Poor service from the police.

[Sara_H]

At the beginning of December I was rear ended in my car at a red traffic light.

The driver refused to exchange details and drove away. I got the reg number and reported itimmediately. I was given the impression at the time that they were going to make enquiries that afternoon.

Eight days later I phoned the police and was amazed when the police officer told me that they had not called on the driver but were writing to him informing him that they intended to prosecute him.

My car has subsequently been written off, and I am now £250 (my excess) out of pocket.

Lo and behold, my insurance company called me yesterday morning to tell me that the driver of the other car has witnesses who can prove that he didn't crash into me, so I am not able to claim my excess from him.

I'm really cross with the way the police have handled this. If they'd looked into this incident on the day it happened they'd have found a damaged car. As it is their lack of response has allowed the driver time to repair any damage and to arrange an allibi.

I called the police yesterday for an update, still waiting for a call back.

I'm really very disapointed by the way the police conduct buisness these days.

 

[vernon]

The difficulty lies in the provision of proof.

Do you have any witnesses that saw the incident?

I'm not sure how the police can proceed with a prosecution. They have to refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service and there has to be a very strong chance of a successful prosecution before the CPS will allow a prosecution to take place..

The police are not obliged to get involved unless there's personal injury.

It's not so much poor service from the police - they are not in any position to influence the outcome of an insurance claim.

It's the wiggle out manoeuvres that insurance companies make to avoid paying out.

I know it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth but I don't think that you'll make much more progress.

 

[brokenflipflop]

At the beginning of December I was rear ended in my car at a red traffic light.

The driver refused to exchange details and drove away. I got the reg number and reported itimmediately. I was given the impression at the time that they were going to make enquiries that afternoon.

Eight days later I phoned the police and was amazed when the police officer told me that they had not called on the driver but were writing to him informing him that they intended to prosecute him.

My car has subsequently been written off, and I am now £250 (my excess) out of pocket.

Lo and behold, my insurance company called me yesterday morning to tell me that the driver of the other car has witnesses who can prove that he didn't crash into me, so I am not able to claim my excess from him.

I'm really cross with the way the police have handled this. If they'd looked into this incident on the day it happened they'd have found a damaged car. As it is their lack of response has allowed the driver time to repair any damage and to arrange an allibi.

I called the police yesterday for an update, still waiting for a call back.

I'm really very disapointed by the way the police conduct buisness these days.

You should have said you're Sarah Jessica Parker - you would have had 50 coppers and the Police helicopter by your side within 5 minutes. I remember in the 80's Jerry Hall reported a burglary and half the Met turned up !
The Police are incompetent at best and useless at worst. Lets face it, dealing with your case wont get them promoted and I dare say you're bottom of the list of their priorities. Unfortunately you've been hit by a lying bar steward and the Police are disinterested. You have my sympathy. Good luck with it.

 

[Bman]

At the beginning of December I was rear ended in my car at a red traffic light.

The driver refused to exchange details and drove away. I got the reg number and reported itimmediately. I was given the impression at the time that they were going to make enquiries that afternoon.

Eight days later I phoned the police and was amazed when the police officer told me that they had not called on the driver but were writing to him informing him that they intended to prosecute him.

My car has subsequently been written off, and I am now £250 (my excess) out of pocket.

Lo and behold, my insurance company called me yesterday morning to tell me that the driver of the other car has witnesses who can prove that he didn't crash into me, so I am not able to claim my excess from him.

I'm really cross with the way the police have handled this. If they'd looked into this incident on the day it happened they'd have found a damaged car. As it is their lack of response has allowed the driver time to repair any damage and to arrange an allibi.

I called the police yesterday for an update, still waiting for a call back.

I'm really very disapointed by the way the police conduct buisness these days.

WHEN!?

How can he claim to have witnesses, unless he knows the time and date the incident took place? Does he carry around several witnesses at all times!?

Yeah, thats pretty s**t policing.... Proper questioning could have revealed the facts.

 

[ASC1951]

The difficulty lies in the provision of proof.

Do you have any witnesses that saw the incident?

...

The police are not obliged to get involved unless there's personal injury.

Driving off without giving name and address and insurance details is a criminal offence, and not a trivial one. 10 points, as I recall.

You could always sue the other driver for your excess, Sara, but without witnesses that is a very long shot. I'm with Vernon - nothing you can realistically do.

 

[Sara_H]

WHEN!?

How can he claim to have witnesses, unless he knows the time and date the incident took place? Does he carry around several witnesses at all times!?

Yeah, thats pretty s**t policing.... Proper questioning could have revealed the facts.

Thats what I think too.

On the day of the incident I was given the impression that they were going to go out to the reistered keepers address, where they would have found a damaged car and someone would have had some explaining to do.

As it is, their approach has allowed the person responsible to cover their tracks.

 

[vernon]

Thats what I think too.

On the day of the incident I was given the impression that they were going to go out to the reistered keepers address, where they would have found a damaged car and someone would have had some explaining to do.

As it is, their approach has allowed the person responsible to cover their tracks.

Finding a damaged car proves nothing other than a collision had taken place. If you have no witnesses you could be accused of reversing into the other car and how would disprove that?

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Dear Sara,

You have been let down by the police. It is an offence for this driver to be involved in accident and fail to provide his name and address. May I suggest that you send the details to your MP you will be surprised how important your case becomes. Try this http://www.writetothem.com/.

Good luck.

 

[Beebo]

i had a similar experience about 7 years ago. I had to swallow the excess and my no claims bonus. It's one persons word against the other.

This was before everyone had a camera on their phone. Now I suggest that you immediatley take pictures of the driver, both cars and the road if you have a crash. This will record where the crash occurred, what the damage was, what the driver looked like and whether there were any passengers in the car to act as witnesses.

 

[Sara_H]

Funny you should say that, I was explaining to my inlaws about helmet cams the other day - I said I feel as if I should wear one permenantly on my head to record the unfortunate happenings that have beenmany in my life this past year!

In seriousness, the OH is considering kitting our one remaining car with CCTV after this experience - despite the fact that this incident happened at a busy time of day, none of the witnesses waited to give details.

 

[Crankarm]

1) Complain to the IPCC about plod's lack of diligence.

2) Tell your insurance company that you believe very strongly that the other party has acted fraudulently by obtaining witnesses who were definitely NOT there and MUST be known to him/her.

3) Always carry a camera so you can take pics of the other vehicle, any damage, the driver and any occupants of the vehicle. A bit like when you are cycling.

 

[Sara_H]

I did have a camera at the time, but to be honest, he zoomed off so quickly that it was a very lucky coincidence that I haad a pen and a peice of paper in the door pocket. I barely had time to write down the reg.

 

[vernon]

In seriousness, the OH is considering kitting our one remaining car with CCTV after this experience - despite the fact that this incident happened at a busy time of day, none of the witnesses waited to give details.

I take it that you'll have front, side and rear facing cameras

It's not so much what is recorded on camera as what happens off camera that can sometimes render accusations worthless.

 

[Dave W]

Certain forms have to be served on the registered keeper to identify the driver of the vehicle at a particular time and date, unfortunately this takes time and has to follow legal process. The registered keeper has 28 days to reply if I remember correctly.

As has been mentioned above, the police will not get involved in a none injury rtc, the offence here is failing to report an accident/exchange details. Nothing can be done in the first 24 hours anyway as you have that long to report an accident.

 

[CopperCyclist]

You're half right...

It was poor from the police to not go out at an early stage and see the other drivers car, making some preliminary enquiries as well.

However, writing a letter to the driver is standard fare. You should expect the registered keeper to be sent a notice informing him that he by law has to name the driver of the car at the time of the incident. If he fails to do so he gets charged with a separate offence of failing to do this (Gaz has had someone charged with this if I recall correctly). The registered keeper has a maximum of 28 days to reply, which we can do nothing to speed up. I suspect this is the letter they have been sent.

I'd recontact the officer in charge of your case to tell them the update that the driver has claimed he didn't crash into you, as this in itself puts him in the drivers seat. He'll then get interviewed about it. If he goes with the 'I didn't notice' line of argument, which is common, this isn't the same as him swearing it didn't happen and things normally turn out in favour of the reportee.

The bad news is that if he really has a witness willing to lie for him, then it's not looking good - unless of course there's some definitive proof that shows them to be lying (CCTV best, independent witness not quite as good). If CCTV showed them to be lying they could be prosecuted with attempting to pervert the course of justice. Without this, our criminal justice system has always been weighted in favour of those willing to lie under oath on the presumption that people won't.

Unfortunately, you are going to see this more and more in the current climate, especially for non injury RTCs. The frontline cuts (that haven't happened officially of course, despite the fact my shift is down from 45 officers to 25 now...) mean that quite often we're only just treading water attending the serious jobs with a threat to life/limb, so the odds of getting someone free on the day to attend more minor incidents is unlikely. Write to your MP as suggested above.