Car parking ccontact and driving away
Discussion
Mens rea (guilty knowledge) is an essential part of the offence. If the driver is unaware of a collision they obviously wouldn't report it (how could they know to?) & wouldn't be guilty of failing to stop/report.
However once it's established that the driver was involved in an accident, then there is a rebuttable presumption that they knew they were involved in an accident & the burden of proof shifts to them to show that they were not aware.
However once it's established that the driver was involved in an accident, then there is a rebuttable presumption that they knew they were involved in an accident & the burden of proof shifts to them to show that they were not aware.
JacquesMesrine said:
The OP's dad has damage, albeit slight, but still damage to his car. An independent witness has confirmed that they saw him hit it. The police are interested in the matter.
It might be from the incident it might not. Where is it stated the witness is independent?
The police aren't interested. They issued a bog standard letter, nothing will come of it.
PurpleMoonlight said:
TooMany2cvs said:
In the OP's case, somebody hit a parked car but didn't realise.
In the case I'm suggesting, somebody hit a parked car but didn't realise.
The only difference that I can see is that the OP's dad didn't hit your parked car.
Oh, sorry - and that somebody saw him do it.
How do you know the witness is telling the truth?In the case I'm suggesting, somebody hit a parked car but didn't realise.
The only difference that I can see is that the OP's dad didn't hit your parked car.
Oh, sorry - and that somebody saw him do it.
How do you know the third party isn't just trying to scam the OP's father?
All the OP's father can do is tell the truth. If he believes he did not hit the other vehicle he should say so and not blindly accept the claim against him, because people never make false allegations do they ....
Is it likely/probable that if the OP's dad's car is undamaged apart from a parking sensor being displaced that it even qualifies under fail to stop?
Standard Offence Wording as follows:
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) being the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), owing to the presence of which on a road or other public place, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD OR PUBLIC PLACE AND LOCATION..), an accident occurred whereby
(A)_[personal injury]_
(B)_[damage]_
was caused to
(C)_[another person,]_
(D)_[another vehicle,]_
namely **(..SPECIFY THE PERSON/VEHICLE/ANIMAL ETC..), and not having given your name and address to a person having reasonable grounds for requiring you to do so, failed to report the accident at a police station or to a constable as soon as was reasonably practicable, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.
Surely in the vast majority of cases with a bumper to bumper contact as this appears to have been, if indeed there was contact, both vehicles would show some damage?
Standard Offence Wording as follows:
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) being the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), owing to the presence of which on a road or other public place, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD OR PUBLIC PLACE AND LOCATION..), an accident occurred whereby
(A)_[personal injury]_
(B)_[damage]_
was caused to
(C)_[another person,]_
(D)_[another vehicle,]_
namely **(..SPECIFY THE PERSON/VEHICLE/ANIMAL ETC..), and not having given your name and address to a person having reasonable grounds for requiring you to do so, failed to report the accident at a police station or to a constable as soon as was reasonably practicable, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.
Surely in the vast majority of cases with a bumper to bumper contact as this appears to have been, if indeed there was contact, both vehicles would show some damage?
IME the Police write a heavy handed letter to get the driver to co operate (my car was the one hit) so I expect it will be dropped.
My Mum (70's) recently had a terrible experience where she apparently hit a car and didn't notice and he blocked her in and was banging on the car etc which hardly helped her think clearly - her car was unmarked when I checked that evening so it can't have been much and when we insisted on examining his car before handing it to her insurers, we never heard from him again.
My Mum (70's) recently had a terrible experience where she apparently hit a car and didn't notice and he blocked her in and was banging on the car etc which hardly helped her think clearly - her car was unmarked when I checked that evening so it can't have been much and when we insisted on examining his car before handing it to her insurers, we never heard from him again.
PurpleMoonlight said:
JacquesMesrine said:
The OP's dad has damage, albeit slight, but still damage to his car. An independent witness has confirmed that they saw him hit it. The police are interested in the matter.
It might be from the incident it might not. Where is it stated the witness is independent?
The police aren't interested. They issued a bog standard letter, nothing will come of it.
What you're suggesting is just deny it and that will be enough. It won't. If this went to court (for the civil matter), then the OP's dad would be nailed on to lose.
PurpleMoonlight said:
TooMany2cvs said:
And when the person you've just watched reverse into your car says all of that to you, then drives off...?
Why not stick to this thread and the facts we are aware of, and not dream up different scenarios to argue your point.The person who claims to have been hit could have a legitimate claim or he could be trying to get someone to cough up for an earlier bit of damage caused in no small part by his stupid parking.
The OP's Dad could be a doddery old fool who shouldn't be on the road in anything with motive power except as a passenger.
The true story could be at any of the extremes or anywhere in between.
I'm guessing we'll never know for sure.
The OP's Dad could be a doddery old fool who shouldn't be on the road in anything with motive power except as a passenger.
The true story could be at any of the extremes or anywhere in between.
I'm guessing we'll never know for sure.
Pothole said:
Is it likely/probable that if the OP's dad's car is undamaged apart from a parking sensor being displaced that it even qualifies under fail to stop?
Standard Offence Wording as follows:
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) being the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), owing to the presence of which on a road or other public place, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD OR PUBLIC PLACE AND LOCATION..), an accident occurred whereby
(A)_[personal injury]_
(B)_[damage]_
was caused to
(C)_[another person,]_
(D)_[another vehicle,]_
namely **(..SPECIFY THE PERSON/VEHICLE/ANIMAL ETC..), and not having given your name and address to a person having reasonable grounds for requiring you to do so, failed to report the accident at a police station or to a constable as soon as was reasonably practicable, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.
Surely in the vast majority of cases with a bumper to bumper contact as this appears to have been, if indeed there was contact, both vehicles would show some damage?
Doesn't matter if there is any damage to the OP's father's vehicle or not. Any damage to the other vehicle would mean it is an accident to which Sec 170 RTA 1988 would apply. As I said earlier though, he could only stop/report it if he was aware & if he wasn't aware the burden of proof in that would be his.Standard Offence Wording as follows:
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) being the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), owing to the presence of which on a road or other public place, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD OR PUBLIC PLACE AND LOCATION..), an accident occurred whereby
(A)_[personal injury]_
(B)_[damage]_
was caused to
(C)_[another person,]_
(D)_[another vehicle,]_
namely **(..SPECIFY THE PERSON/VEHICLE/ANIMAL ETC..), and not having given your name and address to a person having reasonable grounds for requiring you to do so, failed to report the accident at a police station or to a constable as soon as was reasonably practicable, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.
Surely in the vast majority of cases with a bumper to bumper contact as this appears to have been, if indeed there was contact, both vehicles would show some damage?
vonhosen said:
Pothole said:
Is it likely/probable that if the OP's dad's car is undamaged apart from a parking sensor being displaced that it even qualifies under fail to stop?
Standard Offence Wording as follows:
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) being the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), owing to the presence of which on a road or other public place, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD OR PUBLIC PLACE AND LOCATION..), an accident occurred whereby
(A)_[personal injury]_
(B)_[damage]_
was caused to
(C)_[another person,]_
(D)_[another vehicle,]_
namely **(..SPECIFY THE PERSON/VEHICLE/ANIMAL ETC..), and not having given your name and address to a person having reasonable grounds for requiring you to do so, failed to report the accident at a police station or to a constable as soon as was reasonably practicable, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.
Surely in the vast majority of cases with a bumper to bumper contact as this appears to have been, if indeed there was contact, both vehicles would show some damage?
Doesn't matter if there is any damage to the OP's father's vehicle or not. Any damage to the other vehicle would mean it is an accident to which Sec 170 RTA 1988 would apply. As I said earlier though, he could only stop/report it if he was aware & if he wasn't aware the burden of proof in that would be his.Standard Offence Wording as follows:
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) being the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, namely **(..SPECIFY VEHICLE MAKE AND INDEX NUMBER..), owing to the presence of which on a road or other public place, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD OR PUBLIC PLACE AND LOCATION..), an accident occurred whereby
(A)_[personal injury]_
(B)_[damage]_
was caused to
(C)_[another person,]_
(D)_[another vehicle,]_
namely **(..SPECIFY THE PERSON/VEHICLE/ANIMAL ETC..), and not having given your name and address to a person having reasonable grounds for requiring you to do so, failed to report the accident at a police station or to a constable as soon as was reasonably practicable, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the accident.
Surely in the vast majority of cases with a bumper to bumper contact as this appears to have been, if indeed there was contact, both vehicles would show some damage?
JacquesMesrine said:
This is getting a bit silly now. The police have sent a letter, that suggests they're interested. Not interested in prosecuting, but sufficiently interested to be involved to some extent. I'm not suggesting they will prosecute. Far from it. I'm suggesting that this is another piece that when added to the witness and the damage will be sufficient to prove the civil (insurance) matter on the balance of probabilities. The witness will be independent, just because the OP hasn't said it doesn't mean they aren't.
What you're suggesting is just deny it and that will be enough. It won't. If this went to court (for the civil matter), then the OP's dad would be nailed on to lose.
Are you serious?What you're suggesting is just deny it and that will be enough. It won't. If this went to court (for the civil matter), then the OP's dad would be nailed on to lose.
You think that the fact the police posted a standard letter will carry weight in Court? It won't. They have not spent a single second actually investigating the allegation, and neither should they as it's a civil matter. They received a complaint, they sent a letter, file closed, end of.
It's no wonder so many false and spurious insurance claims get paid out. Nobody is willing to try to stand up to the scumbags.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Are you serious?
You think that the fact the police posted a standard letter will carry weight in Court? It won't. They have not spent a single second actually investigating the allegation, and neither should they as it's a civil matter. They received a complaint, they sent a letter, file closed, end of.
It's no wonder so many false and spurious insurance claims get paid out. Nobody is willing to try to stand up to the scumbags.
Yes I am completely serious. You're suggesting that a scammer has decided to make up a crash and then go to the police to track down the person. The most that they can get is the cost of repair, nothing else. I think you should ask yourself the question about being serious. You think that the fact the police posted a standard letter will carry weight in Court? It won't. They have not spent a single second actually investigating the allegation, and neither should they as it's a civil matter. They received a complaint, they sent a letter, file closed, end of.
It's no wonder so many false and spurious insurance claims get paid out. Nobody is willing to try to stand up to the scumbags.
Osinjak said:
vonhosen said:
Osinjak said:
Boosted LS1 said:
The OP's Dad didn't realise he's made contact though so how would he know to make a report to the police?
Boosted LS1 is saying his dad wouldn't/couldn't have thought to report it to the Police, because he wasn't even aware he'd had an accident in the first place to report.
And, right on cue...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I'm sure the Jag driver didn't realise. So the OP in that thread must be trying it on...
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I'm sure the Jag driver didn't realise. So the OP in that thread must be trying it on...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff