Trace driver details

Homer_home

neilmcl said:

Herzlos said:

williamgriffin said:

Herzlos said:

williamgriffin said:

Where do yo get threatening from?

The perspective of the person opening the door to get someone complaining about their parking.
Do you honestly believe that the OP is going to chap on the door and just say "Sorry to bother you, but you crashed into my car the other day, anyway I'll be off, have a nice day!"?

So from what's posted what do you believe the threat will be?

It only needs to appear threatening to the person opening the door for the person opening the door to feel justified in giving him a black eye.

I honestly can't see how you can "pull the guy up and let him know that you can't go around knocking into people's cars without any come back" in a way that isn't going to be a bit threatening, otherwise there's no "come back".

How do you think that conversation is actually going to go?

This thread has got way out of hand with everyone talking about threats and door step punch ups. I never once said I was going to go around and confront or threaten anyone. As far as "come backs" are concerned this could have been done via a stern albeit polite letter. I would have said no more to them than I would've face to face had I caught them in the act. If they chose to ignore it then fair enough, at least I made my disappointment known. That's all what this was about, nothing more, so I think some of you need to reel in your imaginations a bit.

It's done now and I moved on, I suggest you guys do the same.

Back pedaling much?

Homer_home

Herzlos said:

neilmcl said:

Herzlos said:

I'm happy to drop it, all I was saying is that it's a bad idea to make any direct communication because if they ever ask "how did you get my address?" then you're in a lot more trouble than they are.

Go through the police or your insurance, or don't bother.

But the whole purpose of this thread was to find legitimate ways to trace the driver so I don't see what "trouble" I'm likely to be in.

What legitimate way though?
If you're wanting to report the accident, the police will deal with it.
If you want money for a repair, the MID will give you the insurers details to deal with it.
There's no legitimate reason for you to trace the driver directly.

Exactly..

neilmcl

Homer_home said:

neilmcl said:

Herzlos said:

williamgriffin said:

Herzlos said:

williamgriffin said:

Where do yo get threatening from?

The perspective of the person opening the door to get someone complaining about their parking.
Do you honestly believe that the OP is going to chap on the door and just say "Sorry to bother you, but you crashed into my car the other day, anyway I'll be off, have a nice day!"?

So from what's posted what do you believe the threat will be?

It only needs to appear threatening to the person opening the door for the person opening the door to feel justified in giving him a black eye.

I honestly can't see how you can "pull the guy up and let him know that you can't go around knocking into people's cars without any come back" in a way that isn't going to be a bit threatening, otherwise there's no "come back".

How do you think that conversation is actually going to go?

This thread has got way out of hand with everyone talking about threats and door step punch ups. I never once said I was going to go around and confront or threaten anyone. As far as "come backs" are concerned this could have been done via a stern albeit polite letter. I would have said no more to them than I would've face to face had I caught them in the act. If they chose to ignore it then fair enough, at least I made my disappointment known. That's all what this was about, nothing more, so I think some of you need to reel in your imaginations a bit.

It's done now and I moved on, I suggest you guys do the same.

Back pedaling much?

Not at all. It seems you are intent at reading into something that simply wasn't there in the first place.

neilmcl

Herzlos said:

neilmcl said:

Herzlos said:

I'm happy to drop it, all I was saying is that it's a bad idea to make any direct communication because if they ever ask "how did you get my address?" then you're in a lot more trouble than they are.

Go through the police or your insurance, or don't bother.

But the whole purpose of this thread was to find legitimate ways to trace the driver so I don't see what "trouble" I'm likely to be in.

What legitimate way though?
If you're wanting to report the accident, the police will deal with it.
If you want money for a repair, the MID will give you the insurers details to deal with it.
There's no legitimate reason for you to trace the driver directly.

And that's fair enough which is why I asked the question in the first place.

AdrianC

Meaning of Damage

Damage is not defined by the Act. It should be widely interpreted to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness - Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim.L.R 48.

Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell.

Apart from the acknowledgement that this is a liberal, wide interpretation, there is a big difference between the deliberate smearing of mud on the walls of a police cell, and a minor transfer or paint through contact between two cars that could be inadvertant. The process of cleaning one off is considerably more onerous than the other, and the continued use of the object "damaged" is far more possible in one situation than the other.

If you can't see what I'm saying here, just pause and ask where somebody was going to get MUD from in a police cell. And then consider what may be used as a substitute in wall-smearing.

williamgriffin

williamgriffin said:

DiddyDavies said:

williamgriffin said:

DiddyDavies said:

williamgriffin said:

Without damage or injury there is no accident to stop for or report.

But there was damage. Just because this was cleaned up doesn't mean that no damage occurred.

neilmcl said:

Fortunately it looked far worse than it was and turned out just to be paint transfer, I managed to polish it out.

Don't mean his paint work was damaged. 

Of course it was damaged. If paint from another vehicle went onto the OP's car, damage occurred.
I would have thought that someone such as yourself who keeps posting about the law would know the legal definition of damage.

Perhaps you could remind us?

DiddyDavies said:

williamgriffin said:

DiddyDavies said:

williamgriffin said:

DiddyDavies said:

williamgriffin said:

Without damage or injury there is no accident to stop for or report.

But there was damage. Just because this was cleaned up doesn't mean that no damage occurred.

neilmcl said:

Fortunately it looked far worse than it was and turned out just to be paint transfer, I managed to polish it out.

Don't mean his paint work was damaged. 

Of course it was damaged. If paint from another vehicle went onto the OP's car, damage occurred.
I would have thought that someone such as yourself who keeps posting about the law would know the legal definition of damage.

Perhaps you could remind us?

Meaning of Damage

Damage is not defined by the Act. It should be widely interpreted to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness - Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim.L.R 48.

Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage
Paint transfer to a bumper of a vehicle could lead to a temporary loss of value until such a time as that paint had been removed.
If damage had to be permanent then surely I could carry out graffiti using only water soluble or easily removable paint and then I couldn't be charged.  
Therefore, the OP's car suffered temporary damage due to negligent parking. 

Did you miss the part where CPS say "Damage is not defined by the Act".

If it wipes straight off how is the value reduced?

Biggus_Dickus

ontheroad1970 said:

williamgriffin said:

ontheroad1970 said:

williamgriffin said:

es5595 said:

neilmcl said:

Marvel1 said:

The regisrted keeper does not mean it's the driver.

I'm well aware but thank you.

But if you go to the police, they will go to the RK, who will be issued a Section 172 notice requiring them to identify the driver

TooManyPoints said:

Report to the police. Give them all the dash cam details. And they’ll head over at some point to give the RK a demand to identify the driver, and then the driver will likely get a fixed penalty. 

For what offence?

Leaving the scene of an accident within providing their details. "The Road Traffic Act 1988 s 170 (2) states that it is an offence for a driver of a vehicle to fail to stop and give their details when involved in an accident that has caused either damage or injury to someone other than the driver or their vehicle". 

A Magistrates’ Court may impose:

• An unlimited fine and/or a prison sentence of up to 6 months
• Must endorse and may disqualify
• If no disqualification impose 5-10 points
• Extended disqualification if imposing custody

Since their is dashcam footage, a much safer bet than trying to turn up on their doorstep to 'have a chat'. Also, anecdotally, when they tell their mates, it reduces them thinking they can get away with 'just a bump in a busy car park' etc. 

Has an accident occurred?

Yes, of course it has.  If I accidentally cut my hand and then stop the bleeding, has there been no accident, just because I have stopped the bleeding?  No, of course not.  

Just because Neil was able to wipe away the mark doesn't mean there was no collision.  There was.  So yes there is an unreported accident which could easily be reported as failure to report.  I doubt that this would be actioned once the police had two insurance companies talking to each other.  Now if the other car is uninsured, then it will be messy for the other driver.

Without damage or injury there is no accident to stop for or report.

Nonsense.  There may now be no visible damage, but that does not mean that the car was not hit.  The car was hit.  Neil has evidence for it.  Therefore there WAS an accident.  Saying otherwise would be like an assailant being acquitted of assault because the black eye healed in between incident and trial.

More, ‘lightly caressed’ I would say. 

 

DiddyDavies

AdrianC said:

Meaning of Damage

Damage is not defined by the Act. It should be widely interpreted to include not only permanent or temporary physical harm, but also permanent or temporary impairment of value or usefulness - Morphitis v. Salmon [1990] Crim.L.R 48.

Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell.

Apart from the acknowledgement that this is a liberal, wide interpretation, there is a big difference between the deliberate smearing of mud on the walls of a police cell, and a minor transfer or paint through contact between two cars that could be inadvertant. The process of cleaning one off is considerably more onerous than the other, and the continued use of the object "damaged" is far more possible in one situation than the other.

If you can't see what I'm saying here, just pause and ask where somebody was going to get MUD from in a police cell. And then consider what may be used as a substitute in wall-smearing.

I fully understand everything that you've posted but my point was only that under some legislation, damage doesn't have to be permanent for it to class as damage so even though the paint on the OP's car was removable at little or no cost, it may well still have classed as damage under the RTA.

Personally however, I think it's all semantics (my posts included) and it's a pointless waste of time the OP pursuing the matter if there was no lasting damage to their vehicle. If it happened to my car and I witnessed it then yes, I would certainly speak to the driver concerned but if I only saw the damage afterwards and the paint could be cleaned off easily, I would just let it go.

DiddyDavies

Homer_home said:

Shame on you mse its not the first time I have heard complaints about this , this is not how free speech works 

What makes you think you are entitled to free speech on a privately run forum?

AdrianC

DiddyDavies said:

Homer_home said:

Shame on you mse its not the first time I have heard complaints about this , this is not how free speech works 

What makes you think you are entitled to free speech on a privately run forum?

You are. Subject to caveats.

For this particular forum, those caveats are covered in the rules. There's a link to them in a bright yellow box at the top of every single forum page.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs/