Jump to content

Driver refused to swap details


Flatforsale

Recommended Posts

Careless driver drove into the back of me when I stopped at traffic lights. He admitted as much and I took a photo of his number plate and he took a photo of mine, but when I asked him for his name address number etc he refused, saying number plates are enough. He refused to swap details basically. I called 101 and asked for advice and they said they would investigate and to report to insurance. After the call the guy was still refusing to swap details and as I had been there for a while I left. Later I reported it to insurance and I've now filled an online traffic incident form with the Met. Anything else I could have done? He admitted it wasn't his car so I suspect he doesn't have ansurancev(although the car is insured according to my insurer). Worried the other party could now claim I did a hit and run? Should I have asked for police to arrive? 101 didn't mention anything about sending anybody so I assumed there was nothing else I could have done?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In these circumstances collect all information available and do not trust anyone.


I am still receiving cold calls about my 'accident' in a county I have never visited because the person whose car was damaged mistakenly recorded my number plate, not that of the car doing the damage. It was ultimately just OK, I could, by chance, prove that I was at home on that day, that my car was not damaged, and that the victim was in error. But this in the mean time involved the cancellation of my no claims bonus (at which point I cancelled my policy with that company) and endless follow-up calls by other (litigation) companies (which two years later i'm still receiving) hoping I would appoint them to handle the 'claim against me'. Now I wonder how they got to know that there was such a claim? I certainly did not tell them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A van crashed into the back of our car whilst we were stationery at a zebra crossing in Norbury. No one hurt. Exchanged details, they accepted blame and paid for repairs, very courteously. No police or insurance company involved. However we were then plagued by letters from "claims advisers" desperate to get us to sue for whiplash and other spurious "injuries". We sent them packing, but how did they know??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an accident you have to exchange details. First you have to stop of course. Report to the Old Bill, and make sure that they follow up. You can also search details of the car through the DVLA database - this will at least tell you it is taxed and MOT'd - if not..... https://cartaxcheck.co.uk/ This one is a commercial one, slightly quicker than SVLA (which is good), you need to have the reg and the make. I usually do it for smoky exhausts because I am a zealot.


PS all - you should know all of this when you take your driving test. And remember it.


Insurance companies sell on your details. At least we don't live in America where ambulance chasing is many times greater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

singalto Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You don't have to call the police if there are no

> injuries.


Indeed so, but if you refuse to give your full details (there may be reasons for this, for example feeling the other driver is so aggressive that you don't want them to know your home address, though I'm sure that's not the case with the OP) then you must report the incident to the police within twenty-four hours (even if it's just a broken mirror or similar) or you can be charged with failure to stop and/or failure to report an accident; "stop" doesn't just mean physically stopping but providing the requisite details as well.


ETA And sometimes it might be worth involving the police...I worked as a motorcycle courier for a year a long while back, after being side-swiped by a careless driver a passing patrol car stopped to check I was OK and to ask if I wanted them to be involved. As I wasn't too badly hurt and the driver was hugely apologetic I said no, we could sort it...when I tried to claim the ?1500 damage to my bike only to find that the driver was not only uninsured but had left the country I rather wished I'd said yes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

My understanding is that you did need to provide your details in an accident.


Highway Codes states: If you have an accident causing damage or injury you must give the following to anyone with ?reasonable grounds for requiring them,? for example an insurance company:


your name and address

the vehicle registration number



You must report the accident to the police within 24 hours if you don?t give your details at the time of the accident.


I assume that the other party involved, where they are not at fault, has reasonable grounds. I got knocked off my bike years ago, the driver stopped, told me I was OK and then drove on. The Old Bill got quite excited when I told them and were upset that it wasn't a hit and run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To digress 20 years ago I was knocked down whilst cycling on Red Post Hill at some speed (separate to the box van on Kirkdale above). I was fortunate not to be killed let alone seriously injured. The Motor Insurance Bureau got involved and I received compensation for a hit and run.


The owner of the parked car that I was knocked into kindly told me not to worry about the dent in his bumper and drove me and the bike home. Another driver was a witness. The police called and were friendly.


Whilst I was being helped up another driver turned up in a flash Merc, asked if I was alright and said he'd seen the whole thing. And then drove off. I'm convinced that he was the person who hit me. But no proof. Imagine my surprise when I see an old Merc in the area nowadays matching the one that turned up at the time. Obviously I have no proof or took the registration at the time - the person who hit me sped of PDQ and I didn't take details of the person who turned up whether they were or weren't the perpetrator.


Anyway could all be a coincidence and nothing I could do about it in any case. No BBC documentary with Ross Kemp for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I believe around 57% of the 5,538 people who were part of the self selecting sample making up the original consultation, opposed the LTN. So just over 3,000 people. This was around 3 years ago now. I think there’s something like 40,000+ living across se22 and SE21 🤷‍♂️  The LTN is a minority interest at best. Whilst it’s an obsession for a small number on the transport thread who strongly oppose it, I suspect most locals quietly approve of the improvements made to that junction. …and we still haven’t heard who has supposedly been pressurising the emergency services and how (are we seriously going with the far left / the commies)? Is anyone willing to stand up and support the 'One' claim that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the filters due to inadequate signage? Again, it all sounds a little ridiculous / desperate. Feels like it may be time for them to start coming to terms with the changes.
    • Okay Earl, of those 'consulted' how many voices were in favour of the junction and how many against? Were there more responses in favour or more against? This local junction change is being driven by Southwark Labour Councillors- not as you assert by Central Govt. Also, if consultations are so irrelevant as indicators of meaningful local support in the way you seem to imply, why do organisations like Southwark Cyclists constantly ask their members to respond to all and any consultation on LTN's and CPZ's?  
    • You could apply the same argument to any kind of penalty as an effective deterrent.  Better than doing nothing. 
    • Check the link I provided above. It gives a very full account of where the push for LTNs came from, (in brief, central government). The consultation did not show that the majority of local residents were against the LTN. Not for the first time, you’ve confused a ‘consultation’ with a ‘referendum’. The outcome of local elections (which many opposed to LTNs excitedly promoted as a referendum on the scheme at the time…until they lost), suggests they are actually quite popular. All the polling on LTNs generally, also shows strong majority support across London.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...