Weird situation

[lightwater]

The initial message was deleted from this topic on 04 September 2020 at 16:59

[mybrainhurts]

Torture the three lads until one owns up.

Tie them up and play Cliff Richard, turned up to 11.

Not all together, obviously.

[S100HP]

Deny it's been in an accident, invite them to check the car, ask them to prove.

[AF1]

Would threatening to call the police maybe spur the culprit into owning up?

[lightwater]

I'm a bit partial to Cliff myself lol.

Tried threatening them with the police, but they know I can't prove anything, might pop to the local police station tomorrow and see what they say, I mean that's even if I'm allowed to go in with all the Covid restrictions.

Might have try what you've suggested S100HP.

[Terminator X]

S100HP said:

Deny it's been in an accident, invite them to check the car, ask them to prove.

Just do this esp. if no damage at all.

TX.

[Mattt28]

It’s not going to be massively helpful claim wise but I would go to the police and report it as possibly taken without consent (explaining the info from the insurer). Otherwise you could theoretically be charged with allowing the car to be driven without insurance - insult on top of injury.

Claim wise even if they did take it and have an accident without consent it could well be a claim on your policy. Especially if the driver remains unidentified.

I would definitely challenge the insurance company though as they will go to the third party disputing it if they think there could be a chance it didn’t happen.

[bigandclever]

Terminator X said:

S100HP said:

Deny it's been in an accident, invite them to check the car, ask them to prove.

Just do this esp. if no damage at all.

TX.

Agreed.

And for the lads at work, let them know you’re taking their pics to plod, and you’ll let them confirm with the person who was driven into which mugshot gave them the false details

[Enut]

Any chance it wasn't your car at all? Maybe someone cloned the plate?

If it definitely was your car then I would go to the police and explain it all to them, you haven't done anything wrong but you suspect a crime has been committed (taking without consent?), then the police could go to the victim of the crash with pictures of your 3 employees and ask which one was driving. I don't see why your insurance should have to pay out, maybe the victim will have to claim against the driver when they know which one drove.

Or threaten the employees with the above, might work better than playing Cliff to them.

[Mattt28]

Enut said:

Any chance it wasn't your car at all? Maybe someone cloned the plate?

If it definitely was your car then I would go to the police and explain it all to them, you haven't done anything wrong but you suspect a crime has been committed (taking without consent?), then the police could go to the victim of the crash with pictures of your 3 employees and ask which one was driving. I don't see why your insurance should have to pay out, maybe the victim will have to claim against the driver when they know which one drove.

Or threaten the employees with the above, might work better than playing Cliff to them.

The OPs insurer will almost certainly have liability if the vehicle was involved in an incident. Even if taken without consent. Section 151 of the road traffic act makes the covering insurer liable for third party costs pretty much regardless of driver or criminality.

[kiethton]

I know of a number of people this has been happening to of late, when no incident has happened an nobody else has been driving the car.

I put it down to people doing some damage to their own, seeing a car that is a convenient colour that is showing as insured and in about the right place in the country and trying their luck with a claim...

The situation from those that have been contacted is to completely deny responsibility, offer an inspection and high-res photo’s. If you’re persistent enough they normally go away, but not without a lot of time/hassle

[BertBert]

Of no more regarding the claim, I don't see this as something you are to blame for or be angry at yourself for. It's not your fault if someone twoc'd your car.
Bert

[sospan]

^^^^^^^^^^ plus suggest strongly to your insurer that the claim is fraudulent as, to your knowledge and evidence the car was parked in work. Suggest a cloned plate.
If a genuine accident has occurred then the other party will have passed on details to their insurer and get yours to query them, especially for driver details.

[Enut]

Mattt28 said:

Enut said:

Any chance it wasn't your car at all? Maybe someone cloned the plate?

If it definitely was your car then I would go to the police and explain it all to them, you haven't done anything wrong but you suspect a crime has been committed (taking without consent?), then the police could go to the victim of the crash with pictures of your 3 employees and ask which one was driving. I don't see why your insurance should have to pay out, maybe the victim will have to claim against the driver when they know which one drove.

Or threaten the employees with the above, might work better than playing Cliff to them.

The OPs insurer will almost certainly have liability if the vehicle was involved in an incident. Even if taken without consent. Section 151 of the road traffic act makes the covering insurer liable for third party costs pretty much regardless of driver or criminality.

If you have fully comp insurance then you are normally covered 3rd party for any other vehicle, but I assume that is only with the owners consent. I assume that in this case if someone did take without consent they won't be covered by their own insurance then. Thanks for clarifying.

[Monkeylegend]

Any chance the other driver could be asked to identify the driver in some way?

[Mattt28]

Enut said:

Mattt28 said:

Enut said:

Any chance it wasn't your car at all? Maybe someone cloned the plate?

If it definitely was your car then I would go to the police and explain it all to them, you haven't done anything wrong but you suspect a crime has been committed (taking without consent?), then the police could go to the victim of the crash with pictures of your 3 employees and ask which one was driving. I don't see why your insurance should have to pay out, maybe the victim will have to claim against the driver when they know which one drove.

Or threaten the employees with the above, might work better than playing Cliff to them.

The OPs insurer will almost certainly have liability if the vehicle was involved in an incident. Even if taken without consent. Section 151 of the road traffic act makes the covering insurer liable for third party costs pretty much regardless of driver or criminality.

If you have fully comp insurance then you are normally covered 3rd party for any other vehicle, but I assume that is only with the owners consent. I assume that in this case if someone did take without consent they won't be covered by their own insurance then. Thanks for clarifying.

The driving other cars entitlement is an interesting angle. It would almost certainly need permission to drive the car so I think some sorta insurance fraud (Op and driver both say there was permission for the vehicle to be driven) would be the only way to have it covered via DOC.

Hopefully it’s wrong reg or cloned plates.

[bigandclever]

Mattt28 said:

Hopefully it’s wrong reg or cloned plates.

The issue is “someone driving the vehicle.. has taken the car out and hit into the back of another car and given my husband's name“.

You don’t tend to get that with wrong reg or cloned plates (unless the driver’s really switched on).

[dudleybloke]

bigandclever said:

Mattt28 said:

Hopefully it’s wrong reg or cloned plates.

The issue is “someone driving the vehicle.. has taken the car out and hit into the back of another car and given my husband's name“.

You don’t tend to get that with wrong reg or cloned plates (unless the driver’s really switched on).

Cloned husband.

[Blippy]

Enut said:

If you have fully comp insurance then you are normally covered 3rd party for any other vehicle

Slightly O/T but this is an annoying, persistent assumption that should never be relied on. Many policies these days don't have driving-other-cars included, but this idea seems to persist. It has varied from insurer to insurer on many policies for me, my family or friends.


YMMV but always check your small print.

[dhutch]

If there is no (noticeable) damage to the car? Can't have been much of a bump?