Is this car insurance situation usual?

[Bozza]

Darren,
I'm a motor fraud investigator with plenty of relevant knowledge.
Just a quick heads up; there is no way that LV can obtain your mothers personal/contact information via a vehicle reg check. All they can identify is your Mothers policy number and insurer.

LV would identify who insure your mother and liaise with her insurer, not your Mother directly.

There's a lot of cold-calls and data phishing going on at the moment and it does concern me that a major Insurer has gotten hold of your Mothers personal details.

Is by chance, your Mother an LV Motor Insurance customer?
If not, there's certainly something untoward going on.
Feel free to pm me the number which 'LV' called from.

The number is 0800 756 8538 and she called them back on it after I'd already done the Google thing to ascertain authenticity.

She's insured with 1st Central - https://my.1stcentralinsurance.com

 

[Vegas Seagull]

The Breakers Yard may have 'passed on' some info?...

 

[Bozza]

The Breakers Yard may have 'passed on' some info?...

The car hasn't gone to the breakers yet.

 

[StonehamPark]

Yes, a DVLA Keeper Check would reveal personal details, however no Insurance company would do this as there's no need. A MID check and a phone call the the TP Insurers is the norm.

 

[StonehamPark]

The number is 0800 756 8538 and she called them back on it after I'd already done the Google thing to ascertain authenticity.

She's insured with 1st Central - https://my.1stcentralinsurance.com

Interesting.
First port of call would be for your Mother to call 1st Central and explain the situation (if she hasn't already done so). They may well tell her that they are aware and have been in contact with LV themselves.

Still doesn't solve the personal contact number issue though. Serious breach of DPA however it was gained.

 

[fat old seagull]

Mmmm curious and curiouser, bearing in mind it's that time of the year .... Orifice parties and the like, I'd also go for the 'over the limit' theory. Maybe being intoxicated they were worried about being breathalysed at the scene or were so pizzed they got home on autopilot and only after sobriety had returned, done the right thing.
Ok naughty, very naughty in fact, but as it would have perhaps been easier to have stayed schtum I too applaud them.

 

[Garage_Doors]

There is also the theory that the person did stop, did take details but with no one around, not unable it find who the owner was, they could of course left a note on the windscreen, but potentially no pen?
Ive been in a car when i needed to write something down but had no writing implements in the car (use the phone for that now, but would not leave that on someone windscreen.)

So only course of action was to report to the Police, we know with no injuries they would not have been interested so only course of action was to report it to the insurance company.

But I'm still going for the pissed up one.

 

[Bozza]

There is also the theory that the person did stop, did take details but with no one around, not unable it find who the owner was, they could of course left a note on the windscreen, but potentially no pen?
Ive been in a car when i needed to write something down but had no writing implements in the car (use the phone for that now, but would not leave that on someone windscreen.)

So only course of action was to report to the Police, we know with no injuries they would not have been interested so only course of action was to report it to the insurance company.

But I'm still going for the pissed up one.

Nope - my mum was in the car and driving, got hit and the other car just drove off.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Nope - my mum was in the car and driving, got hit and the other car just drove off.

Ah.... Thought it was a parked up hit & run.
Forget that then

 

[Lady Whistledown]

She should contact her insurer anyway: regardless of whether she intended to (or was even able to, given that you say it's a third party only policy) claim: if you read the small print on her policy it'll say somewhere that you're obliged to notify them if it's involved in an accident, regardless of your/her intention to claim. Never a good idea for your insurer to find out from somebody other than you your car has been involved in an accident. In practice, people frequently don't bother in cases of miniscule amounts of damage, but technically, it should be done.

In this case, contacting them would have the added advantage of (a) establishing the legitimacy of this LV call, and (b) making the insurer do any work necessary to protect her position.

Also: even though her policy is third party cover, if she can demonstrate the accident wasn't her fault, or the other party admits liability, then she can still make a claim against their insurer for her costs, which presumably she has incurred if her car has been written off (or will be, once she calls the insurer).

So, again: call them. Nothing to lose, & potentially a little to gain.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Reminds me of when my step dad's old car was hit and it was written off for little money when the excess was taken into account. He then got a bill from his insurers for the balance of the full year's insurance premium that was for more than he got in damages!
On another occasion I was sitting indoors one evening when a young lad knocked on the door to say he had just taken out my wing mirror. He could have bunked off but owned up to it and we settled the repair between us. In fact I let him off a tenner for his honesty.

 

[Bozza]

She should contact her insurer anyway: regardless of whether she intended to (or was even able to, given that you say it's a third party only policy) claim: if you read the small print on her policy it'll say somewhere that you're obliged to notify them if it's involved in an accident, regardless of your/her intention to claim. Never a good idea for your insurer to find out from somebody other than you your car has been involved in an accident. In practice, people frequently don't bother in cases of miniscule amounts of damage, but technically, it should be done.

In this case, contacting them would have the added advantage of (a) establishing the legitimacy of this LV call, and (b) making the insurer do any work necessary to protect her position.

Also: even though her policy is third party cover, if she can demonstrate the accident wasn't her fault, or the other party admits liability, then she can still make a claim against their insurer for her costs, which presumably she has incurred if her car has been written off (or will be, once she calls the insurer).

So, again: call them. Nothing to lose, & potentially a little to gain.

She did when it happened, as I'd said:

She was third party only due to it being quite an old car. She did contact them at the time - is it worth doing so again?

A letter has arrived from LV today which she's bringing round to show me in a while.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

She did when it happened, as I'd said:

Right. I missed that post. Sorry.

Would still suggest letting her insurer deal with LV though, rather than getting involved in any personal correspondence with them (LV). Firstly because that's what she pays them for, to handle claims, and secondly because it ensures everything is above board and done through the correct channels. Still strikes me as a bit cheeky, as well as unusual, that LV have contacted her directly. Almost as though they think she can be fobbed off (and thus save them/ their client money), particularly if- and forgive me for the presumption here- they know she's in the older age category.

But I guess the aforementioned letter may make everything clear.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Explain this one then .... someone I know got a brand new car on a personal lease that comes with free insurance for a year - great as he's young and its his first insurance.

He visited a mates house a few weeks back and the next day he gets a call from his mates neighbour saying that he reversed into car and did £1000 worth of damage and its recorded on cctv.
The bloke got his number from his mate who claims he saw the car and worked out he did it from the cctv!

There is not one scratch, mark or dent on the new car and he swears that he can't have and didn't hit this blokes car so he told him politely to get stuffed as it can't have been him. Bloke says he will go to the police - so he says well do so as he didn't hit it.

He gets a call from the police and tells them the story and they say they will get back to him after investigating which they do and call him in for a chat about it. When he goes for the chat they tell him they have seen the cctv footage and whilst they can't say he hit it yet they advise him to go through the insurance because if he doesn't they may prosecute him for not reporting the accident and if they win he will get six points!

They didn't show the footage supposedly against him because "it wasnt available right then"! so he is unsure what to do - whilst he's sure he didn't hit the car he is buckling from the hassle from the police and is thinking that if he lets it go through the insurance they will sort it and they will say that he never hit it and nothing else will happen.

I've warned him that if it goes as a claim in any event he will end up losing out on NCD and premiums etc even if they agree that he didn't hit the car and the cctv might not show anything other than a car reversing and it might not even be able to show what car or anything. I can't see that there would be no mark or damage on his car and I think the bloke might be trying it on.

I think the police are just either hoping they will scare him it to admitting it or just hoping they can pass the problem on to the insurance companies.

Reading what Bozza wrote in his mums case I find it ludicrous that they in that case they say they won't investigate but in this case they seem to be going all out to find the person even perhaps by trying to pressure someone unfairly to do close the case.

 

[Bad Ash]

Right. I missed that post. Sorry.

Would still suggest letting her insurer deal with LV though, rather than getting involved in any personal correspondence with them (LV). Firstly because that's what she pays them for, to handle claims, and secondly because it ensures everything is above board and done through the correct channels. Still strikes me as a bit cheeky, as well as unusual, that LV have contacted her directly. Almost as though they think she can be fobbed off (and thus save them/ their client money), particularly if- and forgive me for the presumption here- they know she's in the older age category.

But I guess the aforementioned letter may make everything clear.

Someone went into the back of me recently and I was phoned directly by their insurer offering to deal with everything themselves. They obviously are doing it to try and minimize their costs. My own insurer offered me a hire car and when I said yes passed me on to a 3rd party firm to arrange it. I imagine this firm charge through the roof and give my insurer a tasty referral fee, and of course my insurer don't care bout the costs when the other party (well their insurer) will be paying. So I can't blame them for trying.

However in my case it was a repair, which is a bit different to settling a write off.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Someone went into the back of me recently and I was phoned directly by their insurer offering to deal with everything themselves. They obviously are doing it to try and minimize their costs. My own insurer offered me a hire car and when I said yes passed me on to a 3rd party firm to arrange it. I imagine this firm charge through the roof and give my insurer a tasty referral fee, and of course my insurer don't care bout the costs when the other party (well their insurer) will be paying. So I can't blame them for trying.

However in my case it was a repair, which is a bit different to settling a write off.

This is it. They're presumably hoping that by dealing with an individual person (who more than likely will have no knowledge of insurance claims procedure), they can come out of it having paid out considerably less than they would if your insurer got involved and put their weight behind it.

 

[StonehamPark]

Explain this one then .... someone I know got a brand new car on a personal lease that comes with free insurance for a year - great as he's young and its his first insurance.

He visited a mates house a few weeks back and the next day he gets a call from his mates neighbour saying that he reversed into car and did £1000 worth of damage and its recorded on cctv.
The bloke got his number from his mate who claims he saw the car and worked out he did it from the cctv!

There is not one scratch, mark or dent on the new car and he swears that he can't have and didn't hit this blokes car so he told him politely to get stuffed as it can't have been him. Bloke says he will go to the police - so he says well do so as he didn't hit it.

He gets a call from the police and tells them the story and they say they will get back to him after investigating which they do and call him in for a chat about it. When he goes for the chat they tell him they have seen the cctv footage and whilst they can't say he hit it yet they advise him to go through the insurance because if he doesn't they may prosecute him for not reporting the accident and if they win he will get six points!

They didn't show the footage supposedly against him because "it wasnt available right then"! so he is unsure what to do - whilst he's sure he didn't hit the car he is buckling from the hassle from the police and is thinking that if he lets it go through the insurance they will sort it and they will say that he never hit it and nothing else will happen.

I've warned him that if it goes as a claim in any event he will end up losing out on NCD and premiums etc even if they agree that he didn't hit the car and the cctv might not show anything other than a car reversing and it might not even be able to show what car or anything. I can't see that there would be no mark or damage on his car and I think the bloke might be trying it on.

I think the police are just either hoping they will scare him it to admitting it or just hoping they can pass the problem on to the insurance companies.

Reading what Bozza wrote in his mums case I find it ludicrous that they in that case they say they won't investigate but in this case they seem to be going all out to find the person even perhaps by trying to pressure someone unfairly to do close the case.

Many insurance call handlers are young and inexperienced so it's very important to make sure they note the below properly.

Mate calls his Insurers, explain the situation, alleged incident circumstances, cctv and police involvement.
Inform the call handler that they should send out an engineer to inspect both vehicles as there is no damage whatsoever.
Inform the handler to obtain the cctv as this will be key.
Tell the handler that the witness is not independent as he/she is a mate of the Third Party.
Make it clear to the handler that you (your mate) has no intention on claiming as no accident has taken place.

Make sure the above is taken in properly by the call team as they are not always he brightest bunch.

Would be interested to know who your mates insurers are.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Many insurance call handlers are young and inexperienced so it's very important to make sure they note the below properly.

Mate calls his Insurers, explain the situation, alleged incident circumstances, cctv and police involvement.
Inform the call handler that they should send out an engineer to inspect both vehicles as there is no damage whatsoever.
Inform the handler to obtain the cctv as this will be key.
Tell the handler that the witness is not independent as he/she is a mate of the Third Party.
Make it clear to the handler that you (your mate) has no intention on claiming as no accident has taken place.

Make sure the above is taken in properly by the call team as they are not always he brightest bunch.

Would be interested to know who your mates insurers are.

Thanks Stoneham - Will find out and let you know -its my mates son so will ask him Monday

 

[StonehamPark]

Thanks Stoneham - Will find out and let you know -its my mates son so will ask him Monday

No problem at all.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Explain this one then .... someone I know got a brand new car on a personal lease that comes with free insurance for a year - great as he's young and its his first insurance.

He visited a mates house a few weeks back and the next day he gets a call from his mates neighbour saying that he reversed into car and did £1000 worth of damage and its recorded on cctv.
The bloke got his number from his mate who claims he saw the car and worked out he did it from the cctv!

There is not one scratch, mark or dent on the new car and he swears that he can't have and didn't hit this blokes car so he told him politely to get stuffed as it can't have been him. Bloke says he will go to the police - so he says well do so as he didn't hit it.

He gets a call from the police and tells them the story and they say they will get back to him after investigating which they do and call him in for a chat about it. When he goes for the chat they tell him they have seen the cctv footage and whilst they can't say he hit it yet they advise him to go through the insurance because if he doesn't they may prosecute him for not reporting the accident and if they win he will get six points!

They didn't show the footage supposedly against him because "it wasnt available right then"! so he is unsure what to do - whilst he's sure he didn't hit the car he is buckling from the hassle from the police and is thinking that if he lets it go through the insurance they will sort it and they will say that he never hit it and nothing else will happen.

I've warned him that if it goes as a claim in any event he will end up losing out on NCD and premiums etc even if they agree that he didn't hit the car and the cctv might not show anything other than a car reversing and it might not even be able to show what car or anything. I can't see that there would be no mark or damage on his car and I think the bloke might be trying it on.

I think the police are just either hoping they will scare him it to admitting it or just hoping they can pass the problem on to the insurance companies.

Reading what Bozza wrote in his mums case I find it ludicrous that they in that case they say they won't investigate but in this case they seem to be going all out to find the person even perhaps by trying to pressure someone unfairly to do close the case.

This is odd and I'm sure Edna can confirm. My understanding is that the police only get involved if a crime has been committed - if ts a simple bump with no injuries and things like speeding, drinking, due care & attention etc. are not at issue I'm surprised they are involved as this becomes a tort under negligence.

I would ask the claimant to provide you the evidence that makes him think you did it. If he doesn't, you may have your day in court. But remember, this is a tort claim [for your negligence] and not a crime, it will be heard in the county court and the claimant only needs to convince the judge on the "balance of probability" that you did it.