I'd have to agree with the general setiment here that you need to involve the police. You'll need to do this simply in order to protect yourself and limit your own damages, regardless of the 'rights and wrongs' point of view. The other party(ies) has put you in this position, so there is no need to feel guilty for them.

With regard to the 'pressures of modern motoring', that's a reasonable point and there are some 'cheats' which it's easy to sympathise with, like the popular 'fronting' method to avoid ludicrous premiums for new drivers etc - but driving uinsured is just plain out of order, no ifs or buts.

Edited by Problem_Polo :-/ on 24/06/2011 at 16:54

The Churchill Staff do not know what they are talking about the Road Traffic Act clearly makes the Insurer of the vehicle that hit you responsible for damages to a third party vehicle where the driver is identified.

it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI (151)

See question 12 here http://www.mib.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/031A958B-1950-4064-8367-EAE93C4DB5AE/0/FAQGuaranteedFund.pdf

As I stated earlier the other persons Insurers are liable for the damage to your vehicle (Assuming they were at fault)

The basic principles of third party vehicle insurance are governed by the Road Traffic Act, the RTA states that vehicles need third party insurance (Or security deposit). The principle of the RTA is that if there is a valid policy on the vehicle then the Insurer are liable (For fault accidents) when an insured (Named driver) or also if a driver who is not insured on the vehicle eg as in OP's situation or also if teh vehicle is stolen providing the driver is identified. (See the link and the highlighted passage from the relevant part of the RTA in my previous post.

The third parties Insurer are obliged to pay the claim and will then seek reimbersement from their policyholder or the driver.

If you look on your own certificate it will have in bold letters "Note to third parties, nothing contained in this certificate prevents you claiming from this policy" or words to that effect.

If the driver had not been identified or the car had been stolen and the thief not identified then the MIB would be the ones who pay the claim.

Try googling "Hit by stolen vehicle" and you will find plenty of no win no fee solicitors who explain the above. Here is a link to one "If the vehicle is stopped and the driver identified, the registered insurers of the vehicle are still obliged to compensate the victim." http://www.mycompensationclaim.co.uk/content/accidents-involving-hit-and-run-and-stolen-vehicles

In fact if Lucy was still on this site, she would be falling over herself to offer a credit hire car which she would claim from the insurers of the car

Edited by dacouch on 25/06/2011 at 00:32

If in the relatively unlikely event that they are both insured with the same company the claim would be handled as a normal claim would be. Th OP would just need to recover their excess from the third party insurer.

If they don't want to claim off their own insurance they could approach the third party insurer (Their own) and claim directly off them or enroll the use of a claims handler etc.

OP feel free to check what I have told you by ringing the MIB link here http://www.mib.org.uk/Company+Information/en/Contact+Information/Default.htm