A question for the boys in blue....

[MBH]

last December my MCoupe was hit by a van while parked outside my house. Fortunately a neighbour had noted the number plate (after having just pointed out to the driver that he was parked illegally and blocking an entrance). I went through the usual channels, Police, my insurers etc to try to track down the van driver who had - surprise surprise - driven off.

The Police, my insurer and the DVLA all gave the same name and address as the registered keeper. However when they all finally caught up with him he claimed he had sold the van (they day before the accident) and although the name and address he supplied do not exist the Police refuse to pursue the matter.

I spoke to the case officer on Friday (a very polite and apologetic chap) who said that as they could not prove he was guilty there was nothing further they could do. He also pointed out that this happens all the time.

What I am struggling to understand is that this is now more than just leaving the scene of an accident, surely there is - potentially - fraud involved as well as the name and address given don't exist. I also pointed out that two neighbours had seen the man (one had spoken to him) and they would be willing to identify him.

It just seems strange that the following all occurred:-

- Someone parks a van illegally overnight and sleeps in it (one neighbour thought he had a baby in there with him as well)
- After being confronted backs into a parked car and drives off
- Police are given a name and address that don't exist
- Unable to produce a receipt of sale
- Only informed his insurance company of the sale 15 days after the accident, i.e when he had received a letter from both the Police and my insurance company.

I am incredibly fortunate that his insurer have just paid up (which would suggest an admission of guilt) but that was only after legal action was threatened and the matter went all the way to board level. If it had not been for that then I would be GBP1300 out of pocked and stuck with higher insurance premiums, despite all the obvious signs pointing to this chap. Financially I have no reason to chase this, but it is a matter of principle.

Is there really nothing further the Police can do in such a situation?

[Dwight VanDriver]

Whilst privy to your side of the story I have no information from BiB's side other than the fact that the matter apparently was investigated during which witnesses will have been interviewed. Looks as if they have not come up to scratch to satisfy CPS that their evidence had more clout than the denial of the suspect.

Insurance may well have paid out as under civil law all that has to be proved is "the balance of probabilty" as opposed under criminal law "beyond any reasonable doubt"

Nice to hear at least your not out of pocket.

DVD

[streaky]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Insurance may well have paid out as under civil law all that has to be proved is "the balance of probabilty" as opposed under criminal law "beyond any reasonable doubt"

This is often seen to be a lesser test, in reality (in court) it can be a greater one. In a criminal court, the defence has to introduce, to create, to engender the worm of doubt in the minds of some jurers. In a civil court the matters are weighed each against the other.

Having appeared in both as a witness, (on either sides too) I can say that I have seen miscarriages of justice in both, but have understood those better in the criminal court.

Streaky

[MBH]

it is worth pointing out that none of the witnesses were interviewed, in fact they were not even contacted. That is despite the fact that I traipsed around gathering information from each of them!

After submitting the reams of forms to the Police I didn't hear anything from them at all for 12 weeks. It was only when I started chasing that I got some "answers".

Based on that evidence, it would appear that there is a loophole in the law. Have a crash, lie about selling your car...

[Flat in Fifth]

MBH said:

Based on that evidence, it would appear that there is a loophole in the law. Have a crash, lie about selling your car...

Perverting course of justice beckons with that one.

Presumably bib have been unable to prove that he did not sell the van.

Remember the case in W Mids a year or so ago with a lad done for speeding well into three figs in a 40limit using his fathers Golf iirc.

Pops claimed he had sold the car. Both were lucky to escape custodial imho.

[MBH]

correct - that was what they told me, that it was next to impossible to prove that he had not sold the van.

I did point out that two neighbours were willing and able to identify the driver, that he only informed his insurance company of the sale after he had received letters from the Police and his insurance co, that he couldn't produce a receipt and that the name and address he gave were false. At what point is reasonable doubt reached? Surely the DVLA can state who the new owner is, therefore they can prove or disprove what he is saying?

[BliarOut]

IIRC, You can now ask the DVLA for the details of the RK yourself for a nominal fee. All you need is a reasonable reason for the request, which I would say you have in this case.

[Rob_the_Sparky]

If you have 2 witnesses that can identify him as the driver why do you need to prove whether he had sold the van or not?

Rob

[Size Nine Elm]

Rob_the_Sparky said:

If you have 2 witnesses that can identify him as the driver why do you need to prove whether he had sold the van or not? Rob

Indeed, if he had sold the van (as he claims), but was driving (as shown by witnesses), there might be some additional offense of no insurance, if he hadn't informed the insurance company.

[MBH]

no - there is not an issue of lack of insurance. A certain insurance company based near Alan Partridge openly admitted they had cover out on that van in his name at the time. Logically though, there could be an issue of fraud if a false name and address was supplied.

The issue with identifying him is that while two neighbours can identify the driver, unless the Police agree to do an identity parade that gets us no further...

[Rob_the_Sparky]

In other words the police can't be arsed?