Car Damaged on CCTV - Police Won't Investigate

Goudy

Yes, this isn't really a police matter, it's an insurance matter.

I doubt the hospital will give you a copy of the footage but if you have requested to see it, they should save it and then you can point your insurance company to whoever manages the CCTV for the hospitals security.

The same thing happened to our boy.
Someone stoved in the front of his car in the hospital car park where he (and I) work.
Security found the footage, in fact three clear angles which were excellent quality including the driver getting out, saved it all under a reference number.
Then when he claimed he put those details on the claim.

Arunmor

Goudy said:

Yes, this isn't really a police matter, it's an insurance matter.

Of course it's a police matter.  Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 outlines the guidelines that motorists are bound to follow in the event of an accident. 

The fact the police can't be arsed is a sad indictment of the state of the country.  As said above too busy chasing up reported social media non-crimes.

Goudy

Arunmor said:

Goudy said:

Yes, this isn't really a police matter, it's an insurance matter.

Of course it's a police matter.  Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 outlines the guidelines that motorists are bound to follow in the event of an accident. 

The fact the police can't be arsed is a sad indictment of the state of the country.  As said above too busy chasing up reported social media non-crimes.

Who knows, maybe the other party has fulfilled their legal requirement and reported the incident to the police already and that could possibly be to another force.

They might not be arsed because there is nothing to be arsed over.

DullGreyGuy

LookinForaBargain_2 said:

I'm after some advice regarding some damage that was inflicted on my vehicle at a hospital last week. 

My wife suffered a stroke so we had to rush her into the hospital. On the same day, somebody side-wiped my car as they reversed out of a space, causing £5k worth of damage, and then drove off without leaving a note. 

The hospital CCTV caught the incident on camera, as well as the vehicle license plate. 

I have reported this to Surrey police and they say that they will not investigate because it was not serious enough. 

While I appreciate the police force is stretched, I don't understand why they won't investigate when they have the registration and evidence culprit. This person caused the damage and then fled the scene, which I am sure is a crime. 

My excess is £600, so I don't understand why they should be allowed to get away with it, especially if I find out that they don't have insurance. 

Where is the deterrent, if they are allowed to get away with it?

Thoughts anyone? 

Welcome to the real world. 

Based on what you have said it would be a category 3, the lowest level, of the offence. You've not said they appeared drunk or that they are known by you and I assume they weren't avoiding arrest at the time so that puts it into low culpability and there are no injuries so its also low harm. If it made it to court this level starts at 5 points and 25% of weekly wage fine but most cases the police decide to go for are likely dealt with a fixed penalty. 

Have personally been accused of failing to stop at the scene of an accident even though I had actually stopped and exchanged details. I got a producer through the door a couple of months later (was a hire car), went to the local nick with what details I had because it wasnt my car I didnt have the V5 or Ins Cert but had the hire invoice etc. Said I had stopped evidenced with the photos I had, that I had all her details etc and simply never heard anything more about it. 

Ultimately the police have finite resources and even if they did pass it to the CPS they will consider the "public interest" in a prosecution (hence why Osborn no doubt was fined). Realistically it's a "victimless crime", they will be ultimately punished with higher insurance premiums and its why we all buy insurance. 

Arunmor said:

Goudy said:

Yes, this isn't really a police matter, it's an insurance matter.

Of course it's a police matter.  Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 outlines the guidelines that motorists are bound to follow in the event of an accident. 

The fact the police can't be arsed is a sad indictment of the state of the country.  As said above too busy chasing up reported social media non-crimes.

It's a realistic view. Look how far people go on this site to avoid becoming a 40% tax payer. If you want the police to prosecute every single breach of the law you are going to have to increase police, CPS & judiciary budgets by 10 fold or more which inevitably means everyone has to pay more taxes to afford it. 

Arguably every single person that has a car accident has at least one person that has been careless but police dont get a daily feed of every new claim registered with insurers to prosecute the at fault driver in them all. 

Herzlos

Arunmor said:

Goudy said:

Yes, this isn't really a police matter, it's an insurance matter.

Of course it's a police matter.  Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 outlines the guidelines that motorists are bound to follow in the event of an accident. 

The fact the police can't be arsed is a sad indictment of the state of the country.  As said above too busy chasing up reported social media non-crimes.

There's 2 components to it:

The insurance company will need the evicence to claim the costs from the other party. 

The police could prosecute under S170 for failure to stop after an accident BUT the police force is already run thin and the insurance company having the evidence means that minimal harm will be caused (assuming the insurance can claim the costs back) and some punishment against the bad driver will occur in terms of increased insurance premiums. Charging the other driver with a S170 offense or not won't make any difference to the OP.

Nobbie1967

DullGreyGuy said:

Ultimately the police have finite resources and even if they did pass it to the CPS they will consider the "public interest" in a prosecution (hence why Osborn no doubt was fined).

Balls!



sorry, couldn’t resist

Car_54

DullGreyGuy said:

LookinForaBargain_2 said:

I'm after some advice regarding some damage that was inflicted on my vehicle at a hospital last week. 

My wife suffered a stroke so we had to rush her into the hospital. On the same day, somebody side-wiped my car as they reversed out of a space, causing £5k worth of damage, and then drove off without leaving a note. 

The hospital CCTV caught the incident on camera, as well as the vehicle license plate. 

I have reported this to Surrey police and they say that they will not investigate because it was not serious enough. 

While I appreciate the police force is stretched, I don't understand why they won't investigate when they have the registration and evidence culprit. This person caused the damage and then fled the scene, which I am sure is a crime. 

My excess is £600, so I don't understand why they should be allowed to get away with it, especially if I find out that they don't have insurance. 

Where is the deterrent, if they are allowed to get away with it?

Thoughts anyone? 

Welcome to the real world. 

Based on what you have said it would be a category 3, the lowest level, of the offence. You've not said they appeared drunk or that they are known by you and I assume they weren't avoiding arrest at the time so that puts it into low culpability and there are no injuries so its also low harm. If it made it to court this level starts at 5 points and 25% of weekly wage fine but most cases the police decide to go for are likely dealt with a fixed penalty. 

Is a fixed penalty available for this offence? I don't think so.

DullGreyGuy

Car_54 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

LookinForaBargain_2 said:

I'm after some advice regarding some damage that was inflicted on my vehicle at a hospital last week. 

My wife suffered a stroke so we had to rush her into the hospital. On the same day, somebody side-wiped my car as they reversed out of a space, causing £5k worth of damage, and then drove off without leaving a note. 

The hospital CCTV caught the incident on camera, as well as the vehicle license plate. 

I have reported this to Surrey police and they say that they will not investigate because it was not serious enough. 

While I appreciate the police force is stretched, I don't understand why they won't investigate when they have the registration and evidence culprit. This person caused the damage and then fled the scene, which I am sure is a crime. 

My excess is £600, so I don't understand why they should be allowed to get away with it, especially if I find out that they don't have insurance. 

Where is the deterrent, if they are allowed to get away with it?

Thoughts anyone? 

Welcome to the real world. 

Based on what you have said it would be a category 3, the lowest level, of the offence. You've not said they appeared drunk or that they are known by you and I assume they weren't avoiding arrest at the time so that puts it into low culpability and there are no injuries so its also low harm. If it made it to court this level starts at 5 points and 25% of weekly wage fine but most cases the police decide to go for are likely dealt with a fixed penalty. 

Is a fixed penalty available for this offence? I don't think so.

I'll take your word for it, got my politicians mixed up and made assumptions as the value was far too low to be within the sentencing councils guidelines for the offence with who I'd mistaken him for. 

Baldytyke88

DullGreyGuy said:

Based on what you have said it would be a category 3, the lowest level, of the offence. 

Unless the police investigate, they wont know if the other driver even has a license

HillStreetBlues

About a year ago I had two policewomen turn up at my door. Someone reported to the police that another car hit my car while in a station car park. Had a look about and couldn't see anything. Maybe a slight dent to my numberplate, but could have been delivered that way. I thanked them for checking and off they went.