Forum menu
And if they’re the type that will come round later, they’ll probably pan you there and then anyway.
What if you've just been hit by the wrong relative? No, I wouldn't be providing my address to whoever else was involved, my insurance can deal with them at arms length (hopefully without a clenched fist held back).
You have a right to know another party’s address so you can make a claim against them for damages caused in the accident. The fact that an insurer will usually chase this on your behalf doesn’t mean that your statutory rights to serve a claim to that person (by post, to their address) are dismissed.
I know this from all the bullshit I went through when someone drove over my bike before driving away. Since I wasn’t driving a car, I couldn’t simply instruct my (non-existent) insurer to chase it. Without an address, you can’t file a small claims court proceeding against them. The police are useless and won’t just hand over details, citing data protection concerns.
The law is worded as is for a reason.
No, I wouldn’t be providing my address to whoever else was involved, my insurance can deal with them at arms length (hopefully without a clenched fist held back).
You'd be breaking the RTA then, or at least you'd have to report the accident to the police in place of providing "name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
You’d be breaking the RTA then, or at least you’d have to report the accident to the police
I think you'd be breaking the RTA if you didn't give your address to somebody who had reasonable grounds. As I read it, it's not a choice of giving it or reporting the accident. If you haven't given it to anyone, for the only acceptable reason that no qualifying person asked for it, you have to report it.
You have a right to know another party’s address so you can make a claim against them for damages caused in the accident. The fact that an insurer will usually chase this on your behalf doesn’t mean that your statutory rights to serve a claim to that person (by post, to their address) are dismissed.
The law is worded as is for a reason.
Someone understands at least
I think you’d be breaking the RTA if you didn’t give your address to somebody who had reasonable grounds.
Probably but if the reason was because you were (genuinely) scared they'd visit later I suspect the police would be OK about it.
Exactly, the police can get my address, the second party literally has no reason to have it since my insurance know and can provide such details to their insurance if needed.
still technically breaking the law though
When I was knocked off my bike the last didn't give me her address only phone no. Then her husband got involved and said I could do one.
The police gave me their address so I could pursue a claim against them...
Exactly, the police can get my address, the second party literally has no reason to have it since my insurance know and can provide such details to their insurance if needed.
If the insurers can't sort it out the other party may need your address to serve proceedings on, as has been explained more than once.
, the police can get my address, the second party literally has no reason to have it since my insurance know and can provide such details to their insurance if needed.
That's assuming both parties have insurers and choose to go through them and that the police are involved. None of that is necessarily true.
That’s assuming both parties have insurers and choose to go through them and that the police are involved. None of that is necessarily true.
Both parties have insurers - they need my name and reg.
One party doesn't have insurance - police are involved.
One party doesn't have insurance but lies about it - wouldn't take that chance, police are involved.
Frankly I don't see why you wouldn't involve the police.
In any scenario as long as I know their reg number then the appropriate authority can track them down via the DVLA. If it's cloned/unregistered/unlicensed/uninsured then any address they provide isn't going to be worth anything anyway!
When I was knocked off my bike the last didn’t give me her address only phone no. Then her husband got involved and said I could do one.
Which is better than him coming round your door as I alluded to.
Anyway, from the link to the RTA 1988:
(2) The driver of the [mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
So as long as it's reported it's not an offence. I would argue that in 2021 the requirement for giving an address is a great deal less than when the act passed royal assent in 1988 thanks to digitalisation and databases.
Which is better than him coming round your door as I alluded to.
You missed the point of what I put. I actually needed their address and they didn't give it me. The police looked it for me and gave it to me - not the other way round.
When you say ‘some bloke by the roadside’ I think you mean the other party in the collision, I was interpreting as some random bystander.
I did. Sorry for the poor wording.
You don’t have to give it to a random bystander with no reasonable grounds for needing it. You do have to give it to the other party; you were wrong in that originally, it’s clear in the Gov regs that you do.
(and several posters saying similar)
The legislation states:
"if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address"
What reasonable grounds does the other driver have for needing my address? None whatsoever, it goes through the insurance who will handle all that.
(Aside, I notice that this legislation as written here makes no allowance for female drivers.)
The police are useless and won’t just hand over details, citing data protection concerns.
Funny, that. Can't imagine why.
I don't want some random halfwit potentially with a grievance knowing where I live and I would be very cross if the police just handed out my personal details to anyone who asked. That's a massive security concern.
If two years on after an incident the other party suddenly felt the need to start court proceedings then it can still be passed via their solicitor / my insurer / the DVLA / the courts. There is no reason for Joey F. Bollocks to know my home address directly and it could potentially put me and my family in danger if someone were to divulge that.
So as long as it’s reported it’s not an offence. I would argue that in 2021 the requirement for giving an address is a great deal less than when the act passed royal assent in 1988 thanks to digitalisation and databases.
I wholly agree with everything else you wrote, and I agree also with this too in that it shouldn't much matter these days. But it's problematic in that it's still in current legislation. Saying "you don't need that any more" with a Jedi handwave isn't going to help in a court case.
It's a tactic to put pressure on your insurers to settle (I did it myself when someone crashed through our garden wall (hit the accelerator instead of brake). After two years of bollocks I splashed out £200 on a small claims action myself. Their insurers settled - quite indignantly by the way - more or less straight away.
Saying “you don’t need that any more” with a Jedi handwave isn’t going to help in a court case.
A court case that can't happen if there's no address to serve proceedings on.
Stupid forum logged me out and lost my long response.
I needed the address so I could serve court papers to a guy who ran me off the road when I was cycling, damaging my bike, before driving off failing to give any details. I was not insured for cycling so it wasn't sufficient to just say "ah yes but in 2020 it's all digital."
It may not, in some (most?) circumstances, be practically necessary to obtain someone's address if they're involved in a collision with you. However, with my experience I would 100% demand it from anyone involved in an accident with me. I would guess that it doesn't have to be a home address, but it does have to be somewhere legal papers could be served. Legally, you have a right to this information and it gives you more options if the usual insurance route fails for whatever reason.
(2) The driver of the [mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(3)If for any reason the driver of the [mechanically propelled vehicle] does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident.
(4)A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
So as long as it’s reported it’s not an offence.
The highlighted bit is funny wording, IMO. Is the 'or' in that sentence inclusive or exclusive? One way of reading it could "A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) above is guilty of an offence." They could have said 'either' but they did not .
"A person who fails to comply with either subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence."
Superficial: ss2 says that you have to stop and give your deets to anyone that asks for it; ss3 says if you didn't give your deets to someone (eg because they left or were unconscious or forgot to ask), then you have to report it. "OR" is correct because it ought not to be possible to breach both: either someone asked for your details and you gave them, or no-one asked and you reported it.
(Aside, I notice that this legislation as written here makes no allowance for female drivers.)
Traffic cops hate this one loophole!!! Actually, s6(a) of the Interpretation Act 1978 takes care of that.
I suspect that even if the other party wasn't of this mind, by the time they've had to deal with us average STW'er explaining that the wording of the RTA is ambiguous and anyway in this day and age there's no need to exchange addresses when mobile numbers will do and whatever you can deal with my insurers then even the Dalai Lama would be opening a can of fist pie for you.
even the Dalai Lama would be opening a can of fist pie for you.
There's a comedy sketch right there🤣