled to name and address of owner/driver of vehicle and Reg No. from the driver of the vehicle causing your damage.

As the other vehicle involved, the driver because of his injury is entitled to the above plus your Insurance details if yours was the vehicle struck that caused injury.

Who says so - Section 172 RTA 88.

Used to be normal practice for BiB to assist in this. First time I have heard of such a block. Whatever next. Sounds like a front desk civvy with no knowledge.

Under a wider picture Insurance Companies/Solicitors can write in for an abstract of the Accident Report in which all factual details are given for which a payement is levied. (Evershed procedure if I remember correctly)

dvd

[guizer]

Most Trafpol I know wil release this info without problem to those involved.

Who would release the info if the other party was the deceased?

If all else fails, request an extract of the crash report. A fee may be payable (another means to extract monies??) and it is this method that the insurance companies use.

If you are not to blame, then this is why you pay insurance - if you go looking, you are saving the InsCo doing it.....

[streaky]

DPA1998 is being increasingly trotted out as a reason for not releasing information to which there is an entitlement under other legislation or for which there exists an exception under the Act. IIRC, this is not the first of such posts in this Forum recently.

It might be a civvy as suggested. It might be a rookie BiB. It might be force (sorry "service" ) policy.

Whatever, insist on being given the information. Don't be fobbed off. Take it higher.

Streaky

Edited because double quote + close parenthesis is translated as a smiley ... which I didn't want! - S

>> Edited by streaky on Thursday 3rd November 11:12

[autismuk]

"Data Protection act says no" is another variant of "Computer Says no".

[Hollywood Wheels]

streaky said:

Whatever, insist on being given the information. Don't be fobbed off. Take it higher. Streaky

I'm getting this crap more and more now. "Can't tell you that, data protection...."

[Mr Whippy]

streaky said:

DPA1998 is being increasingly trotted out as a reason for not releasing information to which there is an entitlement under other legislation or for which there exists an exception under the Act.

Basically, they are busying eating their donuts and it's a quick way to get rid of you quoting this.

Essentially saying you won't get any help here, byeeee!

Lazy tw4ts. You'd think they'd know the laws that they were in place to uphold wouldn't you.

Dave

[Hollywood Wheels]

Or perhaps it's a complete lack of training given by their bosses, and they don't want to release information which will then see them thrown to the wolves with NO back-up from said bosses? Just a thought....

[Parrot of doom]

"Officer, last night I was brutally attacked, my children raped, my home set on fire, and an entire community of Jewish neighbours were rounded up and tortured, before being killed. Who the hell did it?"

"We know, but due to the DPA we can't tell you."


?

[B 7 VP]

Can a 172 request for details of the driver be treated in the same way ??.

[Hollywood Wheels]

autismuk said:

"Computer Says no".

[Dwight VanDriver]

In the case being commented on does not Section 35 DPA 88 state:

..Personal data is exempt from non disclosure where disclosure required by any enactment or rule of law....

Section 172 says yes.