police procedure question

[nre]

Back in December I was involved in an accident which resulted in my car being written off. The police attended took statements from both parties gave my address to other party and hers to me, they also took a statement from a witness along with their details. I have recently received a letter from my insurance to say that they have been in touch with the police who state that they do not have a report for the incident and therefore can't help. Needless to say the other parties has a different version of events from me and without witness details the insurers are going 50-50 and I'll lose my excess and some other expenses.

Question is do the police keep dispatch logs that detail the incidents they are responding to and officers attending? I feel that they have not looked after my interests by taking the witness details and then not keeping them or passing them on and would really like to make a formal complaint if I can't get the details from them.

Any help gratefuly received.

Cheers

NRE

[Streetcop]

NRE...

Firstly...there WILL be a 'dispatch log' or 'incicent log' or 'commrad incident' if the police were called out to the RTC.

Secondly, your details will be on an accident/collision card with the collision clerk at the police station which covers the area of the incident...

So you should be able to find the details.

I would recommend that you popped into a police station and ask to see a Sergeant...who should be able to find the information you require...

[silverback mike]

As above really, there will be a comms log, from which the officers dealing can be located. They will have filled out an ARB (Accident report book) to which the HORT1's were attached.

If officers attended, then the paperwork will definately be in the system, no matter what anyone says.

Rgds, Mike.

[gone]

I don't think you will get anywhere with a complaint about the fact the Police did not look after your interests.

The Police have to be impartial. They are not in the business of looking after interests. It is their roll to record the incident correctly, remove any obstruction/debris from the highway, ensure safety at the scene, to make sure the law is complied with, then prosecute any offences which may come to light!

If it was of the magnitude it appears to have been, a report will be in the system somewhere. It sounds like an Insurance CO. cop out to me!

[Dibble]

silverback mike said:

If officers attended, then the paperwork will definately be in the system, no matter what anyone says.

...unless it's gone in the "Magic Fax"...















aka "shredder" - "Nope Sarge, I never saw that enquiry you said you left in my basket..."

[streaky]

gone said:

I don't think you will get anywhere with a complaint about the fact the Police did not look after your interests. The Police have to be impartial. They are not in the business of looking after interests.

I suspect that the "interests" referred to were those in general of a citizen and taxpayer. If the police took statements, there is surely a 'duty' on them to maintain those statements in a readily accessible and readable form for some period of time (seven years, in perpetuity, whatever) and to provide them to anyone having a right of (or permission to) access.

If statements were taken (as is reported) and are now 'lost', then that duty has not been upheld. If the aggrieved suffers loss as a result, then perhaps they have a case against the police.

Whatever, ever-helpful BiB have provided sufficient clues to start tracing. If the evidence (logs, etc.) appears to support the fact that statements were taken, but no written statements can be found, then questions arise over procedure.

Following on from this and particularly in relation to statements made by Brunsturmfurher to the effect that 'speeders are usually involved in other criminal activity', why is it that when his force (sorry, 'service') did something illegal (automated 'signing' of statements), he did not tar himself with the same brush? [A rhetorical question, I know .]

Experience shows that procedural failures in one area are not uncommonly indicators of procedural failures in other areas. 'Institutionalised procedural-failurism', perhaps?

Streaky