L Plate Driver at time of accident

theoldbreed

Hi all,
Long story short, my husband was involved in a rear ending last year, he didn't think there was much damage caused to his car so he didn't call the guards, big mistake. The other party then decided to try and spin it their way, don't want to go into too much detail as it is still ongoing.

My question is that the other driver was a L Plate driver and was unaccompanied. Is there anything he can do at this point about this? It is a penalty point offence.

Thank you.

magentis

theoldbreed wrote: »

Hi all,
Long story short, my husband was involved in a rear ending last year, he didn't think there was much damage caused to his car so he didn't call the guards, big mistake. The other party then decided to try and spin it their way, don't want to go into too much detail as it is still ongoing.

My question is that the other driver was a L Plate driver and was unaccompanied. Is there anything he can do at this point about this? It is a penalty point offence.

Thank you.

Did the other driver hit the back of your husband or did your husband hit the back of the other driver?

theoldbreed

magentis wrote: »

Did the other driver hit the back of your husband or did your husband hit the back of the other driver?

She hit him. He didn't call guards or anything so no proof and now she is saying that's not what happened.

Stheno

theoldbreed wrote: »

She hit him. He didn't call guards or anything so no proof and now she is saying that's not what happened.

And you want her to get penalty points for driving unaccompanied.

How will that help your husband resolve his claim, or are you just being vindictive?

theoldbreed

Stheno wrote: »

And you want her to get penalty points for driving unaccompanied.

How will that help your husband resolve his claim, or are you just being vindictive?

Hardly being vindictive. She hit him. He let it go however silly that may have been. He wasn't in the wrong.
Now with all due respect I didn't and don't want to get into a discussion with you about your assumptions.

Gatling

Has your husband varified she only holds a learner permit

Stheno

theoldbreed wrote: »

Hardly being vindictive. She hit him. He let it go however silly that may have been. He wasn't in the wrong.
Now with all due respect I didn't and don't want to get into a discussion with you about your assumptions.

Things a discussion board, not an "agree with me or go away " board.

I imagine there is not a lot you can achieve months later but go ahead and report the accident to the guards .

theoldbreed

Gatling wrote: »

Has your husband varified she only holds a learner permit

Yes she is definitely a learner driver.

theoldbreed

Stheno wrote: »

Things a discussion board, not an "agree with me or go away " board.

I imagine there is not a lot you can achieve months later but go ahead and report the accident to the guards .

Agreed it us a discussion board I didn't say anything to the contrary. I said I had no desire to discuss your assumptions further with you. Thanks for your input nonetheless.

bigpink

So what stage is it at?She trying to claim from ye?

EagererBeaver

Stheno wrote: »

And you want her to get penalty points for driving unaccompanied.

How will that help your husband resolve his claim, or are you just being vindictive?

a) that's not what she said, you've drawn your own conclusion there.

b) never mind belated penalty points, any little **** found driving unaccompanied should have their license torn up, not sympathised with.

Tasden

EagererBeaver wrote: »

a) that's not what she said, you've drawn your own conclusion there.

b) never mind belated penalty points, any little **** found driving unaccompanied should have their license torn up, not sympathised with.

You don't need to have sympathy to realise that her having penalty points isn't going to help the op's partner.

theoldbreed

bigpink wrote: »

So what stage is it at?She trying to claim from ye?

From him yes.

barney4001

Stheno wrote: »

Things a discussion board, not an "agree with me or go away " board.

I imagine there is not a lot you can achieve months later but go ahead and report the accident to the guards .

a few years ago i was involved in a head on accident with an r driver who was also on her mobile phone at the time of impact and she was on wrong side of the road as well she swerved just on impact,my wife had shattered hip while i had whiplash injury,i knew it was clearly her fault and noticed her r plate so i never
mentioned that to police as i knew she was in enough trouble as it was,she was uninjured she never even came over to see how me and wife were,but a few days later policeman who dealt with accident at the time called to see me about the crash and told me that the r driver had told them that i had swerved into her,when the impact debris was clearly on my side of the road,so that was thanks for keeping my mouth shut about her on her mobile at the time of crash,she was fined £500 and lost licence for 9 months, also she had just passed he driveing test 2 weeks and just 18 years old, so in accidents tell it as it was do no favours to anyone

Gatling

When did the new unaccompanied driving come into force for learner permits .

anothernight

Tasden wrote: »

You don't need to have sympathy to realise that her having penalty points isn't going to help the op's partner.

By that token, a victim of theft or any other crime should never call for the perpetrator to be charged, because it will rarely help the victim.

In this case, if the driver gets penalty points they do get closer to the limit where they would lose their licence, were they to keep driving badly/carelessly, which could prevent further accidents. Nothing vindictive about that in my opinion.

athtrasna

Gatling wrote: »

When did the new unaccompanied driving come into force for learner permits .

People with learner permits have never been allowed to drive unaccompanied

anothernight

athtrasna wrote: »

People with learner permits have never been allowed to drive unaccompanied

They might be confusing with the old provisional licence, which did allow unaccompanied driving after the first renewal, iirc.

Gatling

athtrasna wrote: »

People with learner permits have never been allowed to drive unaccompanied

What about provisional holders

Stheno

Gatling wrote: »

What about provisional holders

Think it's been permits only for about five years

theoldbreed

barney4001 wrote: »

a few years ago i was involved in a head on accident with an r driver who was also on her mobile phone at the time of impact and she was on wrong side of the road as well she swerved just on impact,my wife had shattered hip while i had whiplash injury,i knew it was clearly her fault and noticed her r plate so i never
mentioned that to police as i knew she was in enough trouble as it was,she was uninjured she never even came over to see how me and wife were,but a few days later policeman who dealt with accident at the time called to see me about the crash and told me that the r driver had told them that i had swerved into her,when the impact debris was clearly on my side of the road,so that was thanks for keeping my mouth shut about her on her mobile at the time of crash,she was fined £500 and lost licence for 9 months, also she had just passed he driveing test 2 weeks and just 18 years old, so in accidents tell it as it was do no favours to anyone

Agreed. Lesson learned the hard way for him.

Sorry to hear your story btw.

endagibson

EagererBeaver wrote: »

any little **** found driving unaccompanied should have their license torn up, not sympathised with.

Leave the license alone, just crush the car. Try a spell of jail as well for repeat offences.

njs030

If she was a learner driving unaccompanied surely her own insurance is invalid? It's definitely something to mention to his insurance company anyway.

Op how do you know she herself is a learner as opposed to driving a car a learner is also using and forgetting to remove the plates?

Stheno

notjustsweet wrote: »

If she was a learner driving unaccompanied surely her own insurance is invalid? It's definitely something to mention to his insurance company anyway.

Op how do you know she herself is a learner as opposed to driving a car a learner is also using and forgetting to remove the plates?

She'd still be covered for third parties, the insurance company have to cover that. They might try to recoup any payment back from her though

theoldbreed

notjustsweet wrote: »

If she was a learner driving unaccompanied surely her own insurance is invalid? It's definitely something to mention to his insurance company anyway.

Op how do you know she herself is a learner as opposed to driving a car a learner is also using and forgetting to remove the plates?

Well she was 18 at the time but we also know her family.

What is the other driver saying happened?

Generally speaking, if you rear end another car, it rarely matters what else is happening in the world, you're at fault.

How is she trying to spin the blame if the damage is on the front of her car and the rear of your husbands?


As far as I know, the Gardai don't need to be involved, so it shouldn't be standing against him? The Gardai are only involved if the accident is serious, I believe (requires a road closure, or the people involved require ambulance assistance?)

theoldbreed

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is the other driver saying happened?

Generally speaking, if you rear end another car, it rarely matters what else is happening in the world, you're at fault.

How is she trying to spin the blame if the damage is on the front of her car and the rear of your husbands?


As far as I know, the Gardai don't need to be involved, so it shouldn't be standing against him? The Gardai are only involved if the accident is serious, I believe (requires a road closure, or the people involved require ambulance assistance?)

She's saying he reversed into her. The insurance company said he should have called guards. They are doing no investigation into it either btw they both happen to have same insurance company too. She's looking for 1900 euro.

Water John

One should, despite the shock, try to remain calm in the event of an accident. Obviously, first look to secure the site from other cars running into it.
See that any injured person is seen to, including emergency call. Always tell the operator the number of injured as that will indicate the number of ambulances to be despatched.
If you have anyone in the area that you trust, ring them. A cool head not involved in the accident is very handy on site.
Everyone has a camera on their phone. Take photos.

Is her change of story driven by the fact that she has to pay the costs of repairing her own car because it was not covered by the insurance? She trying to get it off you instead.

athtrasna

theoldbreed wrote: »

She's saying he reversed into her. The insurance company said he should have called guards. They are doing no investigation into it either btw they both happen to have same insurance company too. She's looking for 1900 euro.

He should not have called the guards but he should have reported it to his insurance company just in case. I did when I was rear ended and the insurance company told me that I did the right thing and always should do that.

My ex was in an accident where both vehicles were insured by the same insurer and they went out of their way not to pay out to either party.

Without witnesses and/or photos, it's very much his word against hers. Can't see why the insurance company are even entertaining her claim?

Water John

I think you go hardball and tell her, get lost.

Sleeper12

Accident never reported. No statements taken from either side or whiteness. 12 months on there's no proof that there was an accident let alone who is at fault. In a case like this usually each insurance pays out to their own client. L driver can't prove it is your husband fault and he can't prove its her fault.

L1011

Gatling wrote: »

When did the new unaccompanied driving come into force for learner permits .

In the 1960s or earlier...

The last second provisional holders ceased to exist about four years ago - third and further provisional holders had no privileges that way.

Gatling

L1011 wrote: »

In the 1960s or earlier...

The last second provisional holders ceased to exist about four years ago - third and further provisional holders had no privileges that way.

I was just asking because I couldn't remember if provisional holders were allowed to be unaccompanied been this accident goes back nearly 2 years

athtrasna

Gatling wrote: »

I was just asking because I couldn't remember if provisional holders were allowed to be unaccompanied been this accident goes back nearly 2 years

Provisional licences haven't been issued for many years now, replaced by learner permits. People on learner permits are not allowed to drive unaccompanied irrespective of how long they've held the permit.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

4ensic15

anothernight wrote: »

They might be confusing with the old provisional licence, which did allow unaccompanied driving after the first renewal, iirc.

Only for the period of the first renewal. If the test wasn't passed within the year the driver reverted to requiring supervision.

4ensic15

athtrasna wrote: »

He should not have called the guards but he should have reported it to his insurance company just in case. I did when I was rear ended and the insurance company told me that I did the right thing and always should do that.

My ex was in an accident where both vehicles were insured by the same insurer and they went out of their way not to pay out to either party.

Without witnesses and/or photos, it's very much his word against hers. Can't see why the insurance company are even entertaining her claim?

Every accident should be reported to the guards. If someone is injured the guards should be called to the scene.

athtrasna

4ensic15 wrote: »

Every accident should be reported to the guards. If someone is injured the guards should be called to the scene.

The Gardai will tell you they don't care as long as nobody is hurt. Happened me and a work colleague of mine. If nobody is hurt and it's not blocking the road, swap details and move on is what they said.

4ensic15

athtrasna wrote: »

The Gardai will tell you they don't care as long as nobody is hurt. Happened me and a work colleague of mine. If nobody is hurt and it's not blocking the road, swap details and move on is what they said.

There is an obligation to report it anyway.It can be reported later at a garda station. The guards don;t want to come to the scene when no one is injured.

Tigger

4ensic15 wrote: »

Only for the period of the first renewal. If the test wasn't passed within the year the driver reverted to requiring supervision.

it was 2 years the period of the second license

Tasden

anothernight wrote: »

By that token, a victim of theft or any other crime should never call for the perpetrator to be charged, because it will rarely help the victim.

In this case, if the driver gets penalty points they do get closer to the limit where they would lose their licence, were they to keep driving badly/carelessly, which could prevent further accidents. Nothing vindictive about that in my opinion.

Firstly, I never said it shouldn't be reported, I just replied to someone who mentioned having no sympathy for the learner driver in response to Stheno's earlier comment. I was pointing out that acknowledging it doesn't help the op has nothing to do with sympathy for the driver.
Also op's partner wasn't concerned about reporting the driver's (learner or not) careless driving and preventing further accidents before now.

If you're in this situation, can you get away with telling a few lies to scare people?


for example, can the OPs husband tell the insurance company "I'd like to contest the claim. I am pretty sure I saved the dash cam footage but it'll take me a day or two to get to the laptop where I kept all my dashcam footage".

Will the insurance company relay that information to the girl telling the lies? "X says he's contesting and has dashcam footage".

Obviously the hope here is that the mention of dashcam will terrify the girl cos she'll know she's full of it, and may result in her dropping the claim? (even if there never was a dash cam in the first place).

(the thing about taking a day or two to get the footage is to see will the insurance company forward on the info to the girl, without the op actually having to provide the non-existant footage)?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Accident never reported. No statements taken from either side or whiteness. 12 months on there's no proof that there was an accident let alone who is at fault. In a case like this usually each insurance pays out to their own client. L driver can't prove it is your husband fault and he can't prove its her fault.

You do know the courts have such cases every day. The judge dies a funny thing he listens to the verbal evidence of each party and also if they have any experts and then he decides based on the evidence given to him under oath by each driver.

Pro Hoc Vice

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you're in this situation, can you get away with telling a few lies to scare people?


for example, can the OPs husband tell the insurance company "I'd like to contest the claim. I am pretty sure I saved the dash cam footage but it'll take me a day or two to get to the laptop where I kept all my dashcam footage".

Will the insurance company relay that information to the girl telling the lies? "X says he's contesting and has dashcam footage".

Obviously the hope here is that the mention of dashcam will terrify the girl cos she'll know she's full of it, and may result in her dropping the claim? (even if there never was a dash cam in the first place).

(the thing about taking a day or two to get the footage is to see will the insurance company forward on the info to the girl, without the op actually having to provide the non-existant footage)?

You are saying he should tell lies to his own insurance company?

Pro Hoc Vice

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You are saying

I was asking.

brian_t

Deleted User wrote: »

I was asking.

You were asking if it would be a good idea to tell lies to your insurance company.

No is the simple answer.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Utmost Good Faith is due to your insurer in handling claims as well as when you are taking out a policy. As part of the claims process, if any lie is identified, your whole defence could collapse. Your insurer may refuse to provide you with indemnity in such circumstances

Sleeper12

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You do know the courts have such cases every day. The judge dies a funny thing he listens to the verbal evidence of each party and also if they have any experts and then he decides based on the evidence given to him under oath by each driver.

I just said what an insurance companys reaction to such a situation usually is.
Court is a different matter. Judge has to listen to the evidence. Unfortunately theres still no whiteness. Two totally conflicting stories. Judge has to try use common sense instead of evidence. Who is the more experienced driver? How likely is it for one car to reverse into another etc.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I just said what an insurance companys reaction to such a situation usually is.
Court is a different matter. Judge has to listen to the evidence. Unfortunately theres still no whiteness. Two totally conflicting stories. Judge has to try use common sense instead of evidence. Who is the more experienced driver? How likely is it for one car to reverse into another etc.

Evidence is the very act of getting into the box and giving evidence. What goat are saying is there is no independent evidence but there is evidence.