Which is exactly why 80% of 999 calls are not real emergencies and could be dealt with by the local station.
Car damaged on petrol forecourt
- Thread starter Tom_ed1987
- Start date
Which is exactly why 80% of 999 calls are not real emergencies and could be dealt with by the local station.
If its a works van, and you have the license and company name. Contact the company ask to speak to someone senior and tell them that van * drove into your car and then left the scene without stopping. Tell them the details, the driver name and that it was recorded on CCTV and that you also have a crime number. I see no reason why it can't go through the business insurance. Let the business deal with their driver.
Last edited:
It's an emergency to him. He pays his taxes. He's fully entitled to report it.
It will cost him from the sounds of it quite a bit of cash...
How is it an emergency to him? You seem to not fully understand what an emergency is.
Last edited:
As I agree it's not an emergency I know from experience if you ring 999 you get a response straight away and not "We will send someone round when we have someone free".
The van driver could/would do the same if he hit a pedestrian, and probably do more damage if he was drunk through panicking. Better getting the scum off the road sooner than later IMO.
But he didn't hit a pedestrian he had an RTC and left the scene, and how is someone supposed to know he is drunk? We are not employed and trained by the police. The only thing we are entrusted with is reporting it, and some people on here would have difficutly doing that.
How can the police possibly do someone for failing to stop in this incident, when nobody has any idea who was driving? Who would they 'do'? The most vital piece of evidence is not there... the suspect.
Don't blame the police, blame the legal system.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 8,542
- Location
- Glocestershire
The irony being if the van was speeding the registered keeper would be legally obliged to say who was driving of face a penalty them selves.
Didn't say he was drunk, just saying if he was he could have done more damage and needed to be stopped ASAP. Same if he had no insurance or was carrying stolen goods, why else would he run.
Also how did he know he hadn't injured anyone as he left the scene.
As for the evidence the CCTV will have his face if he filled up and payed in the kiosk so there will no problem for the keeper of the van to identify him.
Just hope he isn't a traveller as they will never track him down.
Also how did he know he hadn't injured anyone as he left the scene.
As for the evidence the CCTV will have his face if he filled up and payed in the kiosk so there will no problem for the keeper of the van to identify him.
Just hope he isn't a traveller as they will never track him down.
My mothers car got swiped by a van driver. There is CCTV footgae but the police simply cannot be arsed to chase it up because it costs time/money so it isn't really worth their while. In the meantime the van drivers insurance company won't pay out due to lack of evidence so yeah as said, if you have a minor accident drive off and you'll probably get away with it.
Not true I'm afraid, if you're on the footage you are entitled to a copy, for a small fee to cover the cost of media. If you're not on it then you have no right to it.
So if I run down the street and take a photo of you on my camera, you're entitled to a copy of it are you? Don't think so.
It's the garages camera, they can give the footage to whoever they want. If they don't want to give it to the police they don't have to.
Don't be so stupid. The rules are different concerning companies/premises and private individuals, but I reckon you knew that and are just trolling. You can't be that thick, can you?
What's stupid about it? It proves what you said about right to the footage completely wrong. If you walk into Tesco, you're on their camera. Are you legally entitled to a copy of it?? Ofcourse not.
Yes, you are
Source?
I'd just like to point out there are a few well-meaning people in this thread (and one not so) who are making some simple mistakes in interpreting the law regarding CCTV. The first is in comparing private and commercial setups, which have separate provisions, and private individuals' rights to access materials gathered (in either circumstance) as opposed to a police officers' in the course of an investigation, or even on suspicion of an offence. Basically, to answer the questions raised here, you don't have to give anyone who walks on your driveway a copy, nor charge for it. If, however, an offence or such occurred on your property which later came to investigation, the police could easily obtain a warrant for the footage. You would be well advised just to hand it over to begin with. A bank may well be within their rights to refuse to provide images of their customers if there was no proof that a crime had taken place, but I don't imagine the police would have too much trouble obtaining a warrant if it came to that. Jumpurs was pretty much bang on in that respect.
Last edited: