Potentially uninsured vehicle

[gac]

This isn't Skoda-related, but the audience here is a little more mature than other forums, so I'm going to ask anyway....

 

This evening, I had an incident. The basics are dual carriageway, two lane roundabout, dual carriageway, I was in the right hand lane. As I was taking my exit off the roundabout, someone drove into my front wing. The roundabout is traffic light controlled, and I believe the other driver must have jumped a red light (although I regrettably have no dashcam, and therefore no proof). I am totally sure that my light on the roundabout was green and that I wasn't over the speed limit, as I was following another car through so the road had traffic. Even if it was amber and changed to red the instant I went through it, there would be no way for the other driver to be in the position the accident happened unless he had jumped the light. And I refuse to believe that I just drove through a red light (although I'll admit that there is a massive element of self-doubt right now...)

 

We pulled over and spoke about exchanging details, I couldn't remember my policy number but told him straight away who I was insured with and gave him the reg number, which he could see anyway. He was sketchy about giving me his details (just said that it wasn't his fault so why should he), and then he suggested calling the police. I said I would be happy to speak to them and if that's the way he wanted to take it, I obviously wouldn't drive off. The police came, got my details off the MID, then told me that his car wasn't on it. The officer tried to call to verify whether the car was insured but couldn't get through, so I won't actually find out until Monday.

 

I've reported it to the out-of-hours claims line for my insurers, but it just goes through to an accident management company who were more interested in whether there would be a personal injury claim (they asked what happened, who was in the car, were they hurt, no details of vehicles or anything). I asked them specifically to note that the other driver is potentially uninsured. Do I need to do anything special in regards to the claim? The claims service have said that the insurance company will call me back tomorrow so I'm going to spend tonight writing down the details as clearly as I remember them, and trying to find a satellite image of where everything happened. But do I just need to tell them that I don't accept the blame and want to claim against the other potentially uninsured party?

[@Lee]

did the police let the 'potentially' uninsured driver go or did they hold him/ her until they could verify his/ her details? If they let him/ her go without being able to verify if he/ she was insured then surely there is something amiss with how the local plod in your area deal with 'potentially' uninsured drivers.

[gac]

did the police let the 'potentially' uninsured driver go or did they hold him/ her until they could verify his/ her details? If they let him/ her go without being able to verify if he/ she was insured then surely there is something amiss with how the local plod in your area deal with 'potentially' uninsured drivers.

 

The officer who came verified his identity, but couldn't verify his insurance status. In all honesty, I don't know for sure what happened as I left. The officer came and explained that the car wasn't showing on the MID, that he'd tried calling the insurer with the details the other driver gave him (and gave me the insurers name and reference number to pass on to my insurer, along with the driver's name) and that there wasn't anything else he could do tonight so he'd have to follow it up. He said he'd let me know on Monday what the crack is. At that point, he and I removed the other cars front wing from my door shut and after double-checking they didn't need anything else from me, I left. I was cold and angry, my 11 year old was a bit shaken up and stood in the central reservation, I just wanted out of it and didn't see any value in hanging around.

 

The other driver was still there when I left but what the officer does with the other driver is up to them, maybe someone's going to be up for a *******ing for not just arresting the guy straight away, who knows - that doesn't really affect me or my claim though...

[ChrisKnottIns]

First off, it may be that the guy is actually insured but he took the policy out recently and MID hasn't yet been updated. That's best case scenario. Unfortunately though, if he is uninsured the claim starts to go down on your record as there's nothing recoverable from a third party and you'll want any repairs paid for. Now, it's important that you/your insurer makes a claim to the MIB if the driver turns out to be uninsured. This is a scheme that we all pay for (about £30 of every premium goes into it) to help when the other driver is uninsured. Liability still has to be proved though but you'll get a payout if found to be not at fault.

[gac]

A new policy is the assumption the police were making, I think, and they did try to call someone at the insurance company but didn't get in contact. Not sure how that works with CIE and whether they'll be following up with the registered keeper (since the car was taxed, so should be insured at all times?), but that's not really relevant to this unless the driver is also the registered keeper. I had a look at the MID again this morning and it's still uninsured, but the police should be calling the company and verifying with them directly today so hopefully by this evening it'll be totally clear which way this goes.

 

As for the MIB, the management company I spoke to over the weekend did mention it as a potential option. But I checked the website this morning, and they claim anywhere around three months to settle a claim made with them. If he is uninsured and I go down this route, do I have to wait until this claim is complete before getting the work done? Or can I go through my insurers approved repairers and then worry about settling the bill later? The damage only looks cosmetic, and the car still seems perfectly drivable with no noise/vibration/pulling, but I'd still rather get it repaired ASAP in case there is any hidden damage.

 

On a side note, is it common for all claims to be handled by solicitors now? I've spoken to the claims line for my insurers twice over the weekend, and very much get the feeling that they're not really that arsed about the motor claim as it seems like I've answered far more questions about who was in the car and whether they were hurt. I assume they're gearing up for trying to get them to handle a personal injury claim that they can then make some money from...which doesn't make me feel very satisfied when I've already explained that no one was hurt so the motor claim is the only important bit.

[ChrisKnottIns]

I'm not exactly sure how it works but I suspect you'll get the repairs done through your insurer and then reclaim from the MIB.

Yes, law firms are handling many of the motor claims these days (well you always had lawyers dealing with the liability aspects anyway I think) and they are geared up to get you what you need for non-fault claims. Likely that you'll be just forwarded to your insurer's claims team for fault claims.

[gac]

I'm not exactly sure how it works but I suspect you'll get the repairs done through your insurer and then reclaim from the MIB.

Yes, law firms are handling many of the motor claims these days (well you always had lawyers dealing with the liability aspects anyway I think) and they are geared up to get you what you need for non-fault claims. Likely that you'll be just forwarded to your insurer's claims team for fault claims.

 

That would be nice. I'm not admitting liability since I am sure it's not my fault, but having been in a similar situation (in 2005 someone drove into the back of me while stationary in traffic which went 50/50 due to being my word against his) I'm aware that there's only so many times the insurers will argue over liability before it comes down to that again, whether that be with the MIB or with the other driver's insurance company.

 

The last incident I was in was that one in 2005 where it was all handled by the insurance company (or at least I dealt with the insurers, I'm sure they used lawyers internally), so the solicitor thing is a bit new to me. They're clearly more than capable of handling it, it's just a bit frustrating that they seem to be concentrating on an area that I've already told them isn't relevant (the personal injury side). No one was hurt in my car so I have no claim to make there, I just want the car sorting quickly. The paperwork has just arrived, so I now have some reading to do this morning in between work, just so I know what I'm agreeing to....thanks for your advice though, it's appreciated

[KenONeill]

I'm not exactly sure how it works but I suspect you'll get the repairs done through your insurer and then reclaim from the MIB.

Yes, law firms are handling many of the motor claims these days (well you always had lawyers dealing with the liability aspects anyway I think) and they are geared up to get you what you need for non-fault claims. Likely that you'll be just forwarded to your insurer's claims team for fault claims.

My Mum had a similar incident involving a driver who quit the scene. That was pretty much it; she claimed from her insurers, who then recovered the costs through the MIB, at which point the put her claim status from "outstanding" to "settled".

[gac]

And now for something slightly more ranty.

 

I now have one 6 page document to sign, with details of the accident, which refers to my agreement to another 9 page document of T&Cs for the Conditional Fee Agreement. This is "no win, no fee" - if I lose then there's no fees from me as they're recovered from the other side. If I win, then I am liable for the (unknown at this point) figure which is decided as the costs. It doesn't actually say anywhere in this document what happens to my car whether I win or lose. I am assuming that if I win, everything goes through the third party's insurer as a non-fault claim. And that if I lose, everything goes back to my insurer as a fault claim, which they handle directly. But no one has actually said that, and it's not in any of this documentation, just pages of "did you know we also provide medical care, you might be injured, please, please use our medical care and here are the costs we can subsequently claim to fund ourselves". They won't start work on the claim for 14 days, unless I waive away my distance selling cancellation rights, so I need to read and understand all this stuff beforehenad since my choices are either submit it and they wait two weeks, or I submit it and sign away any cancellation rights.

 

So, I don't actually know what I'm signing up for, since I don't know what the costs might be. A good assumption is that the longer it goes on, the higher the costs are. So by continuing to assert that I am not at fault, I am costing myself money. Or if I just turn around and say that I am at fault, that would then cost me "different" money (in terms of my premiums and NCD). And then there's the issue of whether he has insurance I can actually claim from, since the car is still not on the MID and the police didn't call back last night. I called them this morning, only to find that the constable who attended the scene is the only person who is allowed to give me the information, he's on response on nights again tonight, and then on his 4 rest days. So if he doesn't call me back by 11pm tonight, I have to call in again to try and get in touch with him, otherwise I won't even know who the other party is (other drivers insurers or MIB) until next week.

 

</vent>

Edited 27 September, 2016 by gac

[ChrisKnottIns]

Did you buy Legal Expenses cover to run alongside the policy or is this what's known as ATE (After The Event) cover - you can ask the provider? If it's ATE the provider can claim upto 25% of any award in costs (more crucial in injury claims which as you can imagine commands higher payouts).

It would be worth you checking this all out with the firm. They should be open about how it works. It may be that they word it like that but you have £100,000 for example in legal expenses cover which will cover it even if you are found to be at fault.

I posted about the difference between ATE and BTE (Before The Event) cover a while ago here - http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/331679-every-driver-needs-to-know-this/ - I don't know if any of that helps.

Edited 27 September, 2016 by ChrisKnottIns

[gac]

From your descriptions this sounds like ATE cover - but it's "sanctioned" by my insurance broker (which is not yourselves, so do feel free to stop helping at any point if it's frowned upon!). By which I mean, I called their claims line and because I do not accept liability, this is their procedure, and they do this for all non-liability claims. If I were to admit liability, they said it would be handled internally by themselves, otherwise this is just the way they do things.

 

I need to check my policy to find out what legal cover I have included, and I also have some legal cover included as part of my breakdown membership. But it sounds like if I have other forms of legal cover I would be better off using those - I'm just not sure how to reconcile that with the fact that this firm is my insurance brokers "official" way of handling incidents. I don't see how I can avoid dealing with this firm.

[ChrisKnottIns]

'No Win No Fee' does protect you if you lose but the insurer will only go after the other side if there's a reasonable chance of success, so they protect themselves from unnecessary costs in that way. It's a case though that No Win No Fee translates as 'Win and there's a fee'. The fees should be covered by the third party insurer though I'm not sure what happens when there is no third party insurer due to the driver being uninsured.

[gac]

The T&Cs seem to say "if you lose, you pay nothing, the fees come from the other side. If you win, then you are liable for the portion which is deemed to be 'costs', and you keep 100% of the portion deemed as 'compensation'". 

 

The way I understand that on further consideration is that the 'compensation' is the cost to repair the car - I keep 100% of that, and it covers my repairs. The 'costs' are what it has cost to process the claim, which (as you say) would be recovered from the third party, and would then remain with the solicitors. So after further reading it's not necessarily that I would actually have to pay anything, it's more about not receiving something, which wouldn't actually leave me out of pocket. Slight misunderstanding on my part, and (again, as you say) may differ depending on the insurance status of the third party.

 

edit - if I win, I pay charges and disbursements, capped at the figure received from the third party. If I lose, I do not pay charges, but may pay disbursements such as court fees, medical fees, and other undisclosed fees.

Edited 27 September, 2016 by gac

[cheezemonkhai]

First off, it may be that the guy is actually insured but he took the policy out recently and MID hasn't yet been updated. That's best case scenario. Unfortunately though, if he is uninsured the claim starts to go down on your record as there's nothing recoverable from a third party and you'll want any repairs paid for. Now, it's important that you/your insurer makes a claim to the MIB if the driver turns out to be uninsured. This is a scheme that we all pay for (about £30 of every premium goes into it) to help when the other driver is uninsured. Liability still has to be proved though but you'll get a payout if found to be not at fault.

 

Totally useless if the other drive is uninsured and you have comprehensive insurance (As I unfortunately found out a few years ago).

MIB told me the fund didn't pay out when you had comprehensive insurance and I was pretty persistent ant about checking this out.

 

Unless you know it's changed in the past few years, (Which you'd be in a position to know), I wouldn't count on getting anything from this at all.

[gac]

This is all a bit of a joke if you ask me.

 

Spoken to the management company after emailing my broker with some questions. All the other party have to do is raise a tiny bit of an objection, and the accident management company will just send me back to my broker to make a fault claim anyway. So they're not adding any value by "fighting my corner", they will just give up. The fact that someone might dispute an accident was completely alien to her, she seemed quite surprised when I suggested the other driver might not co-operate (even though I've already pointed out how uncooperative they were when I asked for their insurance details). When I suggested that describing it as "no win, no fee" and then leaving me liable for unlimited court fees didn't really add up, they had an answer for that in that the legal cover provided by my policy would cover those in the event of a loss. I completely disagree that it's "no win, no fee" though - I guess it meets the strictest definition of the phrase, but it also makes the agreement sound a lot more "safe" than it actually is. So the accident management company are a "service provided by the broker" who barely provide a service, but just add a ****load of complications and delays along the way, and I'm sure it won't end once the matter is closed and I can look forward to them checking in with me regularly to see if I'm injured yet.

 

When someone rear-ended me in 2005, I had a one page form which went back to my insurers and that was it. The decision didn't go the way I wanted (anyone who tells you being rear-ended is automatically not your fault is a liar), but at least it was quick and simple.

 

edit - oh, and the brokers have now also said that I could open a claim with them, and they could then chase the third party. Which seems like what I want to happen, but without all this hassle of a management company. I really don't get what the point is, and I don't see why I would choose to use the ambulance chasers when I could just open a claim with my company and have them chase the third party. Best case, third party is liable and the costs are recovered and the accident is non-fault. Worst case, the costs are not recoverable and I would have had to go through my insurers anyway. Going through a management company doesn't seem to offer me any advantage in any way.

Edited 27 September, 2016 by gac

[Aspman]

"No win no fee" always has a fee should you win.  And as said fee should be covered by any pay out, i guess the % could be considerable so that might need more investigation. Not much use winning your case only to find out that after the fees you haven't got enough to pay the repairs.

 

In larger cases you can take out insurance that will pay the fee in the event of a win. Hedging your bets.

[gac]

"No win no fee" always has a fee should you win.  And as said fee should be covered by any pay out, i guess the % could be considerable so that might need more investigation. Not much use winning your case only to find out that after the fees you haven't got enough to pay the repairs.

 

In larger cases you can take out insurance that will pay the fee in the event of a win. Hedging your bets.

 

In this case, the liabilty for a "win" fee (including their charges and disbursements) is limited by the agreement to "the level of costs recovered from the third party" i.e. theoretically "not out of pocket". The liability for a "lose" fee has no limit and contains only disbursements, but the solicitors said my legal cover provided by my policy would cover those. They specifically said that the "compensation" figure (which I keep 100% of in the case of a "win") would cover the repairs. So I don't think there's a way for me to actually end up out of pocket. But it's taken me two days of reading and emails and phonecalls to get that slightly more sensible description of what I'm about to agree to. I just find it frustrating, I don't think I'm stupid by any measurable benchmark, but this stuff is needlessly complex to read and I wonder how people with less of a grasp actually get on with it.

[Ootohere]

Sorry if it is in the posts, not seeing it.

Did the Vehicle turn out to be insured and the driver covered to drive it?

[gac]

I still don't know. I've spoken to the police control centre who said the only person allowed to tell me that information was the attending officer, he's on shift again at 10pm tonight and then off for 4 rest days. So I need to call them later to try and get through to him, and see if he actually has that information. The solicitors have already written to the company he said he was insured with (even though I haven't yet returned the paperwork that says they can act for me), but haven't had a reply. The car's still not on the MID today, but that doesn't really prove much.

 

My assumption based on reading this is that he probably is insured and it probably is an administrative error on the part of the insurers, but it's a bit frustrating when you're trying to get to grips with all this and not only can I not get my head around this (needlessly convoluted) process, I'm also not sure who I'm ultimately aiming the process at. If he's insured then that's great and probably makes things easier, at this point I'd just like to know exactly what I'm dealing with. And it does make you wonder why things like the MID and CIE exist since no one really seems to want to enforce it.

[Ootohere]

Have you checked askMID ?

http://askmid.com

 

Doh sorry, missed that you had and not on today.

Edited 27 September, 2016 by Offski

[Aspman]

In this case, the liabilty for a "win" fee (including their charges and disbursements) is limited by the agreement to "the level of costs recovered from the third party" i.e. theoretically "not out of pocket". The liability for a "lose" fee has no limit and contains only disbursements, but the solicitors said my legal cover provided by my policy would cover those. They specifically said that the "compensation" figure (which I keep 100% of in the case of a "win") would cover the repairs. So I don't think there's a way for me to actually end up out of pocket. But it's taken me two days of reading and emails and phonecalls to get that slightly more sensible description of what I'm about to agree to. I just find it frustrating, I don't think I'm stupid by any measurable benchmark, but this stuff is needlessly complex to read and I wonder how people with less of a grasp actually get on with it.

 

It's legalise, no one outside the legal trade is supposed to understand it. Been through this a few times recently.

[999pooch]

My experience with insurance claims management company was excellent.

After my near brand new Audi S4 was rear ended 3 years ago, I reported it to my insurance company, they then insisted the car being transported to my nearest repair centre........85 miles away. I asked of they would fit genuine parts......nope. Bearing in mind I live in a city which has several Audi approved repair centres.

Anyhow, after speaking to the Audi deallership they recommended a claims management company they use.

They not only took over the claim, they GUARANTEED the car being repaired at my local (3 miles away) centre with genuine parts, regardless of the outcome of the claim against the 3rd party.

My insurance company were told not to proceed any further and to only record the event. This really p'eed them off as I got literally 30-40 emails over 7 days, progressively getting more and more threatening, with larger and larger red letters!! All normsl apparently, but all the same makes you uneasy at the time.

I was given a nice S5 cabriolet to waft about until the repair was completed.

All in all, a great experience, no money ever parted my hands, and knowing once I signed the agreement my car was going to be fixed regardless of the outcome was a great relief

[gac]

It's legalise, no one outside the legal trade is supposed to understand it. Been through this a few times recently.

 

Agreed. I hate being made to feel stupid when I'm reading it. But it's an important part of not getting screwed over...

 

My experience with insurance claims management company was excellent.

 

All in all, a great experience, no money ever parted my hands, and knowing once I signed the agreement my car was going to be fixed regardless of the outcome was a great relief

 

Nice to hear a positive experience of management companies. I think I'm going to end up going with it - the way they've explained it today I shouldn't have to worry about being out of pocket. I won't have to worry about the brokers getting difficult since this is their own service they offer so there's no reason for them to get aggressive with me. So I just need to get cracking and get the paperwork returned tomorrow once I've diagrammed what happened. Then hopefully I'll be well on the way to getting everything repaired regardless of what happens with the other driver.

[gac]

Well, after all that, I got a text from the PC at 3am this morning. The policy number the other driver gave was a valid policy, but it was "forward dated" so didn't come into force until the 30th and therefore didn't cover him at the time of the collision. So £200 fine, 6 points on an IN10 for the next 4 years, the car is impounded, (presumably) this policy is now void, and (hopefully) he'll struggle to get any insurance for a while due to having a cancelled policy and an IN10. So that's something. Makes all the accident management stuff irrelevant though as there's no party for them to claim against so now I think I'm back to the broker, making a claim against my own insurance, and then for them to claim those costs from the MIB. Fun times all round.

 

I can't figure out how driving without insurance but with a "valid" future policy was supposed to work out well for him, but it's irrelevant. Either through malice or ineptitude, he was uninsured when it happened, so ho hum.

[Ootohere]

If you check the DVLA for Vehicle details does it show as having VED.

There was maybe 3rd party cover on the vehicle if it was still registered with a Registered Keeper that did have insurance running.

The Police officer should know for sure there is no cover, but sometimes they miss that the car is 'Intrade' and a Motor Trader has Trade Cover.

 

The Police officer should have checked easily if it showed as having valid VED at the scene of the accident.

http://gov.uk/get-vehicle-information-from-dvla

Edited 28 September, 2016 by Offski