Mother with dementia and no license had RTA

[ImaginaryCat]

The situation is that my mother has dementia, the DVLA cancelled her licence and then her insurance, tax and MOT all expired. But she continued to drive and in December had a minor collision.
The police have told me today that they won't be prosecuting her for dangerous driving and leaving the scene, as her mental health makes that a pointless exercise. They've given me the details of the 3rd party and passed my details to that person. They've told me the other car has a dented bumper. They now consider the case closed and are leaving me to resolve the claim privately.
But I don't know what to do for the best. I'm worried that if I deal with the 3rd party directly I open my mother up to the risk of being ripped off if this person claims a whole load of extra damage.
Shouldn't the other insurance company have settled the person's claim and then they contact me to try to get my mother to pay them back? Anyone know how it normally works when there's an uninsured driver in a collision?

Greenfolder, as you are the 3rd person to state the MIB or other insurer would pursue the cost of repair from the OP's mum, perhaps you could share the legal position on the likely prospects of success for the MIB or an insurer being able to secure a recovery of those costs, given the uninsured driver suffers from dementia & lacks the capacity to understand the consequences of her actions? I'm very interested in the legal stance as it's been stated repeatedly & as someone who has worked in insurance for over 20 years, I'd love to know more about how the MIB/ins co's can achieve that given the OP's health & diminished mental capacity. If there's case law covering this specifically it would be useful to know.

If not, I think you'll find the MIB/ins co are in the same position as the police & won't be able to convince a court that the OP's mum should be found liable as she lacks the capacity to understand the consequences of her actions.

Sorry, the OP's mum's health that should say.

OP can't believe people are giving you a hard time. Can you imagine if everyone ignored the law because they thought 'common sense' meant they were exempt from the law. You tried your best using the correct channels and hope the advice you have been given regarding the claim helps

Really feel for you OP. My dad has dementia & the struggle we had to stop him driving was horrendous. I phoned his GP, opticians, DVLA - all to no avail.

My normally sweet-natured & intelligent dad insisted he was safe to drive & self-certified via DVLA that he was. You couldn't rationalise with him.

So easy for posters who have not had experience of this to say it's wrong & easy to sort.

The MIB and or the other insurer have, of course, only the normal ways of recovering the money. This could include taking legal action to recover the debt. If it is a few hundred pounds they more than likely would not pursue. An insurer is unlikely to risk adverse publicity where an elderly and ill person is involved. It seemed from the op post though that she was willing to pay the reasonable cost of repairs and was concerned about the risk of an inflated claim being made. Having worked in the industry for years i think it is probably worth in the first instance establishing just what the damage is. As things stand the other person involved in this, who lets face it is innocent, probably just wants their car fixed without it costing them or taking months.

Greenfolder, what do you mean 'the normal ways' of recovering the costs? If you really do just mean taking legal action, then surely you can offer something beyond that, if you are so sure the MIB or insurer will pursue the OP's mum? Or is that just guess work on your part?

Yes. I do just mean normal methods of recovery. Or do you mean that they would not be able to persue if the defendent could argue lack of capacity due to dementia? Interesting point.

And of course it is guess work on everybodies part as to the specific action either the mib or an insurer would take in these circumstances. The insurer i work for currently would definitely follow up the recovery process in the absence of specific information about this ladies condition. It would be worth op getting something in writing from the police at this stage as to why she is not being prosecuted and confirmation from the dvla re her license being revoked.

Yes, the unlicensed uninsured driver with dementia & lacking in capacity to understand the consequences of her actions would not be deemed liable by a court because of her health, and no recovery would be possible.

The op wasn't asking for 'guesswork' she was asking for the legal position on whether she would have to pay for the damage or not. She's posted in 'legal' not chat. If you have no clue on the legal position, why post 'guesswork' & advise her to consider paying someone for damage she's not legally obligated to pay? You say you'd follow 'normal recovery' but that doesn't apply in a situation like this. The OP doesn't even have to get anything from the police - the other insurer is more than capable of getting the police report & finding out the information you are now telling the OP she needs to get from the police. They'd also be able to get the same information from their own policyholder as they'll have been told the outcome by the police officers who dealt with the case.

Seriously, the OP has more than enough on her plate without people posting in legal their 'guesswork' on what she's legally obliged to do or not.

Gosh. You are absolutely right.