Mistaken (at best) Insurance Claim

[Seminole]

A quick update. Not much has happened but I've had a conversation with Direct Line and I am satisfied that they they are doing their best to resolve matters. They have responded to the claimant's solicitors asking for basic information about the make and model of the car. They expect that matters will come to a head by the end of this month. I'm happy with this.

 

Two things are bothering me at the moment:

 

1) When the claimant's solicitors worked out who to write to they would have had as a minimum the registration number of the vehicle. They would have used this to identify the insurer to write to in an insurance database. Is anyone familiar with these databases? For a registration number would they show the make and model of the vehicle? I ask this because I would expect the claimant's solicitor to ask for information about this before making a claim. I would expect them to check the make and model if shown in the database against the claim details and not to issue a claim unless they were consistent. They have a duty of care to their client and a responsibility to deal with the matter properly.

 

Edit: They could of course check the make and model of the vehicle simply by keying the reg into Auto Trade or other sites but I would be interested in knowing if it's included in the information extracted routinely from whatever insurance databases are out there.

 

2) Apparently the claimant's solicitors have threatened to sue "Paul Hudson" (the name given by the driver) personally. I believe they did this in the one and only letter they sent to Direct Line. Is this normal? I don't actually have any problem with this because they have no case whatsoever.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Seminole

[unclebulgaria67]

You can find out the make and model using the reg no. online, but not the colour. If you go on any online Insurance quote database, if you key the reg no. it will show make/model.

 

Also the AskMid site will provide the policyholder name and Insurers details.

 

Direct Line are probably asking for minimal info, because they are trying to 'hook' a possible fraudulent claim. If they asked for too much info or just told them they have identified the wrong car as it was in Surrey at the time, then it would probably stop any chance of catching them.

 

Make sure Direct Line are making enquiries to get hold of any CCTV near to the crash site. This is only held for a certain length of time, so they need to make the request asap.

 

There is another possible explanation, but hopefully not the case. Is there another car on the road with the same registration number ? I know at one time there were instances of dodgy reg no. plates being used, as a way to avoid being caught for driving without Insurance. They would get the plates made up or would steal them, to apply to their cars. The government strengthened the process for obtaining reg no. plates, by restricting the number of outlets that could sell them and they have to see the vehicle V5 doc.

[Seminole]

Thanks for this. The Autotrader database does show the colour so I'm surprised it's not in the insurance databases.

 

I'll mention the CCTV issue to DL. It had crossed my mind before but I'd forgotten about it.

 

I discussed possible plate cloning with the insurance assessor and with my friend the police officer. Both said it was possible but a bit less likely with such an old vehicle. From a very narrow selfish point of view, it would explain a lot and make the issue go away. It would be a ridiculous coincidence if a cloned plate was attached to the same make, model and colour of vehicle.

[unclebulgaria67]

Thanks for this. The Autotrader database does show the colour so I'm surprised it's not in the insurance databases.

 

I'll mention the CCTV issue to DL. It had crossed my mind before but I'd forgotten about it.

 

I discussed possible plate cloning with the insurance assessor and with my friend the police officer. Both said it was possible but a bit less likely with such an old vehicle. From a very narrow selfish point of view, it would explain a lot and make the issue go away. It would be a ridiculous coincidence if a cloned plate was attached to the same make, model and colour of vehicle.

 

Not sure it is a good idea for databases freely available to have hold too much info. I suppose for Insurance purposes the colour of the car is not relevant.

 

As a piece of irrelevant trivia, the person who started up Autotrader in the UK, was the keyboard player in Bros.

[Migster]

As a piece of irrelevant trivia, the person who started up Autotrader in the UK, was the keyboard player in Bros.

Thinking that Autotrader was probably around before the members of Bros were even born, I checked on Wikipedia...

"The founder of Auto Trader in the United Kingdom was John Madejski in 1975, who went on to take over Reading Football Club in 1991. The 'Auto Trader Concept' was founded in America. John Madejski brought this idea back from the USA, and set up Hurst Publishing with Paul Gibbons in 1977."

[unclebulgaria67]

Thinking that Autotrader was probably around before the members of Bros were even born, I checked on Wikipedia...

"The founder of Auto Trader in the United Kingdom was John Madejski in 1975, who went on to take over Reading Football Club in 1991. The 'Auto Trader Concept' was founded in America. John Madejski brought this idea back from the USA, and set up Hurst Publishing with Paul Gibbons in 1977."

 

Yes I stand corrected, it was actually not Autotrader, but the Trade-it free paper. Someone told me that it was Autotrader, which was obviously wrong.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Davidson_%28musician%29

[manofmystery]

Hey there

 

I eventually sold the car three weeks ago.

 

A few days after the sale I received a phone call from my insurer stating that they believed that I had been involved in an accident on 3 August and they they had a claim from a third party that included personal injury.

 

Correct me if im wrong, but was this claim dated after the sale of your car?

 

If so - why did you not inform your insurer and cancel the policy?

An insurer cannot throw out a third party claim (unless it is made fraudulently) so unfortunately they will have to deal with it.

 

I guess it may be worth a go trying to prove to them that you had sold the car at this point and the V5 was no longer in your name, other than that.. I cant really offer any other advice sorry!

 

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

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Always seek the advice of an insured qualified professional. All my legal and nonlegal knowledge comes from either here, my own personal research and experience and/or as the result of necessity as an Employer and Businessman.

 

By using my advice in any form, you agreed to waive all rights to hold myself or any persons representing myself of any liability.

 

 

" No one can make you feel inferior without your consent " - Eleanor Roosevelt

[Seminole]

Hey there

 

 

 

Correct me if im wrong, but was this claim dated after the sale of your car?

 

If so - why did you not inform your insurer and cancel the policy?

An insurer cannot throw out a third party claim (unless it is made fraudulently) so unfortunately they will have to deal with it.

 

I guess it may be worth a go trying to prove to them that you had sold the car at this point and the V5 was no longer in your name, other than that.. I cant really offer any other advice sorry!

 

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

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Always seek the advice of an insured qualified professional. All my legal and nonlegal knowledge comes from either here, my own personal research and experience and/or as the result of necessity as an Employer and Businessman.

 

By using my advice in any form, you agreed to waive all rights to hold myself or any persons representing myself of any liability.

 

 

" No one can make you feel inferior without your consent " - Eleanor Roosevelt

 

Hi. No the date of the alleged incident was before the car was sold. We were in fact waiting for someone to come to see the vehicle late that afternoon.

[Seminole]

I went to an old school friend's 50th birthday party at the weekend. He happens to be a Surrey police officer and based on the facts as I know them, he is certain that this will turn out to be a fraudulent claim and that I will end up either with a fight on my hands or the claimant doing a runner. I'm going to wait until I hear back from DL but I feel another witness statement coming on.

[ericsbrother]

The insurers have the same database set as the DVLA so they know the colour, engine size approx mileage etc. Your insures will get certain information back from the claimants that will help them decide what to do incuding whether the police were involved, what doctor they saw and when (this is important in fraud as there are common patterns). Typically you dont get to hear any of this unless the claimants get fed up waiting and try suing you and that might be very foolish action by them so I dont think you need to worry too much about your insurer selling you out as they would ahve to pick up that bill as well.

[SuperVillain]

When I worked for an insurer we had quick access to MID which you just type in a vehicle registration and accident date and it tells you the insurer details and policy number. DVLA or HPi searches had to be separate (because they cost more money - £1 or £2 a go each if I remember correctly) but gave you much more info.

 

As for the claim it smacks of fraud purely because solicitors have been involved so early.

 

Sounds like Scott Rees are floundering (nothing new there lol) but remember the onus is on the claimant to prove their claim against you. And you have solid proof your vehicle wasn't involved in the alleged accident. SR will soon knock this on the head.

 

The impact on your insurance is an inconvenience but direct line seem to be on the case so nothing to worry about at this time.

[SuperVillain]

Having said that Scott Rees don't tend to be purposefully dodgy so it's probably not fraud...

[Seminole]

Thanks SuperVillain. I'm a lot calmer now. Just waiting until 24 October which is when DL have said that they'll get back to me.

 

I was interested to read your comments about Scott Rees and I think you're right about them. They are too large to be intentional parties to a fraud and I am expecting this to go away. The fact that it's taking them so long to respond to DL suggests that they may be having problems.

[Seminole]

Well today's the day when DL said they would get back to me. I gave them a call and they are still waiting for a reply from the claimant's solicitors. DL believe this means that the claim is in trouble and they are likely to view it as abortive if they don't receive a reply by the 3 month anniversary of the accident on 3 November.

 

If this happens then I would like to seek an apology and reimbursement of my costs from the claimant or their solicitor. I know this may seem over-zealous but I am angry at having this hanging over me at the same time as dealing with the serious illness of my father. I appreciate that this may be a mistake but simply withdrawing without an explanation or apology is unacceptable. Am I within my rights to ask for the solicitors reference number for the claimant so that I can write to them directly?

[unclebulgaria67]

Not sure you would get anywhere. The Solicitors and their clients will say that they made a legitimate enquiry with the Insurers they considered involved in the accident.

 

What would you do, if they refused to compensate you. Sue them ?

[Seminole]

Thanks for this. It's actually more serious than that. They a) accused me of causing a 4 person personal injury accident and b) the solicitors threatened to sue "Paul Hudson" personally.

 

I'm not sure what the endgame is. I am not going to allow this issue to fade away. If they proceed, I'll deal with that. If they don't I want an acknowledgement of the hassle they have caused me.

[Seminole]

Well, my insurance company has just told me that the claimants have identified the vehicle involved in the "accident" as being the same make and model as my car. Either the solicitor was sloppy when the looked up the reg or the claim is fraudulent.

 

In any event I'm off to give a witness statement to the police.

[SuperVillain]

Well, my insurance company has just told me that the claimants have identified the vehicle involved in the "accident" as being the same make and model as my car. Either the solicitor was sloppy when the looked up the reg or the claim is fraudulent.

 

In any event I'm off to give a witness statement to the police.

 

I wouldn't read too much into that.

 

With a vehicle reg and knowing where to look on Google you can find out the make, model [http://www.eurocarparts.com/car-parts], colour engine size, when the tax is due, the amount of tax, whether or not it's been paid [https://www.taxdisc.direct.gov.uk/EvlPortalApp/app/enquiry?execution=e2s1, and whether the vehicle had insurance on a specific date [http://www.askmid.com/]

[Seminole]

Yep I know that and I think the claimants got the details either from those sources or from the Autotrader ad that was running at the time.

 

In any event, it's unacceptable to be left in limbo like this. The claimaint's solicitors have had long enough to justify a claim. All they have done so far is to ask for my name and address.

[SuperVillain]

Ultimately I don't think you have anything to worry about as you can prove the vehicle wasn't involved in the accident.

 

Like you said its the being kept in limbo issue that's more of a concern, but whilst I sympathise I don't really think there's much you can do except sit back and let your insurers deal with it (which is annoying).

 

"Yep I know that and I think the claimants got the details either from those sources or from the Autotrader ad that was running at the time." - Alternatively they could have genuinely been involved in a hit and run and taken the reg down wrong as the other driver sped away. It's impossible to tell. Are they alleging a hit and run? Have your insurers asked them for a description of the driver?

 

I tried something out on the above websites. My car is a grey Alfa Romeo Mito. I changed one letter in the reg and did the searches again and it reveals a Black Vauxhall Corsa. Similar-ish sized cars and in the panic/shock of a collision you might not have got a good look at the other vehicle as it drove off, and remember if its driving off you'll be more concerned about getting the reg down instead of trying to ascertain the make and model. If one reported it to one's insurer a few hours later being hit by a a dark coloured hatchback and gave either of the two reg's it would seem legit.

 

Its hard but you have to focus on what you know for sure i.e. your vehicle wasn't involved. Worst comes to worst (I think its' unlikely to go this far) and they issue court proceedings, your insurer's nominated solicitors will file a full defence putting them to strict proof that your vehicle was the one involved which they won't have. At the end of the day they're the claimant and its initially up to them to prove your vehicle was involved, and not for you to prove it wasn't.

[Seminole]

No the claimant apparently had a conversation with the driver of the vehicle, "Paul Hudson", who shares the same first name as me. There's no question of the vehicle driving off and I would have expected the claimant to have recorded the make and model of the vehicle.

 

Direct Line have asked a number of questions including a description of the driver. These have gone unanswered. The claimant's solicitors have simply asked for my name and address.

 

I fully appreciate that the claimant has no case but their failure to deal with this efficiently is irritating. As far as I can tell all the solicitor has done is submit a claim with a letter asking for my contact details and to subsequently request my contact details again. I think it's pretty clear what their agenda is and I intend to respond in kind.

[SuperVillain]

"I think it's pretty clear what their agenda is and I intend to respond in kind."

 

Well the good news is that if the solicitors are intent on issuing (which is presumably why they asked for your name and address for service) that means Direct Line aren't going to pay

 

Have Direct Line hinted at when they'll pass to their solicitors? In cases I guess they'd just wait for the other side to issue proceedings.

[Seminole]

And still this rolls on.

 

I haven't done anything further about this. Unfortunately my father passed away a couple of weeks ago and insurance was the last thing on my mind.

 

Apparently the claimant's solicitor has got hold of their client and they seem to be playing legal chicken with Direct Line. I am now, finally, going to report the matter to the police.

[king12345]

And still this rolls on.

 

I haven't done anything further about this. Unfortunately my father passed away a couple of weeks ago and insurance was the last thing on my mind.

 

Apparently the claimant's solicitor has got hold of their client and they seem to be playing legal chicken with Direct Line. I am now, finally, going to report the matter to the police.

 

I hope you get them charged and convicted.
These are the fraudsters who make our insurance premium a luxury.
Bring them down!

[Seminole]

And this still rumbles on but nothing much has happened.

 

Direct Line told me that the claimant/ their solicitors were asking for my details with a view to commencing proceedings against me as well as them. I asked them for copies of correspondence between them and the other side. Direct Line have decided to treat this as a subject access request and are demanding £10!!

 

I guess I can't use CPR disclosure against them as Direct Line are on my side but it feels completely wrong to be charged to access data about potential litigation in this way.