Driving without due care and attention.

AndyMc.....

waamo wrote: »

Fenton vs Thorley is the legal precedent for accident. It is so vague as to be almost useless.

Essentially if there is damage or hurt, due to unintended or unexpected reasons, then it's an accident.

No mention is made as to whether this includes your own property, oneself, passengers or anything.

I think it boils down to did any damage occur and/or was anyone hurt? If the answer to either is yes then it was an accident.

Section 170 Road Traffic Act covers it.

George_Michael

As there was damage done to a vehicle and this damage wasn't deliberate then personally I don't see how the incident can be called anything other than an accident.

waamo

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Section 170 Road Traffic Act covers it.

That covers what you do if you are involved in an accident involving more than just yourself i.e. Report it to the police, swap insurance details etc.

It does not define what an accident is.

Retrogamer

gc1967 wrote: »

When we bought the car my son taxed the car there and then for 6 months as his test was up and coming and i took out one day insurance to bring car home.
I have just read the 14 day rule it has just passed a month now since the incident , I read i should contact them and reject it, is this correct ?

People have asked for the date on the V5 numerous times and without that, advice will be very limited.
We know the accident happaned in feb and you bought the car in feb sometime but the actualy date on the V5 document is what's needed for better advise.

AndyMc..... wrote: »

You're missing the point, a nip must be served within 14 days if there was no accident.

Indeed. But there was an accident. The vehicle hit the kerb. Perhaps the kerb is damaged, the council wanted to know why and the video footage was reviewed?

AndyMc.....

Retrogamer wrote: »

People have asked for the date on the V5 numerous times and without that, advice will be very limited.
We know the accident happaned in feb and you bought the car in feb sometime but the actualy date on the V5 document is what's needed for better advise.



Indeed. But there was an accident. The vehicle hit the kerb. Perhaps the kerb is damaged, the council wanted to know why and the video footage was reviewed?

Unless there was third party damage the police wouldn't be involved.

Mercdriver

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Without damage to property other than his car or injury to someone other than the driver of that car. No, it's not. (The animal could make it an accident if he struck it)

DM speaking in an authoritative way does not make you any less wrong in this thread. There is an incident here, that can be enough to negate the need for an NIP. You've been wrong in many places in this thread. Stop steering the OP wrong.

Which car are you driving now, by the way in your fantasy world? Is it and M3 or a Yaris?

Aretnap

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Section 170 Road Traffic Act covers it.

No it doesn't. It only defines what type of accident gives rise to a duty to stop and/or report an accident.

This section applies in a case where... an accident occurs by which... personal injury is caused... or damage is caused.

Even for the purposes of that section it doesn't attempt to define "accident" as something that involves damage or injury - it only says that the section applies where the accident does involve damage or injury. Clearly it allows that there are accidents which do not involve damage or injury - you just don't have to stop and give details after them.

Section 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act provides an exception for the requirement to issue a NIP in cases where an accident occurred, and imposes no requirement that the accident must have involved damage or injury. The word accident therefore has its ordinary meaning - interpreted broadly.

I can't find the case right now but I seem to remember a case where a policeman had to jump out of the way of a car which was screeching to a halt, then put his hand on the car to steady himself as he regained his balance. That was deemed to be an accident for the purposes of s2 RTOA, and the defendant was convicted of careless driving despite the fact that no NIP had been issued.

Retrogamer

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Unless there was third party damage the police wouldn't be involved.

If the kerb has been knocked loose or damaged, doesn't that constitute a third party?

If not, why / how do you think the police became involved?

BeenThroughItAll

Mercdriver wrote: »

DM speaking in an authoritative way does not make you any less wrong in this thread. There is an incident here, that can be enough to negate the need for an NIP. You've been wrong in many places in this thread. Stop steering the OP wrong.

Which car are you driving now, by the way in your fantasy world? Is it and M3 or a Yaris?

No matter how many times you say it, he's not DM. The posting style is incorrect, as is the content.

DM is currently active on the forum, under a different username, but has so far not made himself obvious.

Aylesbury_Duck

Mr.Generous wrote: »

If you are in control you dont hit the kerb and need to sit shaking for 30 mins. The camera evidence would be the proof of course. I presume they have it or else why the letter? Ask your son what the camera will show and that to make sure he doesn''t tell you or the police a story that can be very easily disproved.

I think this is good advice for the OP. The son's story is exactly the sort of thing I and many of my friends would have concocted to avoid embarrassment after doing something daft as a newly qualified driver. OP, I'm not saying your son has made the animal story up, but you have to admit it's plausible that you haven't been given the whole story. As someone pointed out, the stray animal would also have been seen on the camera footage so if your son was seen swerving to avoid it and the only consequence was a bump with the kerb, I find it odd that he should have received the letter.

Is it possible that there was a near miss with another vehicle, reported by the third party and the camera footage was used to review it, hence the letter?