HELP - Notice of Intended Prosecution

AdrianC

rudekid48 wrote: »

On what basis would his insurer attempt to reclaim the costs from their own policyholder if he was involved in this accident??

I meant involved in covering up uninsured use of the car.

Foxy-Stoat_3

rudekid48 wrote: »

This is scaremongering!


On what basis would his insurer attempt to reclaim the costs from their own policyholder if he was involved in this accident??


It is the vehicle that they have on risk being driven by their policyholder! Please explain your reasoning....

The policyholder has already been on record and stated that he wasn't driving. Therefore someone else took the car, with or without consent.

If they had consent then the OP's Son gets charged for Aiding and Abetting, if they didnt have consent then someone needs to get charged for TWOC.

RS2000.

rob3770 wrote: »

How can i tell if is in fact a NIP?
It's a form asking for the name of the driver as my sons car was involved in an 'Incident'.

My son has a black box fitted to his car for insurance reasons and awoke one morning to a voice mail informing him that his black box had triggered an event during the night.
He rushed outside to find a couple of small dents, red paint (his car is grey) and one headlight hanging out.
He called his insurance company who confirmed that the car was outside the address all night and been stationary.
He looked for street CCTV but there were none, he even went into a NHS clinic but they had no CCTV either.
He's insurance company advised that he didn't have to do any more as no one was injured and no one saw anything.
Fast forward 3 weeks later, a form from the police arrives saying that his car was involved in and 'incident' 3 miles away.
The car failed to stop after an accident and driving without due care.
He called his insurance who are now saying that the car was in fact at the incident location.
He was fast asleep at a friends family home, his iPhone location data shows he never moved from the house all night.
There were 4 other adults in the house, who all deny taking the car.
If he takes the blame for this then he will lose his license as he has only been driving for 5 months.
He is totally prepared to go through the insurance as his black box puts the car at the scene but he is adamant he wasn't driving.

Did he report it to the police when he found the damage?

The logical conclusions to draw the following morning are.

1. He's a victim of a non stop collision.
2. He's the victim of an aggravated twoc.
3. He's had a collision and failed to stop.
4. He's allowed someone to drive it.

We now know 1. didnt happen so now it's down to the last three. If he didn't report it when he found the damage 3. and 4. Are your most logical answers.

RS2000.

Foxy-Stoat wrote: »

The policyholder has already been on record and stated that he wasn't driving. Therefore someone else took the car, with or without consent.

If they had consent then the OP's Son gets charged for Aiding and Abetting, if they didnt have consent then someone needs to get charged for TWOC.

No the right charge would be permitting or using if he was in the car at the time.

AdrianC

Foxy-Stoat wrote: »

The policyholder has already been on record and stated that he wasn't driving. Therefore someone else took the car, with or without consent.

If they had consent then the OP's Son gets charged for Aiding and Abetting, if they didnt have consent then someone needs to get charged for TWOC.

Umm, if he's the owner, then how can somebody have TWOCd with his consent?

Causing or Permitting Driving Without Insurance, sure.

tberry6686

RS2000. wrote: »

A nip is invalid if the first one isn't sent out and presumed received within 14 days. I can't think of any offences that don't have this stipulation, can you assist with some?

Any offence where they have to trace the driver basically (although once they have traced the driver then the 14days would begin). Otherwise everyone could just give DVLA a wrong address and no one could get prosecuted unless stopped by police at the time.

Johno100

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, if he's the owner, then how can somebody have TWOCd with his consent?

Have a re-read of what you are replying to.

If they had consent then the OP's Son gets charged for Aiding and Abetting, if they didnt have consent then someone needs to get charged for TWOC.

What I don't understand, assuming the people in the accident vehicle reported the collision immediately and had details of sonny's car, why the OP wasn't awoken by some blue lights and some uniformed gentlemen banging on his door wanting to ask some questions very shortly after the incident?

RS2000.

tberry6686 wrote: »

Any offence where they have to trace the driver basically (although once they have traced the driver then the 14days would begin). Otherwise everyone could just give DVLA a wrong address and no one could get prosecuted unless stopped by police at the time.

The 14 days start at the time of the offence not once they've traced the driver. Only certain offences need a nip but keep going if you wish to keep digging.

brat

None of the offences committed here require an NIP to be served.

RS2000.

brat wrote: »

None of the offences committed here require an NIP to be served.

Section 3 would, if there wasn't an accident.