Police letter

Thunderbird_2

Dear all

We received a police letter regarding failing to stop/report an accident. I suspect the police might have been misinformed and there is a possibility of fraud as we can not remember hitting another car. Obviously, some of you might think that there is a possibility of scratching a car unwittingly, but it is a remote one.

Anyway, the date on the alleged collision does not add up. They mention a date that does not match the day of the week they stated. For example, Sunday 08/09/2012 where it should be either Saturday 08/09/2012 or Sunday 09/09/2012.

Is there a way of challenging this on technicality ground if you know what I mean?

Many thanks

Jeff_Bridges_hair

You recieved a letter for an accident on a day that has only just gone(yesterday) or today that is only 5 hours old?Or 2 given the time you posted.

It doesnt make sense to me that like. Did the police just drop the letter through your door at midnight or something?

paddedjohn

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

You recieved a letter for an accident on a day that has only just gone(yesterday) or today that is only 5 hours old?Or 2 given the time you posted.

It doesnt make sense to me that like. Did the police just drop the letter through your door at midnight or something?

If you read their post again it looks like the OP is using those dates as examples.;)

paddedjohn

Thunderbird wrote: »

Dear all

We received a police letter regarding failing to stop/report an accident. I suspect the police might have been misinformed and there is a possibility of fraud as we can not remember hitting another car. Obviously, some of you might think that there is a possibility of scratching a car unwittingly, but it is a remote one.

Anyway, the date on the alleged collision does not add up. They mention a date that does not match the day of the week they stated. For example, Sunday 08/09/2012 where it should be either Saturday 08/09/2012 or Sunday 09/09/2012.

Is there a way of challenging this on technicality ground if you know what I mean?

Many thanks

If there is no possibility that it was you involved why do you want to get off on a technicality? you have either hit something or you havnt.

Sgt_Pepper_2

paddedjohn wrote: »

If there is no possibility that it was you involved why do you want to get off on a technicality? you have either hit something or you havnt.

I agree, wanting to get off on a technicality suggests you have something to hide.

How about the full story?

Failing to respond to the request to name the driver could see a fine of around £500 and six points. Regardless of whether you were there or not.

McKneff

I wish people would just be honest and tell the whole story to start with, it would save a lot of people wasting their time on answering and giving meaningless help.

It seems that you have done something and are trying to get off on a technically. If you have caused damage or injury and run away from it in all honesty I hope they throw the book at you.

photome

Why doesnt the OP put exact dates that were on the letter rather than an "example" and tell the whole story?

Quentin

Thunderbird wrote: »

Is there a way of challenging this on technicality ground if you know what I mean?

Many thanks

You will avoid the hanging judges here if you go to pepipoo for your advice.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Quentin wrote: »

You will avoid the hanging judges here if you go to pepipoo for your advice.

He will be told the same there until he posts the full facts.

vaio

I'd hope that he'd get his fairly simple question just answered over on pepipoo.

For what it's worth I'd say that a s172 notice to identify the driver is invalid if it has an impossible date on it and if I was the OP I'd keep quiet until the time limit had passed so they couldn't correct it and reissue

Sgt_Pepper_2

vaio wrote: »

I'd hope that he'd get his fairly simple question just answered over on pepipoo.

For what it's worth I'd say that a s172 notice to identify the driver is invalid if it has an impossible date on it and if I was the OP I'd keep quiet until the time limit had passed so they couldn't correct it and reissue

What for 6 months?