Driving without due care and attention.

AndyMc.....

Retrogamer wrote: »

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?

Yes, but we don't know it has.

d123

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Yes, but we don't know it has.

Well, it's more likely something happened, it's quite unlikely that the police trawl the nation's CCTV recordings looking for people who happen to swerve across the road and cause no damage or alarm to anyone...

AndyMc.....

d123 wrote: »

Well, it's more likely something happened, it's quite unlikely that the police trawl the nation's CCTV recordings looking for people who happen to swerve across the road and cause no damage or alarm to anyone...

And if the OPs son is anything like them we'll never know.

Manxman_in_exile

gc1967 wrote: »

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 ?

I don't think you can reject it but you may be able to challenge it on the grounds that it is late. However, you don't know if it is late or not.


As several others here have asked, what is the DOCREF date on your son's V5? If that date is later than the date of the alleged incident, then your son's NIP is almost certainly not late as the first NIP (which I believe is the only time limited one) will have gone to the previous Registered Keeper within time. But if the DOCREF date is before the alleged incident then your son's NIP may well be late (assuming it isn't eg a reminder). The DOCREF date is important here because it is the date DVLA updated RK details.


Also, as others have suggested, the police must think they have sufficient grounds to issue a NIP. What your son has told you may be true, but is he absolutely sure that in swerving across the road and hitting the opposite kerb he didn't inconvenience any other road users, or cause them to take evasive action to avoid a collision? Is it possible there were other road users (eg behind him) that he was unaware of?


FWIW I wouldn't be swerving to avoid a cat or dog. (Sorry if that offends some posters here, but I wouldn't) A red deer, horse or cow would be a different matter.


(EDIT: I trust your son returned the s172 request in time without any arguments as to whether the NIP was in time or not.)

matttye

AndyMc..... wrote: »

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

Sorry - misunderstood what you were saying.

Lorian

gc1967 wrote: »

They have the time down as 13.39 and it would have been 12.39 as he was on way back from school.

Wonder why the hour discrepancy.

Mercdriver

Lorian wrote: »

Wonder why the hour discrepancy.

clock on camera set for BST presumably

AndyMc.....

Mercdriver wrote: »

clock on camera set for BST presumably

If anything it'll run GMT so would be an hour out during BST.

Mercdriver

AndyMc..... wrote: »

If anything it'll run GMT so would be an hour out during BST.

Obviously not in this case since the time OP is saying is an hour behind what the police say the camera took the footage, and was taken a month ago. I'd bet a pound to a dollar that it was left in BST.

AndyMc.....

Mercdriver wrote: »

Obviously not in this case since the time OP is saying is an hour behind what the police say the camera took the footage, and was taken a month ago. I'd bet a pound to a dollar that it was left in BST.

Maybe, but you'll know the station breath test machine are an hour out during BST.