Accused of careless/not stopping - what happens from here?

[kiethton]

That's the thing - I have filled it in correctly - the document says fill in B OR C, I filled in C. They want me to fill in B which I can't do.

I've written a cover note to go back with the original (unchanged) form and will post it away on Tuesday if I can get a stamp etc over the weekend.

If I've followed the inductions on the initial letter (as I have) I'd be happy to go to court, get it thrown out and a days pay on their account for my troubles

[guitarcarfanatic]

kiethton said:

That's the thing - I have filled it in correctly - the document says fill in B OR C, I filled in C. They want me to fill in B which I can't do.

I've written a cover note to go back with the original (unchanged) form and will post it away on Tuesday if I can get a stamp etc over the weekend.

If I've followed the inductions on the initial letter (as I have) I'd be happy to go to court, get it thrown out and a days pay on their account for my troubles

You are going to end up with 6 points and a fine - I appreciate you think you are in the right here, but you have been involved in an accident (whether making contact or not). Just play the game, jeez!

[kiethton]

guitarcarfanatic said:

kiethton said:

That's the thing - I have filled it in correctly - the document says fill in B OR C, I filled in C. They want me to fill in B which I can't do.

I've written a cover note to go back with the original (unchanged) form and will post it away on Tuesday if I can get a stamp etc over the weekend.

If I've followed the inductions on the initial letter (as I have) I'd be happy to go to court, get it thrown out and a days pay on their account for my troubles

You are going to end up with 6 points and a fine - I appreciate you think you are in the right here, but you have been involved in an accident (whether making contact or not). Just play the game, jeez!

But that's the point.

1) I've not been involved in any accident
2) I was not in the location at the time alleged

I can't reply in any other way without perjuring myself

[markh1973]

kiethton said:

guitarcarfanatic said:

kiethton said:

That's the thing - I have filled it in correctly - the document says fill in B OR C, I filled in C. They want me to fill in B which I can't do.

I've written a cover note to go back with the original (unchanged) form and will post it away on Tuesday if I can get a stamp etc over the weekend.

If I've followed the inductions on the initial letter (as I have) I'd be happy to go to court, get it thrown out and a days pay on their account for my troubles

You are going to end up with 6 points and a fine - I appreciate you think you are in the right here, but you have been involved in an accident (whether making contact or not). Just play the game, jeez!

But that's the point.

1) I've not been involved in any accident
2) I was not in the location at the time alleged

I can't reply in any other way without perjuring myself

You weren't involved in a collision, you were involved in an accident.

It really isn't that hard to get hold of an envelope and a stamp - you don't live in the middle of nowhere.

[kingston12]

It's certainly an interesting case.

I might have missed it earlier in the thread, but has it become clear why they are asking for your location at a time after the incident took place rather than when it actually took place?

It seems as though its just an admin error - my concern would probably be if that alone would be enough to get it thrown out of court, or if they'd be able to start again and do it properly.

The form asking for section B OR C to be completed and then the follow-up asking for both also seems very bizarre.

As someone above mentioned, CCTV footage from the bus or a fixed location would be useful and would surely clear you, but it seems unlikely that will be easy to get if they don't even know what time the incident took place.

[Richard-D]

OP - The time on the form is clearly the appropriate time of the incident. You know very well the incident that is being referred to and it was at, near as damn it, the time stated.

You're going to get yourself 6 points and a big insurance premium hike if you keep attempting to be a smartarse.

Edit: I'd love to be there if it went to court to hear you say "I didn't have a stamp, or an envelope". If you were blameless at the start you'll annoy everyone to the point it will end up costing you far more.

Edit: meant approximate

Edited by Richard-D on Friday 3rd May 18:33

[guitarcarfanatic]

kiethton said:

But that's the point.

1) I've not been involved in any accident

Yes you have - there is established case law (the case of Currie, which adopted the Scottish case Bremner v Westwater into UK law) that an accident can occur even where there was no physical contact between the vehicles involved.

[speedking31]

markh1973 said:

You weren't involved in a collision, you were involved in an accident.

The form a) says "... at the time of the collision."

[kiethton]

It's not near as dammit the same time, it's 30 mins later...

There was no collision, there was no accident that I was involved in, somebody falling over doesn't involve me.

The form says collision, not accident either.

My reply, to be posted Tuesday, if I can find a stamp, basically says the reasoning behind why I was not there at the time alleged. Doing anything else is factually inaccurate.

Not providing means of reply is also against fair and equitable treatment too tbh, they can't expect a reply if they don't provide a means to do so

[Pica-Pica]

FFS. Get a grip OP

[Zarco]

nxi20 said:

@op

I'd be getting in touch with https://www.whitedalton.co.uk/ pronto. It won't cost you anything to have a preliminary chat...

Call these guys and stop digging this hole OP.

[Richard-D]

kiethton said:

It's not near as dammit the same time, it's 30 mins later...

There was no collision, there was no accident that I was involved in, somebody falling over doesn't involve me.

The form says collision, not accident either.

My reply, to be posted Tuesday, if I can find a stamp, basically says the reasoning behind why I was not there at the time alleged. Doing anything else is factually inaccurate.

Not providing means of reply is also against fair and equitable treatment too tbh, they can't expect a reply if they don't provide a means to do so

If you truly believe that the police are going to say "You know what, the guy that we have witness placing him at the scene is being pedantic to avoid answering our questions, that isn't the response of a guilty man, best let him off" then you are taking the correct approach.

[car user]

Pica-Pica said:

FFS. Get a grip OP

I think he's being reasonable.

Someone fell over in the road. He stopped to make sure they were OK then carried on.

There was no collision but it's likely that the person that fell over wants some compensation so is trying it on, and has told the police that there was a collision, hence the assumption in the letter that a collision took place.

I think it's wise to be clear in all communications that no collision occurred. It might be worth contacting the police to make the situation clear and give details of the two busses that were in the vicinity as I think most are covered in CCTV these days.

[No ideas for a name]

Zarco said:

nxi20 said:

@op

I'd be getting in touch with https://www.whitedalton.co.uk/ pronto. It won't cost you anything to have a preliminary chat...

Call these guys and stop digging this hole OP.

But they are motorcycle accident solicitors and the OP claim not to have had one.

[kingston12]

kiethton said:

It's not near as dammit the same time, it's 30 mins later...

I still think that this is going to be the problem. You've answered this question, but at some point they'll work out that they've got the time wrong and ask where you were at the actual time rather than just forget about the whole thing.

[Zarco]

No ideas for a name said:

Zarco said:

nxi20 said:

@op

I'd be getting in touch with https://www.whitedalton.co.uk/ pronto. It won't cost you anything to have a preliminary chat...

Call these guys and stop digging this hole OP.

But they are motorcycle accident solicitors and the OP claim not to have had one.

Ah ha! Good point.

[h0b0]

kiethton said:

But that's the point.

1) I've not been involved in any accident

kiethton said:

I stopped and called an ambulance as she'd cut her lip.

[guitarcarfanatic]

car user said:

I think he's being reasonable.

Someone fell over in the road. He stopped to make sure they were OK then carried on.

There was no collision but it's likely that the person that fell over wants some compensation so is trying it on, and has told the police that there was a collision, hence the assumption in the letter that a collision took place.

I think it's wise to be clear in all communications that no collision occurred. It might be worth contacting the police to make the situation clear and give details of the two busses that were in the vicinity as I think most are covered in CCTV these days.

But thats the point - OP seems upset about having to explain his version of the events to the police (to the point it's too much trouble to pick up a stamp/envelope!). A brief covering statement with a telephone number/email address and returning the form will likely allow all of this to be resolved quickly. It's a pain, but the police are just doing their job - investigating a possible RTC.

[kiethton]

Not so much too much trouble but don't have the time. I work 70-80 hours a week, have a 1 year old baby, am the chair/a director for two local charities, am sorting my dad out after a break-up/assault at the hands of my brother (for which the police were useless) and am in the middle of refurbishing my own house - I've got far too much to be doing/worrying about without giving any time to a scammer/people trying to perpetuate a scam.

The shops aren't open before work, most are closed when I leave the office and my lunches are ordered in. If the police want to prosecute on a technicality they can't complain about people using a technicality when it suits.

I know that in 8 weeks this will have timed out and if they prosecute me for failure to provide information I'll win every day as I followed the instructions on the form to the letter. If they asked what I was doing 30 minutes before my reply on the form would have been different. At the end of the day it's not my job to prove my innocence, it's theirs to prove my guilt. Letting this time out also means I don't have to do anything for at least 8 weeks (helpful given the time of year) and it doesn't open up another can of worms. I can do this without lieing, why wouldn't I?

Edited by kiethton on Friday 3rd May 19:56

Edited by kiethton on Friday 3rd May 19:57

[kiethton]

kingston12 said:

kiethton said:

It's not near as dammit the same time, it's 30 mins later...

I still think that this is going to be the problem. You've answered this question, but at some point they'll work out that they've got the time wrong and ask where you were at the actual time rather than just forget about the whole thing.

You'd then state that nothing happened and I assisted a woman that fell over out of the road....all the while they may well run out of time (6m)