Cycling Accident

[Emanresu]

If the OP want's to initiate criminal proceedings, then this would be one course of action

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/private-prosecutions

 

[classic33]

This is wrong advice in my opinion. The registered owner/keeper may not have been driving. It is essential that the driver is identified- it is an untraced driver claim until it is known.

In your opinion, my solicitor thought otherwise. And its what was going to happen right up to the time it was due to go into the court. At which point the registered owner/keeper named the driver. Male driver, female owner.

The MIB also backed away the minute I identified the owner. They took no further part in it. That was a little over a month after I'd been hit, and the confirmation of the owner was got from the DVLA.
At this stage I'd both Uninsured and Untraceable Driver forms filled as requested by the MIB.

 

[Emanresu]

Very useful thread and apologies to the OP for resurrecting it.

In your opinion, my solicitor thought otherwise.

Presuming here that your solicitor was trying 'vicarious liability' to make the vehicle's owner/keeper liable as there was no driver mentioned. The CPS thinks it applies to most traffic cases as they are 'strict liability'. Seems to indicate the driver in the OP's case was very, very stupid in not fessing up. Hope they are now more aware of the cost to themselves of ignoring the OP.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/corporate-prosecutions

Normally vicarious liability will arise from offences of strict liability. These are offences which do not require proof of intention, recklessness, or even negligence. For example, most traffic offences carry strict liability unless they expressly require fault. If an offence of strict liability is committed by an employee of a company in the course of his employment, the company may also be criminally liable. It is likely that any corporate prosecution will be linked to the prosecution of a controlling officer and/or other employees.

 

[classic33]

Very useful thread and apologies to the OP for resurrecting it.

Presuming here that your solicitor was trying 'vicarious liability' to make the vehicle's owner/keeper liable as there was no driver mentioned. The CPS thinks it applies to most traffic cases as they are 'strict liability'. Seems to indicate the driver in the OP's case was very, very stupid in not fessing up. Hope they are now more aware of the cost to themselves of ignoring the OP.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/corporate-prosecutions

The owner knew the driver, but refused to confirm that the detaila given on the night, to the police, were false. She'd had two years to name him, but refused.
To me she was helping him avoid any claim being made against him.

The MIB had already said that they would play no further part in my claim once the owner was identified by the DVLA.

 

[The Cycling Lawyer]

In your opinion, my solicitor thought otherwise. And its what was going to happen right up to the time it was due to go into the court. At which point the registered owner/keeper named the driver. Male driver, female owner.

The MIB also backed away the minute I identified the owner. They took no further part in it. That was a little over a month after I'd been hit, and the confirmation of the owner was got from the DVLA.
At this stage I'd both Uninsured and Untraceable Driver forms filled as requested by the MIB.

Yes, your solicitor may carry out some initial investigations, but usually, if a case is submitted to the MIB in the first instance, the MIB will do a lot of the investigating in obtaining the name of the driver, and if found, they will determine if they were insured or not.

As a matter of legal fact, if the driver’s name is not known, then it’s technically an “untraced” drivers case until it is known (see Cameron v Hussein) regardless of the other information you know about the vehicle.

If the MIB find the person and they are insured, they will provide the solicitor with the details and drop the case and your solicitor will submit the claim against the insurance company.

If the MIB find person is uninsured, the MIB will keep the claim and deal with as an uninsured claim. The solicitor won’t get as much costs.

This is good for the solicitor (so no surprise they thought otherwise), because they can claim more costs. It’s good for the client because it’s easier to claim for things like damaged vehicle and more likely to get a better settlement.

It’s hardly like the MIB “backed away”. It just sounds like the driver was identified and it’s no longer in their remit.

I’ve got circa 10 years experience working as a litigator in this area and have probably dealt with hundreds of cases against/with the MIB.

I can’t tell if you’re talking about a criminal case, or a civil case for compensation?

 

[classic33]

Yes, your solicitor may carry out some initial investigations, but usually, if a case is submitted to the MIB in the first instance, the MIB will do a lot of the investigating in obtaining the name of the driver, and if found, they will determine if they were insured or not.

As a matter of legal fact, if the driver’s name is not known, then it’s technically an “untraced” drivers case until it is known (see Cameron v Hussein) regardless of the other information you know about the vehicle.

If the MIB find the person and they are insured, they will provide the solicitor with the details and drop the case and your solicitor will submit the claim against the insurance company.

If the MIB find person is uninsured, the MIB will keep the claim and deal with as an uninsured claim. The solicitor won’t get as much costs.

This is good for the solicitor (so no surprise they thought otherwise), because they can claim more costs. It’s good for the client because it’s easier to claim for things like damaged vehicle and more likely to get a better settlement.

It’s hardly like the MIB “backed away”. It just sounds like the driver was identified and it’s no longer in their remit.

I’ve got circa 10 years experience working as a litigator in this area and have probably dealt with hundreds of cases against/with the MIB.

And I've based my answer on what actually happened, in my case.

 

[The Cycling Lawyer]

Yes, your solicitor may carry out some initial investigations, but usually, if a case is submitted to the MIB in the first instance, the MIB will do a lot of the investigating in obtaining the name of the driver, and if found, they will determine if they were insured or not.

As a matter of legal fact, if the driver’s name is not known, then it’s technically an “untraced” drivers case until it is known (see Cameron v Hussein) regardless of the other information you know about the vehicle.

If the MIB find the person and they are insured, they will provide the solicitor with the details and drop the case and your solicitor will submit the claim against the insurance company.

If the MIB find person is uninsured, the MIB will keep the claim and deal with as an uninsured claim. The solicitor won’t get as much costs.

This is good for the solicitor (so no surprise they thought otherwise), because they can claim more costs. It’s good for the client because it’s easier to claim for things like damaged vehicle and more likely to get a better settlement.

It’s hardly like the MIB “backed away”. It just sounds like the driver was identified and it’s no longer in their remit.

I’ve got circa 10 years experience working as a litigator in this area and have probably dealt with hundreds of cases against/with the MIB.

And I cannot tell if your case was a criminal law case, or if it was a civil claim for compensation.

And I've based my answer on what actually happened, in my case.

I’m only here to help, mate 👍

I had a case at work today where almost the exact same thing happened.

MIB sent me a message confirming details of a defendant I couldn’t identify. I then submitted the claim to to defendant’s insurance company.