What's going to be the outcome here?
Discussion
Hi all, my car was recently damaged in the car park of an infamous fast food eatery.
The chain of events was as follows;
1) Arrived at restaurant at 1.10pm approximately.
2) Sat down with children a few minutes afterwards and observed a car parking next to mine.
3) Got rather suspicious as the car was moving forwards and backwards in the space and the passenger was craning his head out of the window to see down the side of my car, then holding his head in his hands.
4) By the time I had got outside said vehicle has pulled out of the space and scarpered leaving a lovely 2ft scrape down the side of my car.
5) Was called over by a chap who saw what had happened and said he had spoken to the driver and told him that he must go inside and tell the manager what had happened. Obviously they neglected to do this.
6) Spoke to the manager who showed me the positioning of the CCTV camera which was pointing right at my car.
I subsequently rang the Police and reported the incident. Their response has been fantastic, they obtained CCTV footage of the pair leaving the restaurant, and also an image from an ANPR camera positioned on the main road just as you leave the car park. Unfortunately the footage from the CCTV camera pointing directly at my car didn't reveal the number plate, but the other two cameras did. So the Police have established the owner of the car and made contact with her.
They have obviously instructed the owner of the car to phone their insurance, however she is claiming not to have any knowledge of the incident and is refusing to accept responsibility. She has even stated that on the day in question she was elsewhere, which could be true, it was two young men driving in the car.
So it's a bit of a strange one, on one hand I have a witness who saw what happened, CCTV footage of the car leaving moments after the incident, and a witness who saw what happened. But she's still saying nothing happened.
My suspicion is that whoever was driving her car was not insured and she's running scared thinking that that will have a negative on her insurance policy, cancellation possibly.
Any advice, other than obviously to never visit the Golden Arches again?
The chain of events was as follows;
1) Arrived at restaurant at 1.10pm approximately.
2) Sat down with children a few minutes afterwards and observed a car parking next to mine.
3) Got rather suspicious as the car was moving forwards and backwards in the space and the passenger was craning his head out of the window to see down the side of my car, then holding his head in his hands.
4) By the time I had got outside said vehicle has pulled out of the space and scarpered leaving a lovely 2ft scrape down the side of my car.
5) Was called over by a chap who saw what had happened and said he had spoken to the driver and told him that he must go inside and tell the manager what had happened. Obviously they neglected to do this.
6) Spoke to the manager who showed me the positioning of the CCTV camera which was pointing right at my car.
I subsequently rang the Police and reported the incident. Their response has been fantastic, they obtained CCTV footage of the pair leaving the restaurant, and also an image from an ANPR camera positioned on the main road just as you leave the car park. Unfortunately the footage from the CCTV camera pointing directly at my car didn't reveal the number plate, but the other two cameras did. So the Police have established the owner of the car and made contact with her.
They have obviously instructed the owner of the car to phone their insurance, however she is claiming not to have any knowledge of the incident and is refusing to accept responsibility. She has even stated that on the day in question she was elsewhere, which could be true, it was two young men driving in the car.
So it's a bit of a strange one, on one hand I have a witness who saw what happened, CCTV footage of the car leaving moments after the incident, and a witness who saw what happened. But she's still saying nothing happened.
My suspicion is that whoever was driving her car was not insured and she's running scared thinking that that will have a negative on her insurance policy, cancellation possibly.
Any advice, other than obviously to never visit the Golden Arches again?
benjijames28 said:
Could defo be a clone.
It's just a hunch, but I have a feeling the lads panicked and drove off. They were late teens and looked like the sort that wear Jack Wills, not drive around in a car on cloned plates. If the driver wasn't insured they may have been worried they'd be in trouble, and the female owner can't say she was driving because the Police have already told her they have two males on the CCTV/ANPR footage. andrewparker said:
It's just a hunch, but I have a feeling the lads panicked and drove off. They were late teens and looked like the sort that wear Jack Wills, not drive around in a car on cloned plates. If the driver wasn't insured they may have been worried they'd be in trouble, and the female owner can't say she was driving because the Police have already told her they have two males on the CCTV/ANPR footage.
Was the lady owner old enough to be one of the male drivers' mother? If so, then she may be hedging her bets.If it's anything like you see on the Police Stop Camera Interceptor Wars things, if she says that it is her car, but driven without her permission, the driver (possibly son or male friend) could get charged with TWOC as well as driving without insurance / any other offences.
If she says that the car was driven with her permission. and she knew the driver wasn't insured for it, then she could be charged with permitting driving a car without insurance....
Hopefully the insurance and police will do the necessary to get to the bottom of it.
Sportidge said:
andrewparker said:
It's just a hunch, but I have a feeling the lads panicked and drove off. They were late teens and looked like the sort that wear Jack Wills, not drive around in a car on cloned plates. If the driver wasn't insured they may have been worried they'd be in trouble, and the female owner can't say she was driving because the Police have already told her they have two males on the CCTV/ANPR footage.
Was the lady owner old enough to be one of the male drivers' mother? If so, then she may be hedging her bets.If it's anything like you see on the Police Stop Camera Interceptor Wars things, if she says that it is her car, but driven without her permission, the driver (possibly son or male friend) could get charged with TWOC as well as driving without insurance / any other offences.
If she says that the car was driven with her permission. and she knew the driver wasn't insured for it, then she could be charged with permitting driving a car without insurance....
Hopefully the insurance and police will do the necessary to get to the bottom of it.
Only information I have is that she claims she was with her son and daughter (aged 7 and 11) at the time, but for some reason my insurance didn't seem to want to divulge her complete statement.
Pity s/he wasn't speeding then she'd have had to name names under threat of prosecution.
As for the clone theory , even people daft enough to fall for the Jack Wills con ( far-east sweat-shop tat with a posh label) know that you should pick a cloned plate from another part of the country not your own town, for fear of the two cars meeting.
As for the clone theory , even people daft enough to fall for the Jack Wills con ( far-east sweat-shop tat with a posh label) know that you should pick a cloned plate from another part of the country not your own town, for fear of the two cars meeting.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff