Advice sought supposed RTA

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

Roymondo:

goshow:
Any RTA where an injury is caused must be reported to the police within 24hrs of the incident. There does not need to be contact between your vehicle and the injured party etc. The law states “owing the the presence of a vehicle on the road…”

.

Sorry, can’t let that go without comment. The fact that someone has been injured does NOT mean that the incident must be reported to Police. The requirement is that all drivers involved STOP at the scene and give their particulars to other parties involved. If there are injuries then they must also provide their insurance details. Provided those requirements are met, there is no requirement to report to Police.

If there is a requirement to report to Police, then this must be done “as soon as practicable” with an absolute limit of 24 hours.

Sent from a sleeper pod atop a BG registered Sprinter parked just outside Crewe.

In the case the original OP mentioned, which is a little vague, The person making the claim against him appears to be reporting an injury. Therefore they have a duty to report it to the police within that 24hr period. The point I was trying to make is; if they were injured then they should have reported it to the police, within 24hrs, and in that case the police would have been making all attempts to contact the OP.

By law all collisions / accident where an injury has occurred must be reported to the police, even if all details have been obtained/exchanged. Like you say, as soon as practicable, max 24hrs.

22

goshow:
In the case the original OP mentioned, which is a little vague, The person making the claim against him appears to be reporting an injury. Therefore they have a duty to report it to the police within that 24hr period. The point I was trying to make is; if they were injured then they should have reported it to the police, within 24hrs, and in that case the police would have been making all attempts to contact the OP.

By law all collisions / accident where an injury has occurred must be reported to the police, even if all details have been obtained/exchanged. Like you say, as soon as practicable, max 24hrs.

No, no, no. There is NO requirement to report to police just because someone has been injured. It may be a good idea (usually), it might be strongly recommended by insurers etc, but it’s not a legal requirement.

The requirement to report to police only arises if you fail to stop at scene, exchange particulars AND (in the case of an injury accident) show your insurance to the other party involved.

23

Also note that the requirement to report an injury accident will only apply to the “other driver” - so if there are two vehicles involved but only one is damaged (e.g. forced to take evasive action and crashes into a ditch) and the only injury is to the driver of that vehicle, there is NO obligation for that injured driver to report to police.

24

greendalef:
The problem I have is the claim is against me personally. I’m trying to find out with company if I pass the claim back to them. However as has been mentioned earlier. I still have to acknowledge the claim within 14 days and not 28. Otherwise judgement will be entered by default.

A claim in respect of a road traffic crash is usually a claim of negligence against the driver (if the crash is alleged to be owing the manner in which the vehicle was driven). That is why the claim is issued against you personally, if your insurers have opted to put the claimant to the proof - it is not (necessarily) an indication of a breakdown in relations between the third party and your insurer, or a vindictive measure.

As an aside, it is a little known fact that if a crash occurs not owing to anybody’s negligence (for example, a meteor hits and you swerve into a parked car), there is no liability (and injured parties, such as the owner of the parked car, have to bear their own losses).

There is usually an option to sue an employer in place of the driver (based on vicarious liability), or the insurer directly (based on rights against insurers), but in this case there may be a lack of clarity as to who your employer really was, or which insurance policy covers the loss (there may be more than one insurer potentially liable), but there is (presumably) no dispute as to the identity of the driver against whom the negligence is alleged (i.e. you).

If you notify the company or your apparent insurer, it is highly likely they will instruct solicitors to act on your behalf (in order to protect their own positions), although they do not have to.

As for the claim form you’ve received, if you acknowledge service then you will get another 14 days to file a defence. As I said, I would strongly recommend you ask the claimant’s solicitors for more information to clarify the allegations and the circumstances, if you aren’t sure. You can make it clear that they are suing in regard to an incident you haven’t witnessed and know nothing of, and which was some time ago.

In the absence of this information, and if nobody else is acting on your behalf and the deadline is imminent, you should simply file a defence stating that the events alleged are unknown to you, that you deny the claim in full, and that (allowing for the possibility you may have been unaware of an accident that did occur) the claimant is put to strict proof of the claim.

The claim may well come down to the claimant’s word against nobody’s, but I would like to think a court will require more than just the claimant’s say-so as to what happened (since otherwise a person could be involved in an accident of some sort, remember that they saw a supermarket HGV in front of them just beforehand, and say the HGV was responsible when it had no involvement whatsoever - and then who can prove otherwise?).

25

Roymondo:
Also note that the requirement to report an injury accident will only apply to the “other driver” - so if there are two vehicles involved but only one is damaged (e.g. forced to take evasive action and crashes into a ditch) and the only injury is to the driver of that vehicle, there is NO obligation for that injured driver to report to police.

Dude, RTA 1988 Sect 170.

If a driver fails to give name and address etc: Injury to a third party must be reported. Damage caused to others property must be reported. Injury or death of an animal (as defined therein) must be reported.

All within 24 hrs, to a police constable.

Clearly if the driver did stop and exchange, no report to the police is necessary.

Reading the op’s post, he was not aware of any allegation until well after the event. Technically he could still be prosecuted for failing to stop, failing to report. Why the ‘claimant’ hasn’t pursued this via the police leads me to believe there is no real evidence.

That said the burden of proof in civil court is less than that at criminal court.

26

el_presidente:

Roymondo:
Also note that the requirement to report an injury accident will only apply to the “other driver” - so if there are two vehicles involved but only one is damaged (e.g. forced to take evasive action and crashes into a ditch) and the only injury is to the driver of that vehicle, there is NO obligation for that injured driver to report to police.

Dude, RTA 1988 Sect 170.

If a driver fails to give name and address etc: Injury to a third party must be reported. Damage caused to others property must be reported. Injury or death of an animal (as defined therein) must be reported.

All within 24 hrs, to a police constable.

Clearly if the driver did stop and exchange, no report to the police is necessary.

Reading the op’s post, he was not aware of any allegation until well after the event. Technically he could still be prosecuted for failing to stop, failing to report. Why the ‘claimant’ hasn’t pursued this via the police leads me to believe there is no real evidence.

That said the burden of proof in civil court is less than that at criminal court.

None of which contradicts what I said, er… “Dude”.

27

Roymondo:

el_presidente:

Roymondo:
Also note that the requirement to report an injury accident will only apply to the “other driver” - so if there are two vehicles involved but only one is damaged (e.g. forced to take evasive action and crashes into a ditch) and the only injury is to the driver of that vehicle, there is NO obligation for that injured driver to report to police.

Dude, RTA 1988 Sect 170.

If a driver fails to give name and address etc: Injury to a third party must be reported. Damage caused to others property must be reported. Injury or death of an animal (as defined therein) must be reported.

All within 24 hrs, to a police constable.

Clearly if the driver did stop and exchange, no report to the police is necessary.

Reading the op’s post, he was not aware of any allegation until well after the event. Technically he could still be prosecuted for failing to stop, failing to report. Why the ‘claimant’ hasn’t pursued this via the police leads me to believe there is no real evidence.

That said the burden of proof in civil court is less than that at criminal court.

None of which contradicts what I said, er… “Dude”.

We’re advising in the context of the OP’s situation right? The ‘claimant’ would, and should have, reported. They are alleging that another mechanically propelled vehicle (or it’s presence) caused an accident which resulted in injury; and the other vehicle failed to stop and exchange, and failed to report.

But anyhow, this isn’t a pi$$ing contest.

28

el_presidente:
We’re advising in the context of the OP’s situation right? The ‘claimant’ would, and should have, reported. They are alleging that another mechanically propelled vehicle (or it’s presence) caused an accident which resulted in injury; and the other vehicle failed to stop and exchange, and failed to report.

But anyhow, this isn’t a pi$$ing contest.

I wasn’t offering advice regarding the OP’s situation - I was, and still am, challenging the misguided assertion (which you still appear to be following) that the car driver (I’m assuming the other vehicle was a car) was under any duty to report the matter to police. I may be well off-beam here, but you appear to be employing the decision process used by police officers up and down the country to decide whether or not an incident should be recorded as a RTC (it would) and then moving straight on to say that all drivers involved in it are obliged to stop/exchange details (and report to police if they don’t). Your comment above that the claimant “should have reported” seems to confirm this. S170 is not worded in this way - it doesn’t define a Road Traffic Accident and then say that all drivers involved have to stop/report.

29

goshow:

greendalef:
Thanks for the advice. You’ve confirmed my thoughts in that I’ve been contacted by solicitors, and not police / insurance company.

The first thing the police would have done is issued you with a notice of intended prosecution, this HAS to be done within 14 days of the offence. You don’t have to receive it in that time, but they do have to prove that they’ve sent it within the timescale. You’d have also got a name of driver form.

No requirement for NIP in the case of an accident. Getting close to the 6 months statutory limit on proceedings though.

30

Roymondo:

el_presidente:
We’re advising in the context of the OP’s situation right? The ‘claimant’ would, and should have, reported. They are alleging that another mechanically propelled vehicle (or it’s presence) caused an accident which resulted in injury; and the other vehicle failed to stop and exchange, and failed to report.

But anyhow, this isn’t a pi$$ing contest.

I wasn’t offering advice regarding the OP’s situation - I was, and still am, challenging the misguided assertion (which you still appear to be following) that the car driver (I’m assuming the other vehicle was a car) was under any duty to report the matter to police. I may be well off-beam here, but you appear to be employing the decision process used by police officers up and down the country to decide whether or not an incident should be recorded as a RTC (it would) and then moving straight on to say that all drivers involved in it are obliged to stop/exchange details (and report to police if they don’t). Your comment above that the claimant “should have reported” seems to confirm this. S170 is not worded in this way - it doesn’t define a Road Traffic Accident and then say that all drivers involved have to stop/report.

The RTA 1988 is pretty clear - if an accident is casued by, or occures because of the presence or another mpv, and an injury is caused, and the other driver failed to stop; or failed to exchange details - it must be reported to the police within 24 hrs.

Maybe you’re misunderstanding Sect 170 (1) (a)? Lets look at scenarios:

A single vehicle accident, caused by the driver of that vehicle, where the driver is injured - no need to report to police.

An accident, caused by another vehicle which caused damage to the accident vehicle or injury to the driver, which then failed to stop, must be reported within 24 hrs. This scenario is as the OP describes.

It is alleged HIS vehicle caused an accident leading to someone being injured - HE should have reported it to the police but because he was unaware, he didn’t (and this would still constitute an offence). The injured party SHOULD have reported it to the police as, despite being the driver of the ‘accident’ vehicle, it is alleged this accident was caused by the presence of the OTHER vehicle.

If I’m misinterpreting, please point out how?

31

Roymondo:
I wasn’t offering advice regarding the OP’s situation - I was, and still am, challenging the misguided assertion (which you still appear to be following) that the car driver (I’m assuming the other vehicle was a car) was under any duty to report the matter to police. I may be well off-beam here, but you appear to be employing the decision process used by police officers up and down the country to decide whether or not an incident should be recorded as a RTC (it would) and then moving straight on to say that all drivers involved in it are obliged to stop/exchange details (and report to police if they don’t). Your comment above that the claimant “should have reported” seems to confirm this. S170 is not worded in this way - it doesn’t define a Road Traffic Accident and then say that all drivers involved have to stop/report.

I’m of the view that the requirements of s170 are that any driver who is involved in an accident has a duty to stop and give details, unless the injury or damage (if any) is confined to that driver.

A driver is involved in an accident if the accident owes its happening to the presence of that driver’s vehicle on the road.

There is a duty to stop and provide details, but if no details are given to any person (perhaps because no person with reasonable grounds requests them, or is able to accept them), then the matter must be reported to police.

The same principle would appear to apply to certificates of insurance - that if they are not produced to anyone at the scene who has grounds to require them, then they must be reported to a police station.

32

Rjan:

Roymondo:
I wasn’t offering advice regarding the OP’s situation - I was, and still am, challenging the misguided assertion (which you still appear to be following) that the car driver (I’m assuming the other vehicle was a car) was under any duty to report the matter to police. I may be well off-beam here, but you appear to be employing the decision process used by police officers up and down the country to decide whether or not an incident should be recorded as a RTC (it would) and then moving straight on to say that all drivers involved in it are obliged to stop/exchange details (and report to police if they don’t). Your comment above that the claimant “should have reported” seems to confirm this. S170 is not worded in this way - it doesn’t define a Road Traffic Accident and then say that all drivers involved have to stop/report.

I’m of the view that the requirements of s170 are that any driver who is involved in an accident has a duty to stop and give details, unless the injury or damage (if any) is confined to that driver.

A driver is involved in an accident if the accident owes its happening to the presence of that driver’s vehicle on the road.

There is a duty to stop and provide details, but if no details are given to any person (perhaps because no person with reasonable grounds requests them, or is able to accept them), then the matter must be reported to police.

The same principle would appear to apply to certificates of insurance - that if they are not produced to anyone at the scene who has grounds to require them, then they must be reported to a police station.

Which still leaves the obvious question why would anyone, supposedly involved in an accident,allegedly caused by someone who left the scene without providing details,not have reported it to the police at the time it happened.

Unless it was reported to the police who then decided that it wasn’t a matter of anyone knowingly leaving the scene of an accident which is obviously more likely in the case of a truck.Which might explain how the claimant got all the required details needed to make a claim assuming they just had a reg number.It would also explain why it’s taken so long for court proceedings in that the vehicle’s insurers have denied liability.The key factor seems to be checking back with both the vehicle’s insurers and the police. :bulb:

33

S170 does not define a “Traffic Accident” and then go on to require the drivers of all vehicles involved in the incident to stop/report etc. It is clearly worded from the viewpoint of one vehicle (i.e. where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle… … the driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle must stop…).

Had the intention been to apply to all vehicles involved, the wording would have been along the lines of “Where, owing to the presence of any mechanically propelled vehicle(s)… …the drivers of all such vehicles must stop…”

34

There are many reasons why folk might not want to involve the Old Bill. Expired MoT or tax, wanting to keep a low profile due to outstanding fines etc, dodgy immigration status, being somewhere where they really shouldn’t have been. Hell, it’s quite possible they went to report it more than 24 hours later and got the brush-off from the enquiry desk at the nick (and yes, I’ve seen that happen!).

35

Roymondo:

goshow:

greendalef:
Thanks for the advice. You’ve confirmed my thoughts in that I’ve been contacted by solicitors, and not police / insurance company.

The first thing the police would have done is issued you with a notice of intended prosecution, this HAS to be done within 14 days of the offence. You don’t have to receive it in that time, but they do have to prove that they’ve sent it within the timescale. You’d have also got a name of driver form.

No requirement for NIP in the case of an accident. Getting close to the 6 months statutory limit on proceedings though.

There is still a requirement for an NIP if the party didn’t know there had been an accident (or collision as they call them nowadays).

36

First things first - ACKNOWLEDGE THE COURT CLAIM.

You can then think about what/who you will use as a defence.

37

Get it sorted.
When you get a judgement of nothing to answer for, counter claim through the small claim courts for stress and wrong doing :wink: as these companies say " where there’s blame there’s a claim "

38

Roymondo:
There are many reasons why folk might not want to involve the Old Bill. Expired MoT or tax, wanting to keep a low profile due to outstanding fines etc, dodgy immigration status, being somewhere where they really shouldn’t have been. Hell, it’s quite possible they went to report it more than 24 hours later and got the brush-off from the enquiry desk at the nick (and yes, I’ve seen that happen!).

He might well have got the brush off, or he might have just rang the supermarket straight away (in which case he wouldn’t need the police to trace the driver), or he might have had the reg number already and just rang his insurer with the information (in which case he wouldn’t need the police). There may be perfectly legitimate explanations.

39

Roymondo:
S170 does not define a “Traffic Accident” and then go on to require the drivers of all vehicles involved in the incident to stop/report etc. It is clearly worded from the viewpoint of one vehicle (i.e. where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle… … the driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle must stop…).

Had the intention been to apply to all vehicles involved, the wording would have been along the lines of “Where, owing to the presence of any mechanically propelled vehicle(s)… …the drivers of all such vehicles must stop…”

I agree it is badly worded, but it is sensible to think that it is supposed to apply equally to any and each vehicle involved.

Otherwise, on your logic, you’d have a situation where those potentially liable for a crash would have no obligation to stop, give details, or report.

40

As promised here is an update;

As I had 14 days to reply. Rather than it sit on a transport managers desk. I decided to bypass the agency / transport office, and emailed the company’s claim handling company teatime yesterday.

This morning at 06.30 I received a reply from them saying they’d passed it on to solicitors. They would be in contact with me.

08.45 I received call from the company’s solicitors.

They informed me that they had received initial enquiry from claimants solicitors in November. They wrote back asking for more details. They had no response, so closed the case end of February. The next we all new about it was when county court summons appeared through my letterbox.

The solicitors told me they would handle everything from now on. I had to scan and email copies of court documents over to them. And post originals. They would get in contact with court, and get the summons reissued in the clients name. They too were very mindful of the 14 day period. That is why they wanted them scanned and emailed.

According to the solicitors, this is starting to become quite common in cases like these. Even though the claim was from an individual. It will be the claimants insurance company that will be behind it. They, like me had no idea what the actual circumstances of the supposed accident were. But to resurrect / continue the claim, they issue the summons in the name of the driver.

I can’t fault the speed and efficiency of both the claim handling company, and the solicitors.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the thread. All of it was very good and useful advice.

Hopefully anybody else who finds themselves in similar circumstances has a reference point with this thread.