Rtc police report contains inaccuracies, help please

Bantex_2

matttye wrote: »

If 'compensated for their injuries' includes loss of earnings, then yes I agree.



This I completely disagree with.

Like I said, I work in the police station representing people accused of crimes, and more and more often as of late the police are taking the thoughts of the victim into account. So to suggest that it is no business of the OP's is ludicrous.

The thoughts of the victim are not the be all and end all of how the police make a decision, but they do take them into account.

Like I said in my previous large post as well, there are 'restorative justice' processes in place at the crown court as well which directly involve the victim and have an impact on sentencing.

Suggesting that it is no business of the victim's in how an offender is dealt with is insulting. Why do you think the police keep them in the loop at all if it's none of their business?

So you have been in touch with the OP.
Is their motivation to see the bus driver crucified?

Quentin

matttye wrote: »

I wrongly thought the police report might have something to do with the claim. If it did, then of course the error should be corrected
......

If you wrongly thought this, then why come onto this thread to chastise me for pointing out to the OP that the single irrelevant discrepancy would not affect the claim if that was what was the concern?


Telling another poster their advice is "crap" then subsequently admitting your ignorance of the subject is bound to lead to unpleasantness, and looks designed to cause trouble.


Hopefully no-one else reading this thread will fork out more than £88 for fear an irrelevant discrepancy will affect their claim.

DirectDebacle

dacouch wrote: »

I'm just correcting your incorrect assertion that it could have an adverse effect on the claim. I'm under the correct impression that the mistake that has been mentioned in the police report will make f all difference to the claim

As I and others have posted, this mistake in the report will have absolutely no effect on the OP's claim against the Bus company for which is almost certainly an open and shut case.

Amuse me, what difference do you imagine it will make then?

What is amusing is that you seem to have no idea whether erroneous police reports should be rectified or not. So there is no doubt I believe police reports should be as accurate as possible and where mistakes are found they should be rectified.

matttye

Bantex wrote: »

So you have been in touch with the OP.
Is their motivation to see the bus driver crucified?

Not at all.

She wanted a fair investigation into an incident which has had a dramatic effect on her health and well being.

Quentin wrote: »

If you wrongly thought this, then why come onto this thread to chastise me for pointing out to the OP that the single irrelevant discrepancy would not affect the claim if that was what was the concern?


Telling another poster their advice is "crap" then subsequently admitting your ignorance of the subject is bound to lead to unpleasantness, and looks designed to cause trouble.


Hopefully no-one else reading this thread will fork out more than £88 for fear an irrelevant discrepancy will affect their claim.

Your initial post made it quite obvious you had already decided she was seeking compensation rather than addressing the question about whether the erroneous evidence would have had an effect on the decision to prosecute.

That's why I chastised you.

You'll note that the majority of my replies have been in relation to the criminal side of things, it is only recently that more people have begun discussing the civil side - which I have admitted I am not very familiar with and won't get involved in any further.

Bantex_2

matttye wrote: »

Not at all.

She wanted a fair investigation into an incident which has had a dramatic effect on her health and well being.



.

So does she believe that seeing the bus driver hung out to dry will improve her health and well being?

AdrianC

matttye wrote: »

If 'compensated for their injuries' includes loss of earnings, then yes I agree.

Good. So we'll put the injury claim, the damage claim, and the entirety of the insurance to one side.

This I completely disagree with.

Like I said, I work in the police station representing people accused of crimes, and more and more often as of late the police are taking the thoughts of the victim into account. So to suggest that it is no business of the OP's is ludicrous.

The thoughts of the victim are not the be all and end all of how the police make a decision, but they do take them into account.

Like I said in my previous large post as well, there are 'restorative justice' processes in place at the crown court as well which directly involve the victim and have an impact on sentencing.

Suggesting that it is no business of the victim's in how an offender is dealt with is insulting. Why do you think the police keep them in the loop at all if it's none of their business?

Here is the CPS's guide to prosecuting DWDC&A (otherwise known as careless driving)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a30

Where in that does it say that the victim's feelings are taken into account for this offence? But, in a way, that's irrelevant, since the CPS weren't involved in this case. It didn't go to court.

Here is a (slightly out-of-date, the current version "starts" at death-by-careless or dangerous) copy of the Magistrate's Sentencing Guidelines for cases that reach court.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100519200657/http:/www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/sgc_magistrates_guidelines_including_update_1_%202%20_3_web.pdf - p133

Where in that does it give any weight to the feelings of any victim? Harm is taken into account - two people have been injured, whichever way you slice it.

But we've moved a LONG way from the original post. The original post, if you recall, had the OP asking how they could make a complaint regarding a minor clerical error relating to the location of two witnesses. As it happens, the statements of those witnesses are irrelevant to determining whether the bus driver was to blame for the collision or not.

Then there was a follow-on question asking whether that minor clerical error could affect the decision to go for a course rather than prosecute. Between the two options, of course, lies a £100/3pt fixed penalty. This is the one remaining detail that we're now arguing about, am I right? I'll agree that we can't know that for sure. Only the person who made that decision can. But one thing is certain - it's such a minor error in such a minor case that there is no way on the face of this planet that the case will be re-opened for it.

FWIW, I think taking "impact statements" of victims and their families into account in sentencing serious cases is a very bad thing. It means that the punishment is not decided solely on the facts of the case, but takes account of the eloquence of the victims and their families - and that can only be bad for whether justice should be equal for all.

dacouch

DirectDebacle wrote: »

What is amusing is that you seem to have no idea whether erroneous police reports should be rectified or not. So there is no doubt I believe police reports should be as accurate as possible and where mistakes are found they should be rectified.

Bearing in mind my original response was due to this post.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

The error is explained in post #1.

It needs to be corrected in order that the error has no adverse impact on the outcome of any claim.

The error in the Police report makes no difference to the Op's ability to make a claim and have it settled.

Have you not noticed the other posters saying this, even Mattye seems to have accepted it makes no difference to the civil claim.

You seem so adamant we're all wrong, what difference to the OP's claim do you propose it will make?

matttye

Bantex wrote: »

So does she believe that seeing the bus driver hung out to dry will improve her health and well being?

Not that I've been made aware of.

Rather than focus on her motives, can you just confirm whether or not you think it's desirable for prosecution decisions to be made when there is erroneous information in police reports, or should decisions be made after such information has been corrected?

Quentin

matttye wrote: »

.

Your initial post made it quite obvious you had already decided she was seeking compensation rather than addressing the question about whether the erroneous evidence would have had an effect on the decision to prosecute

No.


We all knew from the OP he/she was getting compensation.


This is the post you call crap:

All this is irrelevant to your pay out for your injuries if that's what you are concerned about. (Paying £88 for irrelevant papers wasn't very moneysaving either)

Intended to reassure the OP that if it was the injury claim he/she was concerned about the discrepancy was irrelevant.


(The comment about the £88 spent being not moneysaving isn't advice, so you presumably only see my first sentence as crap)

Bantex_2

matttye wrote: »

Not that I've been made aware of.

Rather than focus on her motives, can you just confirm whether or not you think it's desirable for prosecution decisions to be made when there is erroneous information in police reports, or should decisions be made after such information has been corrected?

For a relatively minor accidental traffic offence, i believe it is of no consequence.