PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Alleged dangerous, leaving scene & failing to report.
cabbyman
post Tue, 21 Oct 2008 - 23:08
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,831
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Mother-in-law (MIL) is RK.

Father-in-law (FIL) is driving.

Both are pensioners.

Queue of slow moving traffic...Bike pulled into gap in front and proceeded slowly. FIL does not believe he was 'tailgating' but biker turned and shook his fist; FIL responded by shaking his fist. Biker stopped and walked back towards the car. FIL got out of car.

Biker said 'I'm gonna punch your f***ing block off.' FIL responded, 'I'm gonna punch your f***ing block off.' Nothing happened although you get the picture even if the script is not precise!

Apparently, during this exchange, the bike fell over and, possibly because the engine was still running, 'appeared' to spin in circles. It is alleged to have sustained some minor damage in the form of scratches or possibly slightly more severe.

Biker said 'look what you've done to my bike!' FIL replied, 'I didn't do anything. It just fell over.'

Biker girl came up and asked for 'details' (ie name, address, insurance, etc.). FIL refused to give details as there was no accident. He got back into the car and left.

You know what's coming next:

MIL receives (I believe) s172 request. She filled it in, nominating FIL, and sent it off with a letter outlining their side of the story.

FIL has now (about 2 weeks ago) received his own s172 alleging dangerous driving, leaving the scene and failing to report.

I am told that there was no contact between the two vehicles or, indeed, the parties involved.

How should this be fought?

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 - 23:40


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 3)
Advertisement
post Tue, 21 Oct 2008 - 23:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
BaggieBoy
post Tue, 21 Oct 2008 - 23:59
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,536
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
From: North Hampshire
Member No.: 5,183



Any other witnesses?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 22 Oct 2008 - 00:14
Post #3


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,976
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 22 Oct 2008 - 00:08) *
How should this be fought?


Doesn't seem to be much that can be done at this stage.

Obviously, FIL must comply with the s. 172 requirement. There is case law which provides that if the vehicle in question was not involved in the alleged offence, there is no driver to name, but here it is the alleged offence that is disputed, not the involvement of the vehicle.

The other party presumably intend to make a claim against FIL/MIL's insurance, and need the relevant contact details - hence the complaint to the police and the s. 172. S. 172 requires that there is an allegation of an offence - it is by no means certain that the police will prosecute or even investigate (although they should investigate when a complaint is made).

Contemporaneous notes (or as contemporaneous as they can be considering that the incident was probably some time ago) by those involved and those that they spoke to about the incident are generally a good idea (as DW190 says - blunt pencils are better than sharp memories).

How long ago was the incident? How long after the incident was MIL's NIP/s. 172 received? [N.B. this may be utterly irrelevant - FIL's 'defence' is that there was no accident/collision - if the contrary is found, there is no requirement for a NIP for the dangerous driving allegation]


--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Wed, 22 Oct 2008 - 12:35
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,831
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Thanks for that, Andy. I have now pointed MIL in the direction of the topic so, hopefully, she will add her own questions in due course.

The original s172 went back quite quickly.

Baggie, I am not aware of any other witnesses than those mentioned above.

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 - 12:41


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 14th August 2020 - 10:17
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.