Car parking ccontact and driving away
Discussion
Dear all,
My dad (honestly it is my dad folks), whilst trying to get out of a hospital car park around an awkwardly parked car (which was not in a marked parking bay), made contact. He didn't notice and drove away. There was a witness and his number was taken.
First thing he knows is call from an insurance company and a slightly heavy-handed letter from the police about driving without due care and attention and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.
Examination on the car reveals no damage at all, apart from a rear parking sensor which has been pushed in - not sure when this happened, perhaps previously which would explain why it failed, or at the time - who knows. No scratches or dents, so it must have been a gentle coming together.
I suspect he has touched the property of an awkward type who is milking he chance to exert power (cynical hat on). He is as straight as they come and genuinely did not notice the contact. Do we have the chance to see a photograph of the damage?
What's the score here? Points or fine or a telling off?
At the time my mum had just been rushed in very ill indeed, so he was not at his best, but I know this is no excuse.
Thanks
My dad (honestly it is my dad folks), whilst trying to get out of a hospital car park around an awkwardly parked car (which was not in a marked parking bay), made contact. He didn't notice and drove away. There was a witness and his number was taken.
First thing he knows is call from an insurance company and a slightly heavy-handed letter from the police about driving without due care and attention and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.
Examination on the car reveals no damage at all, apart from a rear parking sensor which has been pushed in - not sure when this happened, perhaps previously which would explain why it failed, or at the time - who knows. No scratches or dents, so it must have been a gentle coming together.
I suspect he has touched the property of an awkward type who is milking he chance to exert power (cynical hat on). He is as straight as they come and genuinely did not notice the contact. Do we have the chance to see a photograph of the damage?
What's the score here? Points or fine or a telling off?
At the time my mum had just been rushed in very ill indeed, so he was not at his best, but I know this is no excuse.
Thanks
Was the awkwardly parked car in motion? I guess not, in which case it's academic where or how it was parked.
Sorry to be blunt but this is pretty clear cut - your Dad struck someone's car, and drove off. Believing the damage to be minimal, or non-existent is academic, though it is a defence to the charge of failure to report to do so within a practical period (24 hours I think?)
The fact the coming together was witnessed doesn't bode well in my opinion, and if it were my car that was struck or I witnessed someone else's and the driver drove off you can bet I'd be an "awkward type" about it as well. Personally it really grinds my gears when people avoid responsibility for things like this, regardless of the circumstances.
The circumstances of how it came to happen are, I'm afraid to say, also irrelevant. We have no idea of the circumstances of the victim here who might just as easily be in a similar boat with a loved one, with an added bonus of finding their car anonymously damaged and potentially having to deal with that too.
Having had some very difficult days at hospital visiting someone who later passed away coming out to find that could have easily pushed me over the edge mentally speaking.
Sorry to be blunt but this is pretty clear cut - your Dad struck someone's car, and drove off. Believing the damage to be minimal, or non-existent is academic, though it is a defence to the charge of failure to report to do so within a practical period (24 hours I think?)
The fact the coming together was witnessed doesn't bode well in my opinion, and if it were my car that was struck or I witnessed someone else's and the driver drove off you can bet I'd be an "awkward type" about it as well. Personally it really grinds my gears when people avoid responsibility for things like this, regardless of the circumstances.
The circumstances of how it came to happen are, I'm afraid to say, also irrelevant. We have no idea of the circumstances of the victim here who might just as easily be in a similar boat with a loved one, with an added bonus of finding their car anonymously damaged and potentially having to deal with that too.
Having had some very difficult days at hospital visiting someone who later passed away coming out to find that could have easily pushed me over the edge mentally speaking.
Edited by Durzel on Sunday 7th February 10:14
Durzel said:
Was the awkwardly parked car in motion? I guess not, in which case it's academic where or how it was parked.
Sorry to be blunt but this is pretty clear cut - your Dad struck someone's car, and drove off. Believing the damage to be minimal, or non-existent is academic, though it is a defence to the charge of failure to report to do so within a practical period (24 hours I think?)
The circumstances of how it came to happen are, I'm afraid to say, also irrelevant.
Thanks, but he didn't believe the damage was minimal - he didn't know any contact had been made in the first place. If he had he would have stopped and left a note or something. That's why a picture might help, to see what we are talking about, can't be more than a tiny mark or it would have registered (one hopes anyway )Sorry to be blunt but this is pretty clear cut - your Dad struck someone's car, and drove off. Believing the damage to be minimal, or non-existent is academic, though it is a defence to the charge of failure to report to do so within a practical period (24 hours I think?)
The circumstances of how it came to happen are, I'm afraid to say, also irrelevant.
Take your point about the other driver, yes the chap could have been having just as bad a day, few people visit hospital for fun.
Edited by cml on Sunday 7th February 10:22
Unless the witness was standing next to the car he hit, he must of noticed a nudge, the car he hit must have a mark or damage to it, which the owner will want repaired. If it was your car that was hit you would feel the same way. The insurance will sort it out, and it sounds like the letter ifrom the police is their response to the matter which I doubt will go any further. The parking sensors may have failed, hence I use mine as a guide and don't rely on them all my reversing camera 100%
cml said:
Thanks, but he didn't believe the damage was minimal - he didn't know any contact had been made in the first place.
Sounds like a guilty plea to driving without due care and attention to me...Put it another way, would you buy it as an excuse if some random old boy hit your car, went to drive off, and when confronted over it said "Ooh, sorry, I didn't realise."?
TooMany2cvs said:
Sounds like a guilty plea to driving without due care and attention to me...
Put it another way, would you buy it as an excuse if some random old boy hit your car, went to drive off, and when confronted over it said "Ooh, sorry, I didn't realise."?
Er, not sure if serious, er, that would depend on the contact I guess. If the cars merely kissed then yes, otherwise probably not. Put it another way, would you buy it as an excuse if some random old boy hit your car, went to drive off, and when confronted over it said "Ooh, sorry, I didn't realise."?
Must not get defensive, must not get defensive...
Upshot as I read it here is that the police will have little more to do with the matter and the insurance people will figure it out. I think he is worried about actually being in proper police trouble here. If you don't work in the field and have no previous experience it is scary to find yourself under investigation, as it were.
Edited by cml on Sunday 7th February 10:45
PurpleMoonlight said:
If your father does not believe he made contact with the other vehicle, that is what he should tell his insurers.
It could easily be a scam from the other vehicles owner with a not so independent witness.
Great stuff. PH member comes on and talks about his car being dinged by someone who drives off and the consensus is all points up to and including VBRJ. PH member comes on and talks about being the person who drives off and you defend him. It could easily be a scam from the other vehicles owner with a not so independent witness.
I'm glad the rest of the replies are less hypocritical.
JacquesMesrine said:
Great stuff. PH member comes on and talks about his car being dinged by someone who drives off and the consensus is all points up to and including VBRJ. PH member comes on and talks about being the person who drives off and you defend him.
I'm glad the rest of the replies are less hypocritical.
It's only hypocritical if the OP's father knows he did make contact with the other car, but he doesn't.I'm glad the rest of the replies are less hypocritical.
Why should he admit liability for something he didn't believe he did? Would you?
PurpleMoonlight said:
JacquesMesrine said:
Great stuff. PH member comes on and talks about his car being dinged by someone who drives off and the consensus is all points up to and including VBRJ. PH member comes on and talks about being the person who drives off and you defend him.
I'm glad the rest of the replies are less hypocritical.
It's only hypocritical if the OP's father knows he did make contact with the other car, but he doesn't.I'm glad the rest of the replies are less hypocritical.
Why should he admit liability for something he didn't believe he did? Would you?
PurpleMoonlight said:
TooMany2cvs said:
So next time you come back to your parked car, and find it's been punted and there's no note left, you'll just shrug and say "Well, he probably didn't realise..."?
Do you really not see the difference here?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.
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 ....
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's only hypocritical if the OP's father knows he did make contact with the other car, but he doesn't.
Why should he admit liability for something he didn't believe he did? Would you?
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. Seems to me that there's enough evidence for a civil matter like insurance, for the case to be proven on the balance of probabilities. Why should he admit liability for something he didn't believe he did? Would you?
Is it any wonder insurance often takes forever to sort out when people dig their heels in unnecessarily
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff