Any policemen/women online???

RH, I was just wondering where you were, you usually shed the light on stuff like this.
If the Audi driver isnt charged, what does the Dave bloke do about getting his car fixed? Does he have to claim from his own insurance/pay for it himself should he choose not to claim?
I just wondered because if the police can prove the Audi was involved but cant proove who the driver was does that mean the Audi insurance wont pay out?

My god! Cheryl. I will phone you. This is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by fastdruid

I wish the cnut who hit my Mondeo in the Sainsburys car park yesterday would get done like that. No real damage but broke a tail light and scuffed the bumper.

Second time in a month someone has hit it and run, no witnesses, no idea who did it.

Druid

Sorry ladies, but i'll bet it was a woman Druid, i have seen with my own eyes women reversing in carparks, scraping bumpers of cars next to them, then driving off.
Had my cars done this way also, im very selective where i park, NEVER next to people carriers cos these seem to be biggest culprits.
Have a look on the bumpers and doors next time you see a woman parking in a supermarket car park with a car full of kids, a high proportion will have 'go faster stripes'.
Anyway back on topic, i hope this git gets some kind of punishment cos that just aint right.

[gruntygiggles]

Specialone.......that made me laugh and 90% of the time you are right....just don't challenge me to a reverse-off because you'll lose...lol. When I was 9 I had a car to use around the fields to transport hay and straw at the farm where my pony was. Couldn't afford the livery, so I had to work for it......only problem was, that old cortina only had reverse gear so just a reminder...not all women are useless at driving or reversing

[gruntygiggles]

I will add one thing to that...when you are on salisbury, have four dogs in the back and are relying on a northerner to let you know if you're getting into trouble.....things can go wrong.....we're not all perfect....lol

[Red Herring]

OK, first things first. Ralph, I'm sorry for having a pop at you but when you post things like this...

"Don't tell me the police don't have enough evidence. Can't be bothered more like!"

and

"Sorry policemen and women on here, but I'm seriously starting to view your profession with some disdain."

and

"I'm going to court for the school crossing patrol incident and people are getting away with accidents like this, quite likely whilst drunk driving? WTF is going on in this country?!?!"

and

"The police need to do their job and investigate something for a change!"

.....then even coppers as thick skinned as me are going to lose some patience with you. I do appreciate these are stressful times for you, and I've been one of your biggest supporters over the crossing patrol incident, but you can't go launching off like that when you know so little about the incident or what has been done. As for the incident involving your cousin there is no way someone gets 9 points and £500 fine for a 2mph incident in a car park that doesn't cause any damage. That may be what he told you, but I'd bet you a months wages that's not what happened.

Anyway, rant over...back to this thread.

Firstly you need to separate out the police investigation, and how you go about getting the car fixed. One can help the other, but they are by no means dependent on each other. Everybody did the right thing last night, and for the police to attend within an hour isn't bad going. The copper inspected the scene, recovered evidence (the headlight glass) and went to see the alleged offender. We don't know if he breath tested him or not, but I'm tempted to bet another months wages he would have if he suspected he'd been drinking, and most forces do it automatically regardless. The law around claiming to have had a drink after an incident (known as a hip flask defence) is very specific and it is one of the few where the onus is on the defendant to prove they did so. The copper does need to prove that the guy was the driver though, and this may be his problem.

There's been some confusion on here between an NIP and a Sect 172 requirement. It's understandable because most people get them at the same time (speed camera jobs) but they are different. An NIP is when the police are warning you you may be prosecuted for a specific offence, a Sect 172 requirement is where the police can require the registered keeper of a vehicle to furnish driver details at a specific time. The police can do this where they suspect a vehicle to have been involved in certain offences, and failing to stop or careless driving (the offences we're looking at here) are included.

What the copper had to do last night was gather and record the evidence, and that can include an initial account from the alleged offender, and they've done that. Given that the guy appears to have failed to take this opportunity to sort things quickly then the police are going to have to do it the long way, and generally the more work you make the police do the greater the chance they will nail you for any offences they can prove.

The first thing the driver has done wrong is not stop at the time of the crash. The law requires any driver who has caused damage to another vehicle to stop at the time. They can't just stop briefly and drive off, they have to stop for long enough for anyone having reasonable cause to require their details to be able to do so. In this scenario it would be reasonable to expect someone to come out of their house to investigate so straight away the driver has committed this offence.
As MBK pointed out they then have to report it as soon as practicable. Many drivers think they have 24 hours but this is a maximum, not an option. Given that the driver has had an hour at home before the police came round it may be that the copper will look into this.... although given the driver has already apparently told the copper he hadn't driven the car I'm guessing he won't have reported the crash either..!

My view at the moment is that the police appear to have done everything right. The next stage will be for them to make a formal requirement under Sect 172 for driver details and see what happens. The guy may try and report his vehicle as stolen, but I suspect he'll be on a sticky wicket if he tried that now! His other option is to allege that his car was the one parked and the other car drove into his. Don't know the relative geography, but again not very likely given the witnesses and the recovered forensics.

In conclusion the police shouldn't have to much trouble proving the two cars collided, but they might struggle to prove who the driver was. Fortunately the courts are pretty good at hammering keepers who don't comply with Sect 172 (now you see why it exists) so he'll get his comeuppance either way.

As for getting the car fixed that's going to be a civil matter, probably I suspect between insurance companies. If your neighbour doesn't want to involve his insurance company because he's 3rd party only (although some have the legal assistance available still) then simply take the guy to the local county court. Remember the level of proof in a civil matter is on the "balance of probabilities" as opposed to the "beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, so I'd say you're in with a good shout based on what I've heard already, let alone if he eventually rolls over to the police. Given the level of damage done to his car I'd just love to see what he puts on his insurance claim!

Sorry for the long post, hope if helps.

Thanks for that RH, I was just gonna explain to GG on the phone because I really couldn't be bothered typing it all out on here.

Although, I certainly would have 172'd him at the time I went and spoke with him but horses for courses and all that.

RH what is the procedure for interviewing the likes of a driver suspected to be involved in an RTC down there? We would 172 and then obtain a statement under caution from them, I presume it will be similar in Englandshire?

[Red Herring]

Exactly that. Speak to them first off to get an initial account. Lets face it if he had coughed it last night and hadn't been ****ed then he'd never even have been done for the FTS, there would have been enough slack for him to say he was going to pop around and see his neighbour in the morning and most coppers would have accepted that. Having now lied and dug himself in I'd go for him proper like, send a Sect 172 and then get him in for a PACE interview after I've got all the witness statements. I'd also be getting a disclosure form off to his insurance company. I'd definitely have him on a bus by next Christmas!

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

Specialone.......that made me laugh and 90% of the time you are right....just don't challenge me to a reverse-off because you'll lose...lol. When I was 9 I had a car to use around the fields to transport hay and straw at the farm where my pony was. Couldn't afford the livery, so I had to work for it......only problem was, that old cortina only had reverse gear so just a reminder...not all women are useless at driving or reversing

LOL, im no expert at reversing myself, so i wont be challenging YOU
My point was, IMO women are more likely to have go faster stripes and bugger off without leaving details (or not notice they have hit something).
Present company excluded obviously

Originally Posted by Red Herring

OK, first things first. Ralph, I'm sorry for having a pop at you but when you post things like this...

"Don't tell me the police don't have enough evidence. Can't be bothered more like!"

and

"Sorry policemen and women on here, but I'm seriously starting to view your profession with some disdain."

and

"I'm going to court for the school crossing patrol incident and people are getting away with accidents like this, quite likely whilst drunk driving? WTF is going on in this country?!?!"

and

"The police need to do their job and investigate something for a change!"

.....then even coppers as thick skinned as me are going to lose some patience with you.

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?p=2198360

To avoid derail