Hit & Run

compingqueenjrm

Hi all,

I'm wondering if anybody can offer any advice.

My car was written off on Monday in a hit and run incident. My husband parked up on the street (legally) at 08:30 and went on his way to work. On his return he found the car very badly damaged and totally undriveable. Unfortunately the perpetrator was not kind enough to leave their details.

We contacted the insurer and the police on the spot. The insurer sent a recovery truck to remove the vehicle that evening and notified us that the vehicle would be written off. We heard from the police but only to ask if we had a reg - which we didn't.

We took it upon ourselves to contact local companies to see if anybody had seen anything or had caught the incident on CCTV. We weren't having much luck but had been told by multiple businesses that it was likely caused by a HGV going to the cement works at the end of said road. Apparently this had happened before and there is often near misses due to the road being relatively narrow.

Anyway, the insurance company costs were mounting and it looks like the car will only be valued at £1000 and we'll have to pay the excess (£310), pay off the insurance (£150) and we'd just filled it up with fuel (£40). As well as my husband's premiums going up in the future and being listed as a fault claim. Being 7 months pregnant and with Christmas approaching it literally could not have come at a worse time.

Roll on today and one of the local companies came back saying they had indeed caught the incident of CCTV - just. They are further down the road but explained upon zooming you can see a HGV turn into the road and my vehicle being shunted. Unfortunately the CCTV is too blurry to make out a plate but the vehicle type and company logo is evident. As suspected it's the same company that I'd been told about which has it's cement yard at the end of the road.

I contacted the police and insurance company to let them know about the CCTV and the local company said the insurance company had been in touch and got this almost instantly.

My question is, can the insurance company pursue a claim from the HGV's company in question without a reg plate? As this is a clearly branded vehicle going in the direction of the company base?

I have been in contact with the company in question on Monday informing them of my plight and asked for their assistance in reviewing CCTV and vehicle damage logs. I also went back to them this afternoon to tell them that we had CCTV that shows their vehicle and gave the time of the incident. I therefore asked for their assistance finding the vehicle/driver. They've said they will help, but who knows.

I feel like I've had a small victory in the fact we have some kind of CCTV evidence. But am concerned without a reg we might still be stuck.

Anybody have any experience/advice on this kind of thing?

Many thanks!

mgfvvc

compingqueenjrm wrote: »

My question is, can the insurance company pursue a claim from the HGV's company in question without a reg plate? As this is a clearly branded vehicle going in the direction of the company base?

This is a civil claim, so the standard of proof is balance of probabilities. My opinion (IANAL) is that should be sufficient for a successful claim against the cement company.

I would hope that the timings would provide sufficient evidence for the police to get the driver details from the cement company and prosecute for failing to stop.

AdrianC

It's very likely all their vehicles will be through the same insurer. But for a grand's worth of car, it probably won't even be worth their while claiming.

If you can convince them that it really is their wagon that's at fault, then I'd imagine they'll simply put their hand in their pocket and pay you outside insurance as a goodwill gesture. You can then cancel your claim with your insurer.

Your car is still dead, but at least you have a better result - no "at fault" claim on your record, keep your NCB, and no bill for the excess.

mgfvvc wrote: »

I would hope that the timings would provide sufficient evidence for the police to get the driver details from the cement company and prosecute for failing to stop.

It's entirely likely that the CCTV simply isn't conclusive enough for that, and there could well be a defence that the driver didn't realise he'd scraped the parked car. It doesn't take very much damage at all to write off a £1k car, and catching the side of a wagon on a parked car will make a mess very, very quickly.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

I wouldn't rule out A charge, but it depends if police want to pursue it.
The police have a time and date and a company to question.
They (the company) may have tracking records to point at what truck was where at that time and a log of the driver.
The police may not opt for that but instead send a S172 to the company to name the driver of the vehicle driving on that road at that time with their livery who caused and incident and failed to stop.




But you at least you have something that the insurers could claim against.

Deanston

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

I wouldn't rule out A charge, but it depends if police want to pursue it.
The police have a time and date and a company to question.
They (the company) may have tracking records to point at what truck was where at that time and a log of the driver.
The police may not opt for that but instead send a S172 to the company to name the driver of the vehicle driving on that road at that time with their livery who caused and incident and failed to stop.




But you at least you have something that the insurers could claim against.

Given what 5he OP has posted what would you suggest the police take action on?

Given you suggest a 172 notice on what vehicle would that be?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Deanston wrote: »

Given what 5he OP has posted what would you suggest the police take action on?

Given you suggest a 172 notice on what vehicle would that be?

:hello: AndyMC :wave:. S172 are given to the RK not on the vehicle because the vehicles cant answer to a S172.


OP wrote

vehicle type and company logo is evident. As suspected, it's the same company that I'd been told about which has it's cement yard at the end of the road.

I would assume it would be served to the company who's logo is captured on the side of said vehicle on the CCTV.


If the police wish to pursue 2nd time i have said this, from the footage of the above quote police may have reasonable grounds to believe one of their vehicles has been involved in a failure to stop involving one of their drivers the want to pay visit in person.


OR if the officer is satified they have identified the company's vehicle they can issue a S172 to ID the driver at the date and time of offence and like i said 3rd time now IF police wish to pursue it.

Deanston

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

:hello: AndyMC :wave:. S172 are given to the RK not on the vehicle because the vehicles cant answer to a S172.


OP wrote
I would assume it would be served to the company who's logo is captured on the side of said vehicle on the CCTV.


If the police wish to pursue 2nd time i have said this, from the footage of the above quote police may have reasonable grounds to believe one of their vehicles has been involved in a failure to stop involving one of their drivers the want to pay visit in person.


OR if the officer is satified they have identified the company's vehicle they can issue a S172 to ID the driver at the date and time of offence and like i said 3rd time now IF police wish to pursue it.

You need a vehicle registration number without one how do you find the registered keeper?

atrixblue.-MFR-.

Deanston wrote: »

You need a vehicle registration number without one how do you find the registered keeper?

Provide the legislation of this please

AdrianC

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Provide the legislation of this please

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/172

The_actual_law wrote:

(2)Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a)the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police and

(b)any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

So, yes, the fleet admin of the company could be issued with an s172, if a vehicle for which the company is responsible is "alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies".


Let's not forget...

(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

"So, which vehicle do you want to know the driver of?"
Umm, we don't know the reg, but it was caught on CCTV down the road at about <time>, according to the CCTV's timestamp.
"My records don't show any vehicle at that time. Are you sure the time's correct?"

Not hard to see how "reasonable diligence" could fail.

casseus

Deanston wrote: »

You need a vehicle registration number without one how do you find the registered keeper?

Deanston wrote: »

Given what 5he OP has posted what would you suggest the police take action on?

Given you suggest a 172 notice on what vehicle would that be?

AdrianC wrote: »

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/172

So, yes, the fleet admin of the company could be issued with an s172, if a vehicle for which the company is responsible is "alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies".


Let's not forget...


"So, which vehicle do you want to know the driver of?"
Umm, we don't know the reg, but it was caught on CCTV down the road at about <time>, according to the CCTV's timestamp.
"My records don't show any vehicle at that time. Are you sure the time's correct?"

Not hard to see how "reasonable diligence" could fail.

(5)
Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.


So Deanston is infact wrong then!. A S172 can be issued without said index and without registered keeper! so you prove Atrix right.

A company can be identified through its livery or logo or both, it would be reasonable to issue a S172 on grounds that someone in the company is the driver that may or may not have committed the offence of FtS.
A reasonable diligence defence maybe brought up, but, that's for a officer dealing with it or court to decide to accept and wont be as easy as you put it though, the bar is set high for companies to SHOW they CANT name a driver. Most HGV operators and companies that have HGV's have a tracking systems on them now, if they don't it falls to records.
But as it stands what I can gather from the OP post that companies logo was on a vehicle at the time which so happens to be a company yard just down the road.

That is if the police chose to take any action at all on this, it has been pointed out on a number of occasions, if the police chose to get involved, at this stage it would seem a viable possibility.

But for the threads sake you proved in either case a S172 can be issued and Deanston is wrong and by god is Deaston posting style the same as AndyMC's, without the different user name you'd swear it was. :think:

AdrianC

casseus wrote: »

(5)
Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate,

Which clearly isn't the case here, since there's no way any of those people consented or connived to the failure to stop.