Road Traffic Accident with Bollard

[Deleted User]

Car1980 said:

It is for the Prosecution to prove that damage was caused and if there was no damage there is no duty on you to stop or report, so you cannot be found guilty of an offence.

Not uncommon for someone to collode
with an object, check for damage and fail to see any. Presumably there should be CCTV of you checking and not simply driving off.

Can't see the police pursuing if you have made them aware of this.
 

Except there was damage - OP hit the thing and it bent, the garage CCTV will show that, hence they left. If they had simply gone into the garage and told them, it would probably have been forgotten about and nothing happened

Username03725

It's quite reasonable for a charge to be laid against you. It also needs an additional fine with a start point of around £1000 for beginning your sentences with So. As soon as I saw that any sympathy I may have had for your inability to avoid a bollard evaporated completely. String im up I say. 

born_again

Ectophile said:

Petrol station forecourts are full of CCTV cameras.  There's every chance that they have a video of the OP hitting the post, getting out and looking at the bent post, then driving off.

>> So four months later << 
 Clearly they must have or they would not have contacted the police. Who would not be interested without solid proof.

Belenus

Username03725 said:

It's quite reasonable for a charge to be laid against you. It also needs an additional fine with a start point of around £1000 for beginning your sentences with So. As soon as I saw that any sympathy I may have had for your inability to avoid a bollard evaporated completely. String im up I say. 

So say I.  

Username03725

Belenus said:

Username03725 said:

It's quite reasonable for a charge to be laid against you. It also needs an additional fine with a start point of around £1000 for beginning your sentences with So. As soon as I saw that any sympathy I may have had for your inability to avoid a bollard evaporated completely. String im up I say. 

So say I.  

There are occasions when starting with So is fine: e.g. when extending or developing a previous thought or idea; when paraphrasing something complex into a more understandable form; when beginning a lurid tale in a pub to a bunch of mates; the use of idiom as above, to express agreement.

Beginning a whole new thread with So, where there's no direct reference to anything that might be relevant that's gone before, is car-crash grammar.

Yours is just fine. 

Next.

Torry_Quine

My husband managed to knock over a similar sounding bollard in a supermarket carpark. The difference is he went inside and told them although it's unlikely anyone would know it was him.  The offending bollard was removed quickly and the police never got in touch.

DB1904

Torry_Quine said:

My husband managed to knock over a similar sounding bollard in a supermarket carpark. The difference is he went inside and told them although it's unlikely anyone would know it was him.  The offending bollard was removed quickly and the police never got in touch.

Why would they? It's wasn't a matter for them. 

MyCod74

So the police came round 4 weeks later and charged me and I received the summons last week. When they originally contacted me regarding the incident I informed them that I wasn't aware that I had collided with the bollard, and I thought it was already damaged. They instructed me to contact the owner and pay for the damage or they would charge me. I told them I would happily pay for the damage if I was responsible, at which point the officer said they would have to review the footage to establish whether or not the post was damaged prior to me colliding with it. I went to the petrol station on many occasions and the owner was never there, and the staff refused to give me a contact number for him, I also left my number but was never contacted. When the two officers came round they said after reviewing the footage I was in fact responsible, they then asked me if I had contacted the owner.

I then explained I had tried many times to contact the owner, as I also wanted to see the footage, to which the police replied 'we've already spoke with the owner and said that he spoke with you and you're refusing to pay for the damage'. This was untrue, after numerous calls and going into the petrol station I finally got hold of the owner....he had been away, and he's rarely in the area. The owner then confirmed that he had never had any contact from the police regarding this matter and he then proceeded to ask all his staff if they had spoke with any officers......nope!

The police also conveniently left out the fact that I also looked under the vehicle in the cctv footage, I did this because I thought I had maybe ran over an object as all I heard was a pinging noise and didn't feel any impact with anything.  

Car_54

OP, what have you been charged with?

Presumably it's failing to stop and report, of which you seem to be guilty. Whether or not you paid, and who spoke (or didn't speak) to whom has no bearing on that offence.

When you say you tried many times to contact the owner, did it occur to you to write him a letter?

Grey_Critic

Which is it? In the original post you say

So four months later I get a visit form the police,

and now you say

So the police came round 4 weeks later

If as you claim that others have hit it and your effort was the one that finally broke it -  and they have CCTV of you doing so then ask for them for the CCTV of others doing the same and ask what action they took agaist them.