Notice of prosecution

Dr_Crypto

If it was parked at home at the time then just reply and say that. Nothing more. All this is is a S172 request to supply the driver's details nothing to do with any alleged RTA. 

Herzlos

It'd likely be worth saying that the car was parked at home and in possession of _____, providing the sons details, to avoid any risk of being charged with failure to identify the driver (6 points).

Car_54

juandstu said:

Hi. My son has been accused of a hit and run. His dash cam confirms he is innocent. Insurance assessor confirms no damage to his vehicle but he has now received this in the post.  He had previously contacted the police about this as was so worried. What can he do now as form requires driver details and car was at home

I'm confused.

There seems to have been an incident, about which he contacted the police and (presumably) his insurer. But he was at home at the time.

Have I missed something?

facade

Car_54 said:

I'm confused.

There seems to have been an incident, about which he contacted the police and (presumably) his insurer. But he was at home at the time.

Have I missed something?

You are guessing based on a couple of cryptic statements from the OP.

The S172/NIP will state the alleged offence, perhaps the OP could share that information with us?

The car was "at home" at the time & date covered by the S172 (so the only possible response is to say so, by letter stapled to the S172 form)

The driver was accused of a hit & run. By whom? Why? Where did they get his information?

There is dash cam evidence confirming innocence- this can only be accurately timestamped footage of something else happening at the time e.g. someone trying to break into the parked vehicle, or driving along a different road.

The driver had the car inspected for damage? why?

The driver contacted the Police about the incident- why?

It is perfectly possible to be involved in an accident without making contact with another vehicle, and therefore to leave the scene without stopping or exchanging details..

Car_54

It is perfectly possible to be involved in an accident without making contact with another vehicle, and therefore to leave the scene without stopping or exchanging details..

An accident covered by the Road Traffic Act is one where damage and/or injury "owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle". The driver of that vehicle is obliged to stop.

Is it possible for another driver to be "involved" without either making contact or causing the accident?

TooManyPoints

Herzlos said:

It'd likely be worth saying that the car was parked at home and in possession of _____, providing the sons details, to avoid any risk of being charged with failure to identify the driver (6 points).

He isn't being asked to say in whose possession it was (whatever that might mean). He is being asked to provide the driver's details. If nobody was driving it at the time and place alleged that's all he can say. (And, incidentally, it must be the OP's son who must reply if the S172 notice is addressed to him). 

I'm not going to get bogged down with trying to drag information out of the OP. There is obviously more to this that we have been told as drivers do not routinely contact the police or have an insurance assessor examine their vehicle when it was parked at home at the time of an allegation. In fact I cannot imagine an insurance assessor being called to examine the vehicle in such circumstances at all but I'm not going to speculate. I've asked one question about the alleged incident and until that's answered I'll not bother further.

facade

Car_54 said:

It is perfectly possible to be involved in an accident without making contact with another vehicle, and therefore to leave the scene without stopping or exchanging details..

An accident covered by the Road Traffic Act is one where damage and/or injury "owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle". The driver of that vehicle is obliged to stop.

Is it possible for another driver to be "involved" without either making contact or causing the accident?

I don't think so, but I'm no expert. You can easily cause an accident without making contact, and be prosecuted for not stopping/careless driving etc.. 

Herzlos

If you caused someone to swerve into another object, you'd have caused an accident without actually making contact. Proving it would be horrendous.

TooManyPoints said:

Herzlos said:

It'd likely be worth saying that the car was parked at home and in possession of _____, providing the sons details, to avoid any risk of being charged with failure to identify the driver (6 points).

He isn't being asked to say in whose possession it was (whatever that might mean). He is being asked to provide the driver's details. If nobody was driving it at the time and place alleged that's all he can say. (And, incidentally, it must be the OP's son who must reply if the S172 notice is addressed to him).

No, he's being asked who the NIP should be sent to, and failing to name the driver is a serious offense (6 points). I dare say many guilty drivers try to get out of it by replying with "the car was parked at the time", so you want to head off any problems coming from that, by making it clear in the correspondence that the car was parked but OP's son was responsible for it at the time. That way if they don't believe it was parked, you're doing refusing the name the driver.

I'm just a guy on the internet though, the OP's son is best speaking to a solicitor that deals with traffic law.

Car_54

Herzlos said:

No, he's being asked who the NIP should be sent to.

No (again)! He's being asked to "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", i.e. "name the driver".

TooManyPoints

No, he's being asked who the NIP should be sent to, and failing to name the driver is a serious offense (6 points). I dare say many guilty drivers try to get out of it by replying with "the car was parked at the time", so you want to head off any problems coming from that, by making it clear in the correspondence that the car was parked but OP's son was responsible for it at the time. That way if they don't believe it was parked, you're doing refusing the name the driver.

He's not being asked who the NIP should be sent to. He has received the NIP (and, more importantly, the Section 172 request to provide the identity of the driver). In fact there need be no more NIPs. Only the first one is required in law though the police usually supply subsequent ones when another driver has been named as a courtesy (and also because the NIP and the S172 are produced together and often printed on the same piece of paper). It also doesn't matter who was "responsible" for the car (whatever that may mean). S172 requires the person keeping the vehicle to identify the driver. If the vehicle was not being driven at the time and place alleged then that's all he can say. If the police do not believe him they will charge him under S172 and leave a court to resolve the matter. The offence is not "refusing" to name the driver. It's "failing" to do so. There is a difference. He doesn't need to speak to a solicitor at this stage because he will only be told to fulfil his obligation as far as he can by responding to the S172 request in the way suggested here. Depending on what the background to all this is (and it seems we may never learn) the police will either believe him or they won't. And if they don't, off to court he will go.