Car accident - is this correct?

SexyGreyFox

SexyGreyFox

SexyGreyFox

Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
57,663
Location
Stoke on Trent
I didn't know whether Motors was best for this or not.

Son in Law was in an RTA yesterday. He was driving on the main road, about 200 yards from home, when a car just pulled out from his left turning him 270 deg and writing his car off.
Both drivers exchanged details with witnesses around, they were also able to get the car out of the way of traffic so the other driver drove off.
This wasn't a problem because my Son in Law knew the driver and so did a couple of witnesses.
The Police turned up, took the details of the other driver but later rang my Son in Law to say he'd got no Vehicle Tax, MOT or Insurance so it would be a civil matter. He asked if the Police were going to prosecute him because he had none of the above but they said there was no proof it was him driving even though they had got my Son in Laws statement and the say so of a couple of witnesses :confused:
The Police said that things would be different if he'd still been at the accident but since he wasn't there was now nothing they can do.

Is this right?
 
Doesn't sound right to me - I'd assume there will be evidence the car has been in a recent accident which surely would leave the owner atleast somewhat culpable if its not properly declared off road or whatever the setup is with SORN these days.

Probably unlikely but I'd double check it was actually the police who got back to him and not the other guy trying it on :S
 
Last edited:
Just found out he's been sick all day and he's now at A&E.
Looks like he's still got concussion so the story might not be exact but Daughter reckons it is and the Police don't want to know because there is no 'evidence'.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Just found out he's been sick all day and he's now at A&E.
Looks like he's still got concussion so the story might not be exact but Daughter reckons it is and the Police don't want to know because there is no 'evidence'.
Click to expand...

I can only take what you say at face value, but if this is how you say it is then is sloppy work by the police. If you have witness statements who can identify the driver then that should not be an issue evidentially.

You could make a complaint and get the decision reviewed.
 
Make an official complaint, and if nothing comes of that take it to the media and show Staffordshire Police up for the lazy, good for nothing, incompetent buffoons that they are.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I can only take what you say at face value, but if this is how you say it is then is sloppy work by the police. If you have witness statements who can identify the driver then that should not be an issue evidentially.

You could make a complaint and get the decision reviewed.
Click to expand...

Hence I wondered if the driver had got a mate to phone them pretending to the be the police or something (though it sounds relatively unlikely in this case) but it wouldn't be the first time.
 
Story gets better but for the bad guy.
The 2 witnesses were just 2 people who spoke to my SIR after the accident but didn't leave numbers.
The car registration he wrote down doesn't exist.
 
Were they walking? Any chance he could just do a leaflet drop asking for them to contact him in the area.

If he knows the bloke I assume he could get the correct plate.

Seems stupid.
 
Dis86 said:
The Police said that things would be different if he'd still been at the accident but since he wasn't there was now nothing they can do.

Is this right?
Click to expand...
Afraid so, they haven't actually caught him putting the public in danger.
They are only public protectors afterall.
 
Last edited:
Surely any car involved in writing off another car will show evidence and/or paint transfer?

Shouldn't be hard to prove that was the car in question. Proving who was the driver is harder but shouldn't affect that the car was on the road illegally.

Can't the registered owner be compelled to state who was driving at the time of an incident?

Must be an offense as the car was unsafe to drive and uninsured. Or does it now work on the basis of if you're not caught in the act it's not illegal :confused:.
 
So according to the police as long as I leave the scene of an accident if I don't have inurnace or tax I'm immune to careles/dangerous driving prosecution? Awesome!
 
Tefal said:
So according to the police as long as I leave the scene of an accident if I don't have inurnace or tax I'm immune to careles/dangerous driving prosecution? Awesome!
Click to expand...

Only applies if you are a local scumbag, If you're a law abiding citizen you will be in prison by Sunday
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom