Person hit mum's car then denied all knowledge of it

Sgt_Pepper_2

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

willfull obstruction, is not the same as waisting police time.

the police would have checked that 1. the name given by "keeper" is the named driver on the policy or if the named person by the keeper has insurance to drive vehicles abroad with his own insurance wich can take time, wich is why they may not have slammed permitting on the keeper and IN10 on the sri lanken man.

IF the sri lankan man is out to be ficticiuos like what is said in my OP, then yes he would be done for failing to stop, yes he would be done for failing to provide the driver detail when requested and yes there is a possability he could be done for perverting course of justice and so on it depends on the officer, no doubt the police will throw what they can at him at the time then no doubt lesser charges will be dropped by CPS.

I doubt any charges would be dropped. CPS will only authorise charges they have evidence for. The police can't make a charging decision on pervert.

Your inexperienced guessing is a little wide of the mark.

Mr_Thrifty

What a mess.

Why is it so easy for people to run rings around the authorities like this?

Yogibear

pinkteapot wrote: »

Gets better....

The guy who owns the car claims he wasn't driving that day and that he had lent the car to a friend who was visiting from Sri Lanka. The police think he's the most blatant liar they've ever met. They are now serving papers on the Sri Lanka address and charging the guy with allowing someone to drive his car without insurance.

Meanwhile, mum's car has been fixed this week. She has fully comp insurance so claimed on hers, gave them all the details and they are seeking recovery from the other guy's insurer. Fortunately she had a protected no claims bonus.

She is now wishing she'd taken a photo of the driver as well as his car!

this is confusing me,I know for a FACT,that the Police will Not discuss interviews with a third party,ie you or your mum,there are no witnesses nobody saw what went on it`s your mums word against the other guys,do you see what I am talking about? as for the section I`ve highlighted,would the Police Officer say that in court?

Sgt_Pepper_2

Yogibear wrote: »

this is confusing me,I know for a FACT,that the Police will Not discuss interviews with a third party,ie you or your mum,there are no witnesses nobody saw what went on it`s your mums word against the other guys,do you see what I am talking about? as for the section I`ve highlighted,would the Police Officer say that in court?

What's your source for that?

I'll say they will and do.

keystone

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

The police can't make a charging decision on pervert.

:rotfl::rotfl:I don't think you meant it the way it reads!

Cheers

Sgt_Pepper_2

keystone wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:I don't think you meant it the way it reads!

Cheers

Well, it would depend on what they'd done.

pinkteapot

Yogibear wrote: »

this is confusing me,I know for a FACT,that the Police will Not discuss interviews with a third party,ie you or your mum,there are no witnesses nobody saw what went on it`s your mums word against the other guys,do you see what I am talking about? as for the section I`ve highlighted,would the Police Officer say that in court?

My mum said that the police think he's a blatant liar - I doubt they were the policeman's exact words but he did phone her with the update and said he didn't believe the guy's story.

Re the comment about the police doing their job... I'm impressed too. Mum lives in a large town and the policeman she's been in contact with is in an outlying village. I would assume that the town police have more important crimes to be attending to so they passed the case out to a smaller police station. Grateful to them though.

And re whether it was worth fixing the car. It's only 4 years old and she'll probably sell it or trade it in within the next couple of years (she buys a brand new car every 5 years or so - totally not MSE!!). If it was an old banger she wouldn't have bothered repairing it. It's just a personal choice - some people don't mind having dented cars; she does. She had a zero excess and protected no-claims on her insurance so if she stays with the same insurer next year the premium hike shouldn't be too horrendous.

SevenOfNine

An interesting read Pinkteapot, thanks for link from my own thread so I could take a look.

The Policeman who's been looking after our 'knock' has been perfectly happy to discuss in detail everything the other driver has said to him, her excuses, reasoning, the likelihood of how much of what she said was actually true (not a lot).

I hope this guy gets his comeuppence through your Mum's determination. All too often we give up, busy lives, cost etc, which is why this type of behaviour continues and is almost 'accepted'. Good for her.

Kernel_Sanders

Mr_Thrifty wrote: »

for all that hassle and the extra cost of premiums in future years, wouldn't it have been better just to live with a dent in the car?

Why would they have to endure higher premiums in future years? If they weren't in the car then they couldn't have been involved in the accident.

pinkteapot

Phooey! Rubbish end to the story guys...

SevenOfNine's thread yesterday reminded me to ask mum what happened.

As I mentioned before, the owner claimed he had lent the car to a visiting friend from Sri Lanka that day. Mum's friendly policeman said that he was going to serve papers on the Sri Lanka address and take further action over the owner letting someone drive their car without insurance.

Well, lovely policeman was over-ruled by his bosses, who decided that the cost of pursuing it any further wasn't worth it, given the nature of the offence.

So, he's got away with it. :mad:

Anyway, mum's car was fixed under her fully comp insurance. Luckily she has protected NCD. No idea if her insurance company managed to recover anything from the other side's insurance - I'm guessing not as the police have dropped it?

Ah well. These things happen.