Police letter

vaio

I'm sure the time limit on identifying the driver once you have received the valid NIP/S172 notice is 28 days and I think the time limit on receiving the valid NIP/S172 notice is within 14 days of the alleged offence.

Not sure where you get 6 months from which is why the suggestion has to be "get over to pepipoo where they know what they are talking about"

Sgt_Pepper_2

Any summary offence has a six month limitation of proceedings.

They don't need a nip because there has been a collison.

anotherbaldrick

The OP posted at 16 minutes past 2 in the morning . Whats the chances he was suffering insomnia and thought he would spend some of his lost time being inventive !

vaio

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Any summary offence has a six month limitation of proceedings.

They don't need a nip because there has been a collison.

Fine, but in the absence of driver identification it's going nowhere and the only way of getting driver information is either a valid NIP/S172 notice or speculative letters/visits in the hope that the RK will identify the driver

OP...[STRIKE]although the thread has improved in that people are actually debating[/STRIKE] the advice remains "get over to pepipoo where they know what they are talking about"

Sgt_Pepper_2

vaio wrote: »

Fine, but in the absence of driver identification it's going nowhere and the only way of getting driver information is either a valid NIP/S172 notice or speculative letters/visits in the hope that the RK will identify the driver

OP...although the thread has improved in that people are actually debating the advice "get over to pepipoo where they know what they are talking about

Unlike yourself.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

paddedjohn wrote: »

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

Apologies. It was very early in the morning

vaio

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Unlike yourself.

maybe, but that's why the advice to the OP remains "get over to pepipoo where they know what they are talking about"

Paradigm

vaio wrote: »

maybe, but that's why the advice to the OP remains "get over to pepipoo where they know what they are talking about"

Yep but they'll need a whole lot more info to give any advice.

Where does it say the letter was a request under s.172?

vaio

Fair point but I can't imagine what else it could be.

Thunderbird_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.

Because it seems to me it is scam. We can not remember hitting a car or being in a situation were a car could be scratched or hit by us. We don't know which day or date they mean. We were not in that street on the day, but we were there on the date. No car was hit or scratched as far as I am aware.

Should it not be a scam (so many out there these days and it was a dodgy street!) I don't want to be dragged into a staged allegation with God knows who is a witness with 4 people claiming whiplash or anything similar, if any, and potentially I end up 50/50 with insurance liability for something I have not done.

I am a person who waits on a car park for a driver if I hit or scratched their car or leave a note if I can not wait. I am also a person who let people off if they scratched my car. So let's not get judgemental here please. If you do hit a run, it does not mean that everybody else does the same!

There is nothing more to the story. An out of blue letter suggesting we have done something that we think we have not done. We were not on that street on the day they mention, but we were there on the date. Since it's a dodgy area, I feel this might be a scam. In order to avoid weeks and possibly months of unnecessary stress to prove we have not been involved in a collision, I was asking the question above.

Thank you for those who tried to help. Those who think we have done a hit and run, please stop thinking others are like you.

Many thanks