UKC

Hoping the combined knowledge of ukc will answer a couple of questions. Criminals being pursued by police have written off my car. 

1. Does the police pay for damage caused by their hot pursuit?

2. My car was shunted in the incident into a wall belonging to a third party making repairs to the wall necessary. My insurance company says it will not pay out for this damage. I couldn't believe this.

3. Even assuming the criminals are caught - we have the vehicle number - I doubt they'll be insured. I seem to remember there is some industry body which pays out on uninsured losses. Is that right and if so who is that body? 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Even if you've got the reg number, it's either stolen or will be reported as such.

I thought the way it works was that your insurers would sort out the repairs and then claim from the fund you mention if they can't recover the costs from the other party.

However, as the police and a pursuit are involved, I'd get in contact with them for advice.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

https://www.gov.uk/compensation-victim-uninsured-driver

Were you in the car?

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I'm guessing this is because you weren't driving it, so the damage to the wall wasn't due to you (your car itself can't be considered at fault for being shunted). So not your insurer's, nor your responsibility. 

Edit, sorry I'm assuming you weren't actually in it.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Your insurance companies legal department should be dealing directly with the police. If not give them a shove. Take lots of pictures. 

If they are slow to help it's the kind of story a local newspaper would love. 

In reply to thomasadixon:

I was in bed as it was 2am.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I'm slightly at a loss as to why you think your insurance company should pay for the wall repairs. Clearly neither you nor your car are at fault so why should it be their responsibility?

In reply to summo:

I have informed the insurers twice already that it was a police pursuit but both times they reply that they've never heard of police paying in such circumstances. We don't have many pictures because the police tried to stop us taking them and my neighbour was forced to delete those he took from his phone.

In reply to Oceanrower:

They have said it is unlikely that anyone else will pay for the damage to my car, so I have initiated a claim. I would have thought that the damage to a third party's property was part of the claim. What would have happened had it been a person, not a wall?

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I doubt the police would pay. They didn't hit your car, somebody elses did.

I'd be concerned about the deleted pictures, though. The police have absolutely no right to make anybody delete pictures. They have no right to stop you taking pictures. A call to the duty inspector, methinks...

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Realistically, exactly the same. Down to the owner of the wall to make his own claim. Not your fault, not your insurance company's problem.

In reply to Oceanrower:

Unlikely the incident would have occurred if they weren't in hot pursuit. The police were there about 20 seconds after the smash. Still, no one died, which isn't always the case in such incidents

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Are you fully comp or third party only? I can see the issue if TP only as you'd have to claim from the fund as the other vehicle will most likely be uninsured.

The neighbours wall is nothing to do with you or your insurer.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

People (not you, specifically) think that if the's any problem, the insurance company will pick up the tab. Not true. If you've been negligent then they'll cover your negligence to a third party. If you've not been negligent then they won't.

Similarly, if your tree, for example, falls onto a neighbours fence and you knew it was rotten then they should pay out. If the tree was sound but fell over anyway, they won't. 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Surely they can't stop you taking pictures of your own property? With the right software, you should be able to recover any deleted pictures - as long as that section of memory hasn't already been over-written by something else, but even then a deep scan might get something back.

Definitely a complaint in order there.

In any case, just go back after they've left and take as many as you want!

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I seem to remember there is some industry body which pays out on uninsured losses. Is that right and if so who is that body? 

I think they will only pay out for personal injury and not damage to vehicles or property.  That's how it used to work anyway but maybe it has now changed.

In reply to Northern Star:

This is where you find out insurance sucks:

Damage to your car = a fault claim against your policy, because there is no insured party to claim against. Goodbye no claims bonus.

Damage to your neighbour's wall is, in theory, a liability claim against the crims who cause the accident by shunting your car into the wall. Given no chance of that, perhaps a matter for their home and buildings insurance (who will of course take off an excess and knock back any no claims they have). 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I suspect that:

- you will have to make a claim on your policy for your car.

- your neighbour will have to make a claim on their buildings insurance for their fence:

- the police will say that they were not negligent and are not at fault.

The insurers may chase the insurers (if any) of the moving vehicle and seek to recover their losses from them.  There is a provision in the Road Traffic Act that makes the insurer of a vehicle liable for injuries/damage to third parties even if the insured driver is not in the vehicle (as I discovered when left-hooked by a driver of an insured car who did not have a licence).  You can find out who the insurer of the car was if you have its VRN by paying a small fee to the Motor Insurers Bureau and the DVLA will tell you if it was insured at all.  If there is an insurer, you can pursue them yourself.

Edit - Section 151 (2) (b) of the RTA applies.  My experience is that insurers trust that most people don't know this.  Once rumbled, the insurer in my case was pleased, I think, just to pay out £600 for some bike wheels and that I was happy to let some cut fingers go on the basis that they'd be fine in a couple of weeks.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

All sympathies for your situation, sounds pretty irksome.

One comment I need to make :

I am picking up a vibe of criticism against the police for pursuing a vehicle. I hope I wrong. 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Since you weren't in the car, your insurance company has nothing to do with the damaged wall, I think they're pretty reasonable in this since it's you who they insure.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Sorrry for my slovenly typing. I meant “I hope I am wrong” 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

That's a basis for a complaint against the police. They have absolutely no right to do that. You can photograph or video freely in a public space. 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Jesus, you need to make a complaint about the second part, or he does rather.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I would;

Get legal advice

Make an official complaint to the police

Speak to the local newspaper

All before midday tomorrow. 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

The police are doing their job. I find it interesting that you blame them and not the criminal who stole and were driving a stolen car for the accident.  

You claim on your insurance for your car.

The owner of the wall claims on their insurance for the wall.  

You didn't drive into the wall so why would it be your problem? 

Job done.

In reply to marsbar:

The problem with this is their car insurance will increase next year and none of this is the individuals fault.

The police should have a fund if they damage property whilst carrying out their job. It shouldn't be the public's job to put right damaged property, which would have been undamaged had the police not been doing x and y..

In reply to Rog Wilko:

If you’re Fully comp claim from your insurance. Otherwise MIB

In reply to Rog Wilko:

If you've got the reg of the pursued vehicle then that insurer is liable (regardles of whether it was stolen at the time) under the Road Traffic Act. If however the vehicle is not insured you can claim from the MIB. If your insurer isn't helpful then take note and go with someone else next time.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Still not your responsibility.  You have to be in control of the vehicle (or to have done something while previously in control of it e.g. left the handbrake off, or a mechanical failure to your vehicle having cause it to hit the wall) to be liable.

The wall's owner will either have to claim on their household policy if they have one covering it, or just put it down to experience.

In reply to LastBoyScout: Agree, how can they stop you taking pictures at all, unless it was police property. You were either on your own property or in a public space I presume. That would be a huge blow to photojournalism if the police had the right to ban you from recording an incident.

In reply to summo:

So instead of it coming from higher insurance cost, it comes from higher taxes.  Hardly a win.  

In reply to marsbar:

A tiny increase in taxation for everyone who pays tax. As opposed to a significantly increased premium for an entirely innocent party.

I know which option seems the more fair to me.

In reply to marsbar:

Yes.

Absolutely none of this was their fault, they shouldn't be more than the cost of a stamp out of pocket. 

In reply to summo:

The police didn't damage any property, the stolen car did.

In reply to Ridge:

Had the police not been chasing would their car be undamaged?

I'm not suggesting the police shouldn't chase etc.. But they should put right damage caused in the process or because of their actions. 

In reply to summo:

Had the scrout not been running the police wouldn't have been chasing.

It's the same one of them steals a motorbike, crashes it, and makes thrnsethem dead. The family blame the police for chasing them, not the sh*t who stole the bike. Madness.

In reply to Max factor:

Err, or the alternative where you have no insurance and can't afford to fix any of it...

In reply to summo:

Lunacy. Given budget cuts that sounds like a great excuse to stop the police doing anything.

In reply to JoshOvki:

I'm not suggesting the police shouldn't police. But if totally innocent people who are caught in the middle of it are going to be out of pocket something is wrong. 

Either the police or a national insurance pot should be used to fund it. Perhaps all the money obtained from selling off recovered goods can go in it. 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

If you are fully comp it seems unbelievable that your insurance company won't deal with this for you, that's why fully comp is more expensive than third Party. As for the wall that's not your problem because you're not responsible. It's up to your neighbour to claim on their house insurance.

Someone mentioned a special scheme run by some insurers to support clients who are the victims of incidents such as this where the perpetrator in uninsured. Have you checked if your insurers belong to it?

General comment to all: 

Insurance is a bloody minefield to compare when getting quotes because they all seem to include or exclude different items which used to be standard for all in their scramble to appear competitive. it's time the insurance industry cleaned up their act in this regard, so that everyone can compare quotes on a level playing field, without having to wade through pages and pages of conditions.

In reply to JoshOvki:

The police have strict guidelines for pursuit of vehicles because it is well known that this will cause the criminal to speed up and drive more recklessly - perhaps resulting in the death of an innocent bystander. if the police are pursuing for example a suspected terrorist or someone who is a clear danger, then the balance of risk may well favour pursuit. but if the police are just pursuing some teenagers who have nicked a corsa for a laugh, would you really be happy for your daughter/ son etc. to be mown down as part of a police pursuit?

if the police followed their own guidelines and had proper authority to pursue, then fair enough, if not, they should accept responsibility

In reply to Rog Wilko:

IANAL but maybe CICA

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

This sounds like a really dodgy area. My understanding is:

1. It’s a crime scene so you probably can’t/shouldn’t be allowed to take photos. 

2. If you have taken photos then they become evidence and you are destroying evidence. 

In reply to Neil Williams:

It’s the OPs car that has caused the damage. It’s the stolen car that has caused the OPs car to cause the damage. 

In 3 ways shunts that’s how the insurance is dealt with. Car A at the front claims from car B for hitting him, Car B then claims all those costs plus his own costs from Car C. Drivers don’t get involved other than to make statements. 

So wall owner claims off house insurers who claim off OPs insurers who claim off uninsured? stolen car. 

That’s why you pay insurance. 

If the OP is 3rd party only then I believe his insurers should be dealing with the wall claim only.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

2. Your insurance won’t pay out for the damage unless the wall owner’s insurance company or the wall owner press them to. They won’t deal with you. It’s not your wall. 

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Not what I was advocating btw. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

It may be how insurance companies choose to deal with such cases but it isn't how the civil liabilities of your example work.  I also suspect that they would only use such a system when all parties were insured anyway.  I very much doubt that car B's insurers would pay A's claim if car C was uninsured.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Anything to back up that statement?
It's in a public place and therefore the normal rules about photography and public places should apply. i.e. the Police have no right to stop people taking photos of the 'Crime Scene' or any Police Officers involved.
The only thing that might change it is if it's somehow linked to anti-terrorism.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

If the Police prevented you from taking photos I would suspect they took some of their own, in which case you should be able to ask for them. Alternatively, the insurance company can simply ask the Police for the relevant info.

In reply to dh73:

Exactly what I was planning to write.

In reply to MarkJH:

The parked car damaged the wall. What caused the parked car to move is irrelevant that’s down to the parked car’s insurance to peruse. 

The OP needs to pass his insurance details to the wall owner and let the two insurance conpanies sort it out between them. The OPs insurance company will repair his car (assuming he has comprehensive insurance). If he doesn’t then it’s an uninsured loss, and the risk you take when only going TP. 

There have been two references to the MIB on this thread but as far as I can see no explanation as to  what it is.  This might help:

https://www.mib.org.uk/making-a-claim/what-we-do/

If you are involved in an accident with a driver who is not insured, or who leaves the scene you may still be able to claim compensation. MIB is here to help with these claims.

This seems to answer the OP's question about the industry body that pays out on insured losses.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I cannot imagine any jurisdiction in the world that would consider the proximate cause of the wall falling down to be the act of parking, rather than that of driving a vehicle at speed into a parked car.  One may as well argue that if the homeowner had not built his wall in the path of the car, no damage would have occurred!

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Just to throw in a more obviously helpful comment:

Somewhere in all these claims, an adjuster (or several) will try to trick you into saying that there is of course a tiny possibility that your handbrake was not fully engaged. Stand your ground. All they need is a recorded admission that you could not swear on your next of kin's life that the handbrake was not 100% engaged, and you start to lose out financially. Possibly not even during dealing with this incident, but when you next renew. 
iirc this happened to a friend whose car was involved in a small-hours 3 way shunt - stolen car (not under "hot pursuit" smacked into his car - with handbrake fully engaged - hard enough to shunt it into another. Got caught out at renewal by some tedious salesman - not even an adjuster - patronisingly giving him a load of "are you saying to me honestly, 7 months later, that you absolutely have zero doubt that ON THAT OCCASION, the handbrake was fully engaged, wow, you must have AMAZING powers of memory"

I think a stutter was all it took for him to then proudly say "right, I've put that down as driver can't remember, thanks bye" and a significant increase in premium. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I don't believe this is correct.  A 3-way shunt is different because you are in control of the vehicle at the point the shunt took place, and there are complexities such as whether you could perhaps have prevented it by seeing the car coming from behind and taking evasive action having positioned your vehicle so you could (always stop so you can see the wheels of the car in front then you have enough space for this, assuming there's somewhere to go).

In reply to Blue Straggler:

One of the many reasons always, always to deal with insurance companies in writing or via their website only!

The correct answer is something like "Yes, I always fully engage the handbrake and check it, and leave the car in gear as well" - but the shysters do like you to admit fault for something that wasn't your fault.

I might (wouldn't really, as I'm sure they'd find a hole in that) also add "When I used to drive my Mum's car she used to make me come out of the house and take it off for her because she couldn't release it as I put it on properly" - which is actually true. 

In reply to MarkJH:

If your car catches fire and the fire spreads to another area then it’s your car that’s caused the secondary fire. The cause of the primary fire is irrelevant as far as the third party is concerned. They will claim from you. It’s then up to you to claim your losses from whatever caused your fire. 

The wall didn’t just fall down.

It is the car that is insured, not the driver. The car is insured whether you are driving it at the time or whether you have just parked it. What happens if the car is stolen? Is it suddenly not covered because you’re not in control of it? 

You insure a car and a condition of the insurance is whether you, or a named person is driving it. 

You cant park a car on the public highway unless it is insured. 

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Again, that may be what they do, but it isn't how liability works.  In English law and unless strict liability applied (which it would not here), a claimant would have have to demonstrate that an act (or omission) of the defendant directly caused a harm to the claimant.  There is not a chance that parking a car next to a wall would pass that test. 

In the case of a burning car, a potential defence against such a claim might be that you were supplied with a faulty car (which is strict liability).  It would not be the case that you would pay up and then seek damages from the maker; the claim would be rejected on those grounds and it would be up to the original claimant to seek damages from the manufacturer.

That isn't quite correct.  The 3rd party component of your insurance insures the owner or authorised driver against civil liabilities arising out of the use of the car.  If your car was stolen, then under English law you would have no liability for any damage that the thief did.  As such, the insurers would not need to pay for any claim (which would have to be against a person rather than a vehicle).  The other components of your insurance are against harms that you suffer, and as such would be paid by the insurer.

In reply to MarkJH:

ISTR that the Road Traffic Act actually does specifically make you liable in this very specific case.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Historically photojournalists shoot anything that might be news worthy. If the police have the power to ban this or make you destroy images that is a serious change in protocol and not a good one. 

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

It's not and they don't. It's amazing how many plod don't know the law, though.. 

In reply to Neil Williams:

Technically, it obliges the insurance company to cover the thief as though they were insured, but it is still the thief who is liable; not the owner.

In reply to MarkJH:

Ah, I see.  So they have to pay out, but could sue the thief for what they paid out, unlike if it was the policyholder, I guess?

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

No. I think the issue is people who then share the images on social media. There’s definitely been issues with causing distress. I thought the press followed a code. Whereas the public will just post anything they fancy. People have definitely been prosecuted but possibly under a different law. 

In reply to MarkJH:

Thankyou. 

In reply to Neil Williams:

That is my understanding.  Similarly, if the insurance contract has clauses that exclude obligations that the insurance company has under statutory requirements (e.g. the contract requires you to hold a valid licence, or maintain your vehicle in a roadworthy condition) , then the insurer would have to pay any civil liability that occurred whilst you were using the car, but could then try to recover that money from you if you had breached the terms of the contract.

In reply to DancingOnRock: I think perverting the course of justice might be reason to prosecute people who have photographed crimes/crime scenes or 'incidents' and libel laws apply to social media but not sure how well tested that is. It would be, however, a bleak day when the police become an instrument of censorship for a free press; and in the modern world, any one with a smartphone could count themselves a news snapper.

In reply to MarkJH:

Would that only be the case if the thief was identifiable? If he couldn't be traced then there is no obligation for insurers of the stolen car to deal with a Third Party claim?   

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

As far as I understand it, that is correct.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Some years ago my car was parked at the end of a line of about four cars on the street while I was at work. A car being driven by an untaxed, uninsured driver lost control and hit the back of the line of cars, shunting each into the one in front, until mine, at the end, got shunted a car's length forward. I only found out as I returned from work to find a Police car sat outside waiting for me to tell me what had happened. Luckily the car only sustained minor damage to the rear which I was able to straighten out with a sledgehammer (garage checked the suspension for damage). I dutifully informed my inurers, Norwich Union (now Aviva), of the incident, and that I had no intention to make any sort of claim against anyone. They immediately doubled my monthly premium "for the next six months, in case anyone claims against you". At the end of the six months they decided to keep the premium that high and wouldn't reduce it to the previous level. I took my business elsewhere

In reply to owlart:

A sad tale, but not unusual I'm sure.

In reply to DancingOnRock: This is why the police should never be allowed to prevent photos being taken.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/13/crying-girl-at-mexican-border-wins-world-pre...