Exchanging details after an accident: interesting theory

[sublimatica]

I met someone the other week (Tom, I'll call him) who had an interesting theory about the best way to handle the exchange of details following a vehicle accident. (Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily endorsing what he said; just curious about the facts. )

Tom said that if he ever has a minor accident that's his fault, he'll take down the other party's details but only provide his name in return (apart from the registration number of his vehicle, of course). He'll tell the driver that he has no insurance and offer a relatively small amount of cash on the spot (say £200). The obvious plan behind this idea is to do as much as possible to discourage the other party from making an insurance claim against him. Since hearing Tom's theory I haven't thought of a reason why it wouldn't work.

Tom is unlikely to be physically intimidated and he's intelligent and probably completely legal, vehicle-wise. When I put myself in the position of the other driver, I realised that I'd probably snatch the money from this 'uninsured' driver and then keep the accident quiet from my own insurance company. I go away muttering about my bad luck and Tom's no-claims bonus and driving record stay intact. If I reported Tom to the police they'd run their checks and discover that he was actually legit, so he wouldn't get his collar felt. If my insurance company found out about it then they wouldn't get involved (I guess) since I'd accepted the £200 on the spot (although maybe I'd deny that this had happened?).

Anybody got any thoughts?
By giving only his name to the other driver, is Tom breaking any laws?
By claiming he has no insurance, is he breaking any laws?

[Stu R]

you've got to provide the relevant details by law as I understand it, which he is basically trying to avoid doing. So if I'm correct in thinking this, surely he'd be breaking the law by failing to provide them?

[vonhosen]

He must under Sec 170(2) give his name & address, the name & address of the owner & the identification marks of the vehicle.

If he doesn't do that under 170(3) he must report it to the Police.

Under 170(4) any person who doesn't do that commits an offence.

(I'd take the cash & report him for failing in his obligations above )

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th September 07:33

[sublimatica]

vonhosen said:

He must under Sec 170(2) give his name & address, the name & address of the owner & the identification marks of the vehicle.

If he doesn't do that under 170(3) he must report it to the Police.

Under 170(4) any person who doesn't do that commits an offence.

(I'd take the cash & report him for failing in his obligations above )

Ah-ha! That's interesting.
Sounds like he could refuse to give details to the other driver provided he went to a police station afterwards and submitted details to them. I doubt very much whether the overburdened station police would give much of a crap though, so maybe he'd still end up in the same situation. The other driver wouldn't guess that he'd go to the police station with all his details.

Thanks very much for the reply. I figured there'd be a flaw in his plan

[Mad Moggie2]

vonhosen said:

He must under Sec 170(2) give his name & address, the name & address of the owner & the identification marks of the vehicle.

If he doesn't do that under 170(3) he must report it to the Police.

Under 170(4) any person who doesn't do that commits an offence.

(I'd take the cash & report him for failing in his obligations above )

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th September 07:33

Ah.. but by taking the cash - you had agreed a "verbal contract" and would yourself perhaps be complicit in being a party to his plan to avoid telling his insurers Your obligation at the scene would surely be to insist he "met his obligations"


Would you return his cash by the way.

Sometimes von - the damage just is not viable enough to report to insurers as repair at or below "excess" as is the case with minor dents which you can fix yourself with a kit (Wildy has just fixed up a trolley dent and a stone chip on one of our cars. I cannot see where the annoying "blemishes" were by the way )

[GKP]

If you have an accident and it's your fault you are obliged to recompense the other party.
You don't have to use your insurance company to provide this compensation though (although you do have to provide the insurance company details of any material facts) but you can rummage around in your wallet until the other party is satisfied.
The insurance company is only there as a legal backstop if your wallet isn't particularly deep.

[vonhosen]

Mad Moggie2 said:

vonhosen said:

He must under Sec 170(2) give his name & address, the name & address of the owner & the identification marks of the vehicle.

If he doesn't do that under 170(3) he must report it to the Police.

Under 170(4) any person who doesn't do that commits an offence.

(I'd take the cash & report him for failing in his obligations above )

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th September 07:33

Ah.. but by taking the cash - you had agreed a "verbal contract" and would yourself perhaps be complicit in being a party to his plan to avoid telling his insurers Your obligation at the scene would surely be to insist he "met his obligations"


Would you return his cash by the way.

Sometimes von - the damage just is not viable enough to report to insurers as repair at or below "excess" as is the case with minor dents which you can fix yourself with a kit (Wildy has just fixed up a trolley dent and a stone chip on one of our cars. I cannot see where the annoying "blemishes" were by the way )

Taking the cash has nothing to do with his obligations under the RTA.

Whether he informs his insurance company or not is of no concern to me if I've taken the cash. I'll be informing my insurance company & his will hear about it through mine anyway.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th September 11:26

[sublimatica]

vonhosen said:

Taking the cash has nothing to do with his obligations under the RTA.

Whether he informs his insurance company or not is of no concern to me if I've taken the cash. I'll be informing my insurance company & his will hear about it through mine anyway.

But would you tell your insurance co. about every minor dent, however small? If you'd taken the £200 and guessed that this would cover the repair costs then it'd be better to leave the insurance co.s out of it, surely? Tom's plan is intended to encourage exactly that - what's the advantage of telling your insurance company if you don't believe the other party was insured?

[vonhosen]

sublimatica said:

vonhosen said:

Taking the cash has nothing to do with his obligations under the RTA.

Whether he informs his insurance company or not is of no concern to me if I've taken the cash. I'll be informing my insurance company & his will hear about it through mine anyway.

But would you tell your insurance co. about every minor dent, however small? If you'd taken the £200 and guessed that this would cover the repair costs then it'd be better to leave the insurance co.s out of it, surely? Tom's plan is intended to encourage exactly that - what's the advantage of telling your insurance company if you don't believe the other party was insured?

Yes, because I have an obligation to do so. If they ask me about any collisions I have had, that doesn't mean only those I've claimed for, or only those in my own vehicle.
If I don't declare when asked, in order to receive favourable terms of insurance, I commit a criminal offence.

[polus]

vonhosen said:

sublimatica said:

vonhosen said:

Taking the cash has nothing to do with his obligations under the RTA.

Whether he informs his insurance company or not is of no concern to me if I've taken the cash. I'll be informing my insurance company & his will hear about it through mine anyway.

But would you tell your insurance co. about every minor dent, however small? If you'd taken the £200 and guessed that this would cover the repair costs then it'd be better to leave the insurance co.s out of it, surely? Tom's plan is intended to encourage exactly that - what's the advantage of telling your insurance company if you don't believe the other party was insured?

Yes, because I have an obligation to do so. If they ask me about any collisions I have had, that doesn't mean only those I've claimed for, or only those in my own vehicle.
If I don't declare when asked, in order to receive favourable terms of insurance, I commit a criminal offence.

...and back in the real world where premiums arnt cheap, If I caused an small accident Id probably ask if the other party wanted to sort it in cash but wouldnt mess around with holding details or pretending I didnt have any insurance.

[JustinP1]

sublimatica said:

I met someone the other week (Tom, I'll call him) who had an interesting theory about the best way to handle the exchange of details following a vehicle accident. (Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily endorsing what he said; just curious about the facts. )

Tom said that if he ever has a minor accident that's his fault, he'll take down the other party's details but only provide his name in return (apart from the registration number of his vehicle, of course). He'll tell the driver that he has no insurance and offer a relatively small amount of cash on the spot (say £200). The obvious plan behind this idea is to do as much as possible to discourage the other party from making an insurance claim against him. Since hearing Tom's theory I haven't thought of a reason why it wouldn't work.

Tom is unlikely to be physically intimidated and he's intelligent and probably completely legal, vehicle-wise. When I put myself in the position of the other driver, I realised that I'd probably snatch the money from this 'uninsured' driver and then keep the accident quiet from my own insurance company. I go away muttering about my bad luck and Tom's no-claims bonus and driving record stay intact. If I reported Tom to the police they'd run their checks and discover that he was actually legit, so he wouldn't get his collar felt. If my insurance company found out about it then they wouldn't get involved (I guess) since I'd accepted the £200 on the spot (although maybe I'd deny that this had happened?).

Anybody got any thoughts?
By giving only his name to the other driver, is Tom breaking any laws?
By claiming he has no insurance, is he breaking any laws?

This is interesting because from a contract law perspective then what is happening is that your friend is offering compensation for his actions. If this is accepted, then this is the end of the dealings.

So, for example should the driver actually find that £200 does not cover the damage, and it would actually cost £2000, and they find they have a whiplash injury then they have no legal recourse to claim any further compensation through the insurance company or otherwise as they have agreed compensation.

The only legal hole I can find with the exact scenario put forward is that your friend claims he has no insurance when of course he does. Thus the contract of accepting the £200 as compensation would be based upon this - where of course the other driver thinks he in on a hiding to nothing anyway, he may as well accept the £200. Under those circumstances the other driver could legally claim that the contract is invalid as it was based on mistake or misrepresentation of the other party.

In that situation the £200 could be given back and the insurance claim would continue as normal.

[vonhosen]

JustinP1 said:

sublimatica said:

I met someone the other week (Tom, I'll call him) who had an interesting theory about the best way to handle the exchange of details following a vehicle accident. (Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily endorsing what he said; just curious about the facts. )

Tom said that if he ever has a minor accident that's his fault, he'll take down the other party's details but only provide his name in return (apart from the registration number of his vehicle, of course). He'll tell the driver that he has no insurance and offer a relatively small amount of cash on the spot (say £200). The obvious plan behind this idea is to do as much as possible to discourage the other party from making an insurance claim against him. Since hearing Tom's theory I haven't thought of a reason why it wouldn't work.

Tom is unlikely to be physically intimidated and he's intelligent and probably completely legal, vehicle-wise. When I put myself in the position of the other driver, I realised that I'd probably snatch the money from this 'uninsured' driver and then keep the accident quiet from my own insurance company. I go away muttering about my bad luck and Tom's no-claims bonus and driving record stay intact. If I reported Tom to the police they'd run their checks and discover that he was actually legit, so he wouldn't get his collar felt. If my insurance company found out about it then they wouldn't get involved (I guess) since I'd accepted the £200 on the spot (although maybe I'd deny that this had happened?).

Anybody got any thoughts?
By giving only his name to the other driver, is Tom breaking any laws?
By claiming he has no insurance, is he breaking any laws?

This is interesting because from a contract law perspective then what is happening is that your friend is offering compensation for his actions. If this is accepted, then this is the end of the dealings.

So, for example should the driver actually find that £200 does not cover the damage, and it would actually cost £2000, and they find they have a whiplash injury then they have no legal recourse to claim any further compensation through the insurance company or otherwise as they have agreed compensation.

The only legal hole I can find with the exact scenario put forward is that your friend claims he has no insurance when of course he does. Thus the contract of accepting the £200 as compensation would be based upon this - where of course the other driver thinks he in on a hiding to nothing anyway, he may as well accept the £200. Under those circumstances the other driver could legally claim that the contract is invalid as it was based on mistake or misrepresentation of the other party.

In that situation the £200 could be given back and the insurance claim would continue as normal.

None of that nullifies his obligations under RTA

[RichBurley]

vonhosen said:

JustinP1 said:

sublimatica said:

I met someone the other week (Tom, I'll call him) who had an interesting theory about the best way to handle the exchange of details following a vehicle accident. (Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily endorsing what he said; just curious about the facts. )

Tom said that if he ever has a minor accident that's his fault, he'll take down the other party's details but only provide his name in return (apart from the registration number of his vehicle, of course). He'll tell the driver that he has no insurance and offer a relatively small amount of cash on the spot (say £200). The obvious plan behind this idea is to do as much as possible to discourage the other party from making an insurance claim against him. Since hearing Tom's theory I haven't thought of a reason why it wouldn't work.

Tom is unlikely to be physically intimidated and he's intelligent and probably completely legal, vehicle-wise. When I put myself in the position of the other driver, I realised that I'd probably snatch the money from this 'uninsured' driver and then keep the accident quiet from my own insurance company. I go away muttering about my bad luck and Tom's no-claims bonus and driving record stay intact. If I reported Tom to the police they'd run their checks and discover that he was actually legit, so he wouldn't get his collar felt. If my insurance company found out about it then they wouldn't get involved (I guess) since I'd accepted the £200 on the spot (although maybe I'd deny that this had happened?).

Anybody got any thoughts?
By giving only his name to the other driver, is Tom breaking any laws?
By claiming he has no insurance, is he breaking any laws?

This is interesting because from a contract law perspective then what is happening is that your friend is offering compensation for his actions. If this is accepted, then this is the end of the dealings.

So, for example should the driver actually find that £200 does not cover the damage, and it would actually cost £2000, and they find they have a whiplash injury then they have no legal recourse to claim any further compensation through the insurance company or otherwise as they have agreed compensation.

The only legal hole I can find with the exact scenario put forward is that your friend claims he has no insurance when of course he does. Thus the contract of accepting the £200 as compensation would be based upon this - where of course the other driver thinks he in on a hiding to nothing anyway, he may as well accept the £200. Under those circumstances the other driver could legally claim that the contract is invalid as it was based on mistake or misrepresentation of the other party.

In that situation the £200 could be given back and the insurance claim would continue as normal.

None of that nullifies his obligations under RTA

Yes, but what good are they to Joe Public, who want's their car fixing? "Obligations under RTA, Schmobligations under RTA" as a yiddish man probably wouldn't say. If the other driver claims to not have insurance. I would telephone the polcie there and then. Von: would the police be interested in turning out? (bearing in mind that uninsured drivers are more liekly to be harbouring other criminal activity, as stated by the polcie themselves).

I do know that provided you report the vehicle registration of the other car to your insurer, then they can do a quick database check to find out the other driver's insurer details, policy number, name etc, so the OP's friend's suggestion is just timewasting, and nothing else...

[vonhosen]

RichBurley said:

vonhosen said:

JustinP1 said:

sublimatica said:

I met someone the other week (Tom, I'll call him) who had an interesting theory about the best way to handle the exchange of details following a vehicle accident. (Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily endorsing what he said; just curious about the facts. )

Tom said that if he ever has a minor accident that's his fault, he'll take down the other party's details but only provide his name in return (apart from the registration number of his vehicle, of course). He'll tell the driver that he has no insurance and offer a relatively small amount of cash on the spot (say £200). The obvious plan behind this idea is to do as much as possible to discourage the other party from making an insurance claim against him. Since hearing Tom's theory I haven't thought of a reason why it wouldn't work.

Tom is unlikely to be physically intimidated and he's intelligent and probably completely legal, vehicle-wise. When I put myself in the position of the other driver, I realised that I'd probably snatch the money from this 'uninsured' driver and then keep the accident quiet from my own insurance company. I go away muttering about my bad luck and Tom's no-claims bonus and driving record stay intact. If I reported Tom to the police they'd run their checks and discover that he was actually legit, so he wouldn't get his collar felt. If my insurance company found out about it then they wouldn't get involved (I guess) since I'd accepted the £200 on the spot (although maybe I'd deny that this had happened?).

Anybody got any thoughts?
By giving only his name to the other driver, is Tom breaking any laws?
By claiming he has no insurance, is he breaking any laws?

This is interesting because from a contract law perspective then what is happening is that your friend is offering compensation for his actions. If this is accepted, then this is the end of the dealings.

So, for example should the driver actually find that £200 does not cover the damage, and it would actually cost £2000, and they find they have a whiplash injury then they have no legal recourse to claim any further compensation through the insurance company or otherwise as they have agreed compensation.

The only legal hole I can find with the exact scenario put forward is that your friend claims he has no insurance when of course he does. Thus the contract of accepting the £200 as compensation would be based upon this - where of course the other driver thinks he in on a hiding to nothing anyway, he may as well accept the £200. Under those circumstances the other driver could legally claim that the contract is invalid as it was based on mistake or misrepresentation of the other party.

In that situation the £200 could be given back and the insurance claim would continue as normal.

None of that nullifies his obligations under RTA

Yes, but what good are they to Joe Public, who want's their car fixing? "Obligations under RTA, Schmobligations under RTA" as a yiddish man probably wouldn't say. If the other driver claims to not have insurance. I would telephone the polcie there and then. Von: would the police be interested in turning out? (bearing in mind that uninsured drivers are more liekly to be harbouring other criminal activity, as stated by the polcie themselves).

I do know that provided you report the vehicle registration of the other car to your insurer, then they can do a quick database check to find out the other driver's insurer details, policy number, name etc, so the OP's friend's suggestion is just timewasting, and nothing else...

If the details aren't exchanged, then it must be reported to Police. If that's by an officer attending then all well & good, but where that doesn't happen you still have to do it at a Police station as soon as is reasonably practicable (& in any case within 24hrs).

It isn't just time wasting, it's breaking the law by refusing to give address.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th September 21:40

[vonhosen]

frazer guest said:

RichBurley said:

If the other driver claims to not have insurance. I would telephone the polcie there and then. Von: would the police be interested in turning out? (bearing in mind that uninsured drivers are more liekly to be harbouring other criminal activity, as stated by the polcie themselves).

It depends entirely on the resources available, just like any other call.
I've attended plenty of damage only collisions, with less allegations than no insurance, previously.

[Derek Smith]

vonhosen said:

He must under Sec 170(2) give his name & address, the name & address of the owner & the identification marks of the vehicle.

A page 3 'model' gave her working name and the address of her agent after an accident. Despite the fact that she replied to all correspondence within a reasonable time she was reported under Sec.170. I ran it past the CPS and the reply was that the section only requires that it is an address through which you can be contacted and not your home address and, further, that you can call yourself anything you like and, as long as you can be contacted under that name, there's little point in making a fuss. I pointed out that Julian Clary had some problems when he called himself the Joan Collins Fan Club but this was felt not to be admissable in evidence.

[vonhosen]

Derek Smith said:

vonhosen said:

He must under Sec 170(2) give his name & address, the name & address of the owner & the identification marks of the vehicle.

A page 3 'model' gave her working name and the address of her agent after an accident. Despite the fact that she replied to all correspondence within a reasonable time she was reported under Sec.170. I ran it past the CPS and the reply was that the section only requires that it is an address through which you can be contacted and not your home address and, further, that you can call yourself anything you like and, as long as you can be contacted under that name, there's little point in making a fuss. I pointed out that Julian Clary had some problems when he called himself the Joan Collins Fan Club but this was felt not to be admissable in evidence.

Correct, it doesn't have to be a home address, but it must be an address at which you are contactable.

[sublimatica]

RichBurley said:

I do know that provided you report the vehicle registration of the other car to your insurer, then they can do a quick database check to find out the other driver's insurer details, policy number, name etc, so the OP's friend's suggestion is just timewasting, and nothing else...

I think Tom's plan was to discourage the other party from even contacting his/her own insurance company.

None of us wants to be involved in an accident, so if someone scrapes your bumper or dents a door in a car park but immediately offers you £200 and says they have no insurance then I bet most of us would weigh up the options thus:
1. Refuse the cash and contact our own insurance company, risking a loss of no-claims and the cost of the excess because we're claiming for the damage to our car.
2. Take the £200 and leave it there, quietly fixing the damage (even if it costs a bit more than £200) and not telling the police or the insurance company.

To prevent himself getting into trouble, Tom would leave the scene and go to a police station where he'd leave all the details required by law. I bet that in 90% of situations that would be the end of the whole thing. Tom's insurance wouldn't be affected and neither would the other party's insurance. The other party is probably a bit out of pocket and Tom's down £200 but with a lot less hassle all round.

I'm not sure I can see a downside to this arrangement for Tom, accepting the fact that he should be telling his insurance company about the incident.

[sublimatica]

Incidentally, I don't imagine Tom is aware of the legal obligation to visit a police station after his scenario unfolds to provide his full details. (I wasn't aware of this.) Next time I see him (he's a client of mine) I might mention it to see whether it would change his plan.

[vonhosen]

sublimatica said:

RichBurley said:

I do know that provided you report the vehicle registration of the other car to your insurer, then they can do a quick database check to find out the other driver's insurer details, policy number, name etc, so the OP's friend's suggestion is just timewasting, and nothing else...

I think Tom's plan was to discourage the other party from even contacting his/her own insurance company.

None of us wants to be involved in an accident, so if someone scrapes your bumper or dents a door in a car park but immediately offers you £200 and says they have no insurance then I bet most of us would weigh up the options thus:
1. Refuse the cash and contact our own insurance company, risking a loss of no-claims and the cost of the excess because we're claiming for the damage to our car.
2. Take the £200 and leave it there, quietly fixing the damage (even if it costs a bit more than £200) and not telling the police or the insurance company.

To prevent himself getting into trouble, Tom would leave the scene and go to a police station where he'd leave all the details required by law. I bet that in 90% of situations that would be the end of the whole thing. Tom's insurance wouldn't be affected and neither would the other party's insurance. The other party is probably a bit out of pocket and Tom's down £200 but with a lot less hassle all round.

I'm not sure I can see a downside to this arrangement for Tom, accepting the fact that he should be telling his insurance company about the incident.

There is a downside when I report it to my insurance company & they enter it on the database. If I've informed them he accepted liability & has paid me directly it's not going to effect my claims or premium. He however hasn't divulged it to his insurance company & they make an allegation of him performing a deception (if he claims he didn't have a collision when asked, in order to get a lower premium), they then may refuse him insurance or not honour in total a pay out for damage to his vehicle in future.