Hit and run..., Motorcycle hit and damaged, third party did not stop... |
Hit and run..., Motorcycle hit and damaged, third party did not stop... |
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 11:24
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 368 Joined: 24 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,350 |
This is an enquiry at this stage and maybe for some advice...
I visited ASDA on Drayton High Road in Norwich (Hellesdon) yesterday at around 13:45 and parked my motorcycle in a marked out bay. CCTV shows that around 20 minutes later at 14:04, a white/silver car, possibly an Audi came in to shot on the camera and reversed in to my bike and knocked it over causing around £200 (this is only an estimate from visible damage, getting it looked at on Thursday/Friday properly) of damage. This was broad daylight, cloudy and had been raining but was not at the time. Bent kick stand, left clutch assembly and lever damaged needing to be replaced and petrol leaking from the tank (it was on its side for an hour before it was reported. I have reported the incident to police as a fail to stop/hit and run offence as the driver took off as shown in the footage and left no details. I have also spoken at length to ASDA staff and they showed me the stills from CCTV that proves that the car did the damage beyond all doubt. There is no registration number on the camera because it is to far away to be seen and the driver did not report the incident to the security at ASDA but instead just drove off. ASDA will not supply me with the footage using the Data Protection Act 1998 as a reason and I have no way of getting it. I now have what is essentially a written off bike that I cannot ride and ASDA are not being very helpful and are saying that I have to wait for the Police to deal with it in which case it will end up with me waiting potentially weeks or even up to 6 months for them to do anything! ParkingEye have ANPR cameras at this site, and I have contacted them multiple times today and they are saying the same old thing, basically using it as an excuse to refuse to tell me the number plate of the car that hit my bike so I can claim for the damage on his insurance and of course pass it to the police for them to investigate. I am extremely frustrated and it just seems that these companies deliberately put barriers in my way to make it as difficult as possible to get the info I need to pursue the driver for causing damage to my bike. My motorcycle is my only means of transport and I now have none because of the idiot that failed to stop. Someone please say that I have other avenues to pursue the companies for the information I require to get my bike fixed. What are my options? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 11:24
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 23:52
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
when I file a county court action against them for withholding information that I am entitled to? Can a county court order the release of the data? -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 00:24
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 368 Joined: 24 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,350 |
I believe so under section 35 (2)(a) and (b) of the Data Protection Act 1998. I welcome corrections if I am wrong.
This post has been edited by «THÖMÅS®©™»: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 00:25 |
|
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 00:52
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
I believe so under section 35 (2)(a) and (b) of the Data Protection Act 1998. I welcome corrections if I am wrong. I believe you are wrong. Those provisions simply allow PE to disclose the data if they want to. It doesnt mean that they're required to. |
|
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 00:56
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 368 Joined: 24 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,350 |
OK, thanks '666', was not 100% sure, that is why I welcomed corrections if I was wrong.
But I am sure that a court order would oblige them right? **EDIT** Out of curiosity, what address do I send an LBA should the police investigation go south and I have to take them to court to get my hands on the information I require? Just as an FYI, I will send it recorded as well if I have to. I plan to write the letter in preparation for that possibility so I don't have to be in a panic if the police tell me that they cannot take the matter any further. All I have managed to find is some obscure PO Box address and I am certain that you cannot file legal claims against someone based at a PO Box. Could someone clarify this please, and if possible, get me a proper address for them not some box in a post office that is probably never checked? Thanks again. This post has been edited by «THÖMÅS®©™»: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 03:49 |
|
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 08:57
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Then if ParkingEye don't supply it at the request of the police, then I would suggest that they are being deliberately obstructive. Possibly so but they’re entitled to be as obstructive as they like if they’re under no obligation to provide the information. A county court can make the order you seek under its equitable jurisdiction. Whether the grounds are met and it will exercise its discretion are different matters. You are not entitled to the information, you would be asking the court to exercise its discretion to assist you. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 13:46
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 368 Joined: 24 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,350 |
**UPDATE**
Would it surprise anyone here to know that ParkingEye are asking for £75 from the police to get the information they require? |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 14:28
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
**UPDATE** Would it surprise anyone here to know that ParkingEye are asking for £75 from the police to get the information they require? Not surprising for any company to charge for their time. -------------------- |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 15:37
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
**UPDATE** Would it surprise anyone here to know that ParkingEye are asking for £75 from the police to get the information they require? It's far cheaper for the police to pay the £75 than it would be to go and seize all the data and sift through it. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 17:42
Post
#49
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
It's far cheaper for the police to pay the £75 than it would be to go and seize all the data and sift through it. Even assuming the police had some power to "seize" the data. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 18:06
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I am somewhat surprised but since it’s merely a request from the police they can ask for payment to cover their costs. A (civil) court order would allow them to charge too.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 18:08
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 368 Joined: 24 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,350 |
I am of the view that £75 is silly, maybe £10 would have been more appropriate.
|
|
|
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 22:29
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I doubt the police will pay for the information. Whether you or anyone else views the amount as silly isn’t really the point. They can charge what they like.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 03:31
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 368 Joined: 24 Nov 2011 Member No.: 51,350 |
I did tell the police that if it comes to it, I will pay for it myself and then get it back from the driver if traced.
|
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 11:32
Post
#54
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
It's far cheaper for the police to pay the £75 than it would be to go and seize all the data and sift through it. Even assuming the police had some power to "seize" the data. Oh don't worry about that, if the police really wanted to they could seize the data, no problem at all with that. Sections 19 of PACE lends itself well to this scenario, and, should all else fail, I struggle to see a court refusing a section 8 warrant. It's just boils down to the fact that, in terms of police time, either of those routes would cost way, way more than £75. I did tell the police that if it comes to it, I will pay for it myself and then get it back from the driver if traced. That's probably a good idea, remember you don't even need to trace the driver, you only need to confirm the number plate. You can then claim off the insurance in force for that car, even if the identity of the driver is never established. Even if the car doesn't have insurance, you can still make a claim against the Motor Insurance Bureau. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 11:43
Post
#55
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 349 Joined: 21 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,881 |
S19 Pace? Where exactly are the Police going to go to be able to seize the relevant data? As for a S8 warrant, really?
Whilst £75 is not a lot in the grand scheme of things I would be surprised if the Police paid this for a minor bump especially when it won't prove the offence (I would be happy to be proved wrong!). -------------------- If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
|
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 11:58
Post
#56
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
S19 Pace? Where exactly are the Police going to go to be able to seize the relevant data? Presumably ParkingEye HQ and the ASDA store where the OP saw the recording. As for a S8 warrant, really? If the police thought it were worth asking for one, I can't see the bench refusing. How exactly would that go? Police: "Your worships, we have sworn evidence that a driver hit a motorbike, writing it off, and then without leaving any details, made good their escape. We have credible information that on the premises of ParkingEye Limited there is evidence as to the registration plate of the offender's vehicle..." Magistrate: "Hmm, I see, so the driver is guilty of a hit and run and if I do not grant this warrant, the alleged offender may escape conviction for one or more criminal offences, and the victim will not recover their civil loss. However, upon reflection, it's nearly lunch time and I have a long trial this afternoon, so for the sake of expediency I won't issue a warrant, I guess it's just tough s*!t for the victim. The court is adjourned!" Whilst £75 is not a lot in the grand scheme of things I would be surprised if the Police paid this for a minor bump especially when it won't prove the offence (I would be happy to be proved wrong!). The CCTV from ParkingEye, together with the CCTV from ASDA, is surely enough to prove the driver failed to stop at the scene of an accident, which he then failed to report? This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 11:59 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 12:25
Post
#57
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
S19 Pace? Where exactly are the Police going to go to be able to seize the relevant data? Presumably ParkingEye HQ and the ASDA store where the OP saw the recording. They'd have a bit of a problem with this requirement that crops up throughout s19, which is hardly likely to apply to a reputable and disinterested third party like Asda, wouldn't they? QUOTE that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, tampered with or destroyed. I don't think anybody's suggesting that it would be difficult for the police to obtain the video (a court order would be no more than part of a mass rubber-stamping exercise), but to imply that they could just go storming into Asda and grab the CCTV DVD at will, is somewhat fanciful. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:45
Post
#58
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
They'd have a bit of a problem with this requirement that crops up throughout s19, which is hardly likely to apply to a reputable and disinterested third party like Asda, wouldn't they? Reputable, are you having a laugh? The chances of an organisation like ASDA loosing or over-writing the recording are far from fanciful. I suspect the reality is that if plod went into ASDA and simply said "we're having this DVD" the manager's answer would be more along the lines of "All right guv" rather than "Come back with a warrant". -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 13:47
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I struggle to see a court refusing a section 8 warrant. I do. QUOTE (1) If on an application made by a constable a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing— (a) that an indictable offence has been committed; Since when has fail to stop been indictable? -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 14:02
Post
#60
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
They'd have a bit of a problem with this requirement that crops up throughout s19, which is hardly likely to apply to a reputable and disinterested third party like Asda, wouldn't they? Reputable, are you having a laugh? The chances of an organisation like ASDA loosing or over-writing the recording are far from fanciful. I suspect the reality is that if plod went into ASDA and simply said "we're having this DVD" the manager's answer would be more along the lines of "All right guv" rather than "Come back with a warrant". Having been on the receiving end of quite a few similar requests for information in relation to this site, strangely enough I've yet to have a visit from plod, let alone an attempt to seize anything - and you'd imagine they'd be more concerned about information possibly "going missing" from a site like Pepipoo than they would Asda. The reality is that you get a polite phone call or email requesting the information, and if you decline in the absence of a court order they thank you, let you know they intend to obtain one, and a couple of days later a copy of the order turns up in your inbox. All very straightforward, polite, and no dawn raids with a SWAT team in attendance. Mind you, I am now kicking myself about not asking for £75 for my trouble, if that's the going rate from ParkingEye for going through a few VRM captures! -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:06 |