Damage to paintwork by work colleague

Marvel1

Go through your insurance, do this now, they had their chance.

williamgriffin

Marvel1 said:

Go through your insurance, do this now, they had their chance.

Why should the op pay an excess? Go through the third party insurance if making a claim. 

Sandtree

williamgriffin said:

They should only issue an HO/RT1 if there are no other means to verify insurance. However if the RTA applies the third party has committed the offence if they fail to give insurance details. 

Well the police certainly issue producers if there are other means to verify insurance and do not bother with any criminal offence aspect if the party responds appropriately to the producer and alls in order.

I was involved in an RTA where the TP hit the wing mirror of our stationary vehicle, no damage to our vehicle but it broke the housing and mirror in theirs. Both parties "stopped" (we obviously already were). I went to her car and took her details into my phone, she said she didnt have her phone with her nor a pen/paper but "had a good memory" so gave her our details verbally.

A few weeks later got a police producer through the post saying we'd failed to stop at the scene of an accident and failed to exchange details and need to present vehicle docs, insurance, mot etc at our nearest police station. Did this, all was done at front desk, police took 5 minutes if that to quickly check the papers, I'd brought the photos too printed just in case but they just laughed at them and said the woman looks like a battleaxe and said that that was that.

MID had the insurance details so there were other ways to verify insurance and they took no interest in the allegations I'd refused to exchange details. No statement was taken, didnt have to sign anything, if I hadnt been nervous and brought all the extra bits I think I'd have been in and out in 2 minutes.

williamgriffin

Sandtree said:

williamgriffin said:

They should only issue an HO/RT1 if there are no other means to verify insurance. However if the RTA applies the third party has committed the offence if they fail to give insurance details. 

Well the police certainly issue producers if there are other means to verify insurance and do not bother with any criminal offence aspect if the party responds appropriately to the producer and alls in order.

I was involved in an RTA where the TP hit the wing mirror of our stationary vehicle, no damage to our vehicle but it broke the housing and mirror in theirs. Both parties "stopped" (we obviously already were). I went to her car and took her details into my phone, she said she didnt have her phone with her nor a pen/paper but "had a good memory" so gave her our details verbally.

A few weeks later got a police producer through the post saying we'd failed to stop at the scene of an accident and failed to exchange details and need to present vehicle docs, insurance, mot etc at our nearest police station. Did this, all was done at front desk, police took 5 minutes if that to quickly check the papers, I'd brought the photos too printed just in case but they just laughed at them and said the woman looks like a battleaxe and said that that was that.

MID had the insurance details so there were other ways to verify insurance and they took no interest in the allegations I'd refused to exchange details. No statement was taken, didnt have to sign anything, if I hadnt been nervous and brought all the extra bits I think I'd have been in and out in 2 minutes.

The shouldn't issue one, who did they issue yours to if they didn't know who was driving?

pramsay13

Is the damage really that bad?
Can it be polished out?
Is your car pristine everywhere else?
I would be inclined to forget about it for the sake of workplace harmony, as it sounds as though you are the type of person that takes things seriously and worries about what people think of you and what they may or may not be saying about you.

Sandtree

williamgriffin said:

The shouldn't issue one, who did they issue yours to if they didn't know who was driving?

I was the driver and registered keeper of the vehicle, it was issued to me but cannot recall on which basis

williamgriffin

Sandtree said:

williamgriffin said:

The shouldn't issue one, who did they issue yours to if they didn't know who was driving?

I was the driver and registered keeper of the vehicle, it was issued to me but cannot recall on which basis

But they didn't know you were driving until you responded to the 172. Surely you can see why it shouldn't have been issued. I bet the incident wasn't even dealt with by a police officer, which may cast doubt on the validity of the requirement to produce. 

I don't know why you think they'd want a statement from you as it's not common to take one from a suspect. 

Sandtree

williamgriffin said:

But they didn't know you were driving until you responded to the 172. Surely you can see why it shouldn't have been issued. I bet the incident wasn't even dealt with by a police officer, which may cast doubt on the validity of the requirement to produce. 

I don't know why you think they'd want a statement from you as it's not common to take one from a suspect. 

Who knows what the woman remembered... clearly she must have remembered something as I doubt there was CCTV on a country lane. I vaguely remember my name being miss-spelt on the letter which would imply it wasnt a DVLA check that gave my name at least as my V5 had my name spelt correctly.

The letter alleged a crime had been committed of failure to stop at the scene of an accident and failure to exchange details. I would have thought if the police was taking those allegations with any consideration of prosecution that they'd want to record my version of events.

To my original point, I am highly doubtful that for a minor incident with clearly no injuries as the OP was involved in that the police would seriously consider a criminal prosecution for failure to exchange details if the third party is fully compliant with confirming their details to the police. As such, threatening that its a criminal offence etc is a hollow threat and doesnt help anyone.

williamgriffin

Sandtree said:

williamgriffin said:

But they didn't know you were driving until you responded to the 172. Surely you can see why it shouldn't have been issued. I bet the incident wasn't even dealt with by a police officer, which may cast doubt on the validity of the requirement to produce. 

I don't know why you think they'd want a statement from you as it's not common to take one from a suspect. 

Who knows what the woman remembered... clearly she must have remembered something as I doubt there was CCTV on a country lane. I vaguely remember my name being miss-spelt on the letter which would imply it wasnt a DVLA check that gave my name at least as my V5 had my name spelt correctly.

The letter alleged a crime had been committed of failure to stop at the scene of an accident and failure to exchange details. I would have thought if the police was taking those allegations with any consideration of prosecution that they'd want to record my version of events.

To my original point, I am highly doubtful that for a minor incident with clearly no injuries as the OP was involved in that the police would seriously consider a criminal prosecution for failure to exchange details if the third party is fully compliant with confirming their details to the police. As such, threatening that its a criminal offence etc is a hollow threat and doesnt help anyone.

Yes, but you were a suspect and the usual way of obtaining evidence by questioning is to interview you. 

We we don't know the woman involved maybe the thought of a criminal investigation will focus her on doing the right thing.  

Sandtree

williamgriffin said:

Yes, but you were a suspect and the usual way of obtaining evidence by questioning is to interview you. 

We we don't know the woman involved maybe the thought of a criminal investigation will focus her on doing the right thing.  

And interviewing is one mechanism to getting a statement which I pointed out they showed absolutely no interest in... after taking the letter and looking at the docs it was only a half dozen keystrokes on the computer whilst still at the front desk and it was declared a closed matter. The longest part was waiting for an officer to come down to deal with it.

We don't know the woman and there is a possibility that it makes her compliant but there is at least an equal chance of it making her lock up and become obstructive as possible, particularly if the matter was passed to the police and they dismissed it in a similar way to they did mine. I personally dont recommend making threats that wont be carried through even if the hoax threat could get a proportion of people to comply.