mickygixxer? can you help?

[STEALTH52]

where do we stand? my boss has had a phone call from someone saying that on thurs our work van hit a parked car as i was seeing my work colleague into a space, at no point did our truck touch the parked car & im certain of this. we spoke to the fella on the phone & explained that it wasn't us but he's sure it was as he reckons that his neighbour saw us do it. (which is crap)

now he's saying (more than 24 hours later) that he is going to get the police involved & that he has two witnesses.

the blokes obviously trying an insurance job to get a dent fixed on his car
but we know that it wasn't us, where do we stand?

[Lateshift]

Innocent until proven guilty :)

Any marks on the truck?

You and your mate against 2 other witnesses, seems a clear case of your word against theirs to me, if there is no marks at all on your truck then i dont think even the Police will want to have anything to do with it :)

Its supposed to be "beyond reasonable doubt" as far as i know, and that is normally backed up by evidence :)

[STEALTH52]

Innocent until proven guilty :)

Any marks on the truck?

You and your mate against 2 other witnesses, seems a clear case of your word against theirs to me, if there is no marks at all on your truck then i dont think even the Police will want to have anything to do with it :)

Its supposed to be "beyond reasonable doubt" as far as i know, and that is normally backed up by evidence :)

nope no marks on our truck at all, we've even measured the height of the bumpers & indicators & they dont measure up to the height of the dent on his car. i always thought that unless someone is injured or you leave the scene of an accident the police will not normally get involved and let the insurance companies fight over it.

[Lateshift]

The Police can get involved if someone makes a complaint.

But if there is no possible way that the damage could have been caused by your vehicle i wouldnt worry about it, its for them to argue that it was.

Ask for the other guy's insurance details and then ring his insurance company warning them that he is about to try and make a fraudulent insurance claim, tell him that you are about to do it too, it normally makes them think otherwise :D

[STEALTH52]

The Police can get involved if someone makes a complaint.

But if there is no possible way that the damage could have been caused by your vehicle i wouldnt worry about it, its for them to argue that it was.

Ask for the other guy's insurance details and then ring his insurance company warning them that he is about to try and make a fraudulent insurance claim, tell him that you are about to do it too, it normally makes them think otherwise :D

my companys sorting all that out, hopefully i wont have to get involved, at the end of the day if the police come knocking then all ive got to to is tell them that i didnt see the truck hit the car, which is the case anyway! good thing is at least it's the company insurance so it wont affect mine! the fella's blatantly trying it on anyway because he reckons that we drove down the side of his car but the van wouldn't even fit through the gap anyway so we reversed and parked behind! so therefore if the van wouldn't go through the gap how could we have scraped down the side!!!!

[stusgsx]

what about going back to where you parked and see if theres any cctv?

[STEALTH52]

i doubt it, it was just a normal built up area, side street, i'll just see what happens, end of the day it's the companies insurance not mine so not too bothered!

[stusgsx]

thats a ****. yea could be worse. wouldnt worry then mate

[MickyGixer]

This isn’t the first time I’ve come across this oddly enough - and being unbiased in my approach this should be looked at from 2 points of view.:grin2

The ‘complainant’ is ‘genuinely mistaken’ *cough cough* or may have misinterpreted what ‘any’ witness(es) have told him.:rolleyes:

The ‘complainant’ is deffo on the scam:shooter and the two witnesses are either know to him, don’t exist and this is a call you bluff tactic, or are also ‘genuinely mistaken’ *cough cough*

To clarify the point about Police involvement in accidents.
Section 170 Road Traffic Act 1988 in summary;
If you are involved in an accident which causes damage or injury to any other person, vehicle animal or property, you MUST
- stop
- give your own and the vehicle owner’s name and address, and the registration number of the vehicle, to anyone having reasonable grounds for requiring them
- if you do not give your name and address at the time of the accident, report the accident to the Police as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case within 24 hours.:reading
(This obviously changes with serious injury or damage, Police need to be called in any case).

Sounds like the insurance are so far sorting it out, you have done the right thing insofar as giving your account and measuring the vehicle your colleague was using. If you are adamant about this being a scam (and I don’t doubt your word in using that phrase) then you/your colleague need to speak with your fleet manager and push this point home. Ask him/her to enquire with the company insurance as to whether they have reported this as a fraud to the Police. If you know it’s a scam – and again I use the phrase ‘genuinely mistaken’ then don’t leave it too late. If the complainant is ‘genuinely mistaken’ then you may find they might be quite ‘persistant’ with the claim even with the allegation of fraud made or that they suddenly back of stating they had been misinformed by their witness(es).:rolleyes: It would be interesting to know from what angle or from where the witness saw this ‘apparent’ collision with the complainants vehicle.:headbash

I take it from your post that the claim is based on the witness(es) and not the complainant himself. Insurance companies are pretty hot on this stuff nowadays and as we all know they won’t pay up at the slightest hint of anything dodgy.

If you stick by your colleague and with the support of your firm then they should get it dealt with and in the worse case scenario the Police may become involved. This however should only be from the point of ‘Failing to report an accident’. :o
Do you know if this chap actually went to the Police station and made a ‘complaint’ as he stated he would? He can still make the complaint after 24 hours as he only just received the information – or so he could claim – the responsibility to report falls on the person who knew they were ‘Involved in an accident’ and that is what I can only assume from what you have written on the post.

Regardless of that your firms insurance should get disclosure of everything that has been forwarded by the complainant to his insurance company and will also request the report he made to Police.:reading In the case of accidents reported ‘over the counter’ it’s a tick the box form which requests a summary to be given and witness details of what happened. The Police would be reluctant to get ‘too’ involved unless pushed by the insurance company on behalf of the complainant and may hold back for now, but this varies from force to force and depends on their own local policies and current traffic initiatives.

I would strongly advise that your work colleague gets sight of all of this disclosure and read its contents.:reading He as the driver has sole responsibility for that vehicle when he is driving/manoeuvring it and is the only person liable. You are also his ‘significant witness’ so you should get sight of it too and check to see if you are implicated in any way.

It’s a rather awkward and very uncomfortable situation to be in:( , it’s sadly not a quick process to resolve and I hope it goes in your favour. Luckily insurance companies don’t use the ‘balance or probability’ method. If they aren’t happy they will simply not pay out and if need be let it go to a claims court. Any qualified assessor could look at the damage on the ‘complainant’ vehicle and tell you that there would ‘have’ to be damage to your works van (and that is just an assumption on my part as I haven’t obviously seen the vehicles).

Anyway I think I’ve made this post quite long enough….lolol…Good Luck.:)

[The Guvnor]

WOW !!!!!!:reading

Did you have 3 shredded wheat this morning ?:grin2

[stusgsx]

and a wheatabix!

[STEALTH52]

thanks for that thats put my mind at rest a bit. the weird thing is that we were parked at the house for an hour so surely if we did hit something as this person said we did then someone would of came out? as far as im concerned i didnt see the truck hit any cars when i was guiding him in to the space & im simply going to stick to my story as it's the truth. we know it wasn't us at the end of the day & i'll just let our company sort it out & keep us informed. thanks for that though micky.

[MickyGixer]

we were parked at the house for an hour so surely if we did hit something as this person said we did then someone would of came out?

This is a valid point and should be brought to the attention of the insurance. Recently my neighbours plumber backed his van into the side of the 'bucket':jumping2 (my car as its lovingly known) and pushed the wing in with his towball. He was completely oblivious but my neighbour told me the next day and even stuck a note on his van and on my car.:grin2

He came round looked at the damage and is getting it sorted. Sadly a few people don't like to get involved and 'love thy neighbour' only attends to apply to the swinging community nowadays....:jumping2

[STEALTH52]

This isn’t the first time I’ve come across this oddly enough - and being unbiased in my approach this should be looked at from 2 points of view.:grin2

The ‘complainant’ is ‘genuinely mistaken’ *cough cough* or may have misinterpreted what ‘any’ witness(es) have told him.:rolleyes:

The ‘complainant’ is deffo on the scam:shooter and the two witnesses are either know to him, don’t exist and this is a call you bluff tactic, or are also ‘genuinely mistaken’ *cough cough*

To clarify the point about Police involvement in accidents.
Section 170 Road Traffic Act 1988 in summary;
If you are involved in an accident which causes damage or injury to any other person, vehicle animal or property, you MUST
- stop
- give your own and the vehicle owner’s name and address, and the registration number of the vehicle, to anyone having reasonable grounds for requiring them
- if you do not give your name and address at the time of the accident, report the accident to the Police as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case within 24 hours.:reading
(This obviously changes with serious injury or damage, Police need to be called in any case).

Sounds like the insurance are so far sorting it out, you have done the right thing insofar as giving your account and measuring the vehicle your colleague was using. If you are adamant about this being a scam (and I don’t doubt your word in using that phrase) then you/your colleague need to speak with your fleet manager and push this point home. Ask him/her to enquire with the company insurance as to whether they have reported this as a fraud to the Police. If you know it’s a scam – and again I use the phrase ‘genuinely mistaken’ then don’t leave it too late. If the complainant is ‘genuinely mistaken’ then you may find they might be quite ‘persistant’ with the claim even with the allegation of fraud made or that they suddenly back of stating they had been misinformed by their witness(es).:rolleyes: It would be interesting to know from what angle or from where the witness saw this ‘apparent’ collision with the complainants vehicle.:headbash

I take it from your post that the claim is based on the witness(es) and not the complainant himself. Insurance companies are pretty hot on this stuff nowadays and as we all know they won’t pay up at the slightest hint of anything dodgy.

If you stick by your colleague and with the support of your firm then they should get it dealt with and in the worse case scenario the Police may become involved. This however should only be from the point of ‘Failing to report an accident’. :o
Do you know if this chap actually went to the Police station and made a ‘complaint’ as he stated he would? He can still make the complaint after 24 hours as he only just received the information – or so he could claim – the responsibility to report falls on the person who knew they were ‘Involved in an accident’ and that is what I can only assume from what you have written on the post.

Regardless of that your firms insurance should get disclosure of everything that has been forwarded by the complainant to his insurance company and will also request the report he made to Police.:reading In the case of accidents reported ‘over the counter’ it’s a tick the box form which requests a summary to be given and witness details of what happened. The Police would be reluctant to get ‘too’ involved unless pushed by the insurance company on behalf of the complainant and may hold back for now, but this varies from force to force and depends on their own local policies and current traffic initiatives.

I would strongly advise that your work colleague gets sight of all of this disclosure and read its contents.:reading He as the driver has sole responsibility for that vehicle when he is driving/manoeuvring it and is the only person liable. You are also his ‘significant witness’ so you should get sight of it too and check to see if you are implicated in any way.

It’s a rather awkward and very uncomfortable situation to be in:( , it’s sadly not a quick process to resolve and I hope it goes in your favour. Luckily insurance companies don’t use the ‘balance or probability’ method. If they aren’t happy they will simply not pay out and if need be let it go to a claims court. Any qualified assessor could look at the damage on the ‘complainant’ vehicle and tell you that there would ‘have’ to be damage to your works van (and that is just an assumption on my part as I haven’t obviously seen the vehicles).

Anyway I think I’ve made this post quite long enough….lolol…Good Luck.:)


the chap told my boss over the phone that he was going to call the police, dont know if he actually has or not yet though. the witnesses would have been in thier houses & would not of been able to see the side ofr the car that is apparantly damaged. there was no one on the street that i am aware of. there are no marks to our truck apart from the normal odd mark but nothing at that level & we obviously cant report an accident to the police that never happened. he's claiming that we dented the front of the car as well but we pulled up behind the car as we could not get through so we couldnt of even got near the front! never mind im sure it will get sorted one way or the other.

[MickyGixer]

Sounds to me on the face of it that this wont get very far, it will just be a case of due process.:grin2

[RaceMeNSee]

its blatently the dude just trying to get some damage on his car fixed through you guys! the poo poo will see it for this! ALSO........is this thread actually meant for gixer owners only or something?! lol heheh

[MickyGixer]

is this thread actually meant for gixer owners only or something?! lol heheh

We are taking over...lolol...run for the hills...:party2

[RaceMeNSee]

oh we will see.......WE WILL SEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

[SDM]

oh we will see.......WE WILL SEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

OI.......your bared, you don't have a Gixer..GET OFF THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh1 :laugh1 :laugh1

[RaceMeNSee]

MAKE ME!! lol :grin2

[SDM]

MAKE ME!! lol :grin2

PMSL.............................................. .................................

[NitroDaze]

The problem with Section 170 Road Traffic Act 1988 is it does not state very clearly what the law is in a situation where one of the drivers is not present at the scene on the accident. Neither does it cater for a situation in the scenario of an absent driver where the accused driver claims there wasn't an accident.
The true indication of your situation is in case law. Your circumstances suggest that you left the scene because in your best knowledge an accident had not occurred.Since section 170 RTA 1988 is a criminal offence, you only have a problem after the police have been contacted by the accusing party. Before the police will approach your company and inevitably you, the accusser must prove that he is the legal keeper of the vehicle. That to the best of his knowledge the vehicle was not damaged before you turned up with your van. That a reliable witness saw you collide your van with the said vehicle.
The police may contact the witness to validate their reliability and verify that their account of what transpired checks out i.e van description, registration number etc. After which they are likely to come to inspect the van for incriminating damage (signs of recent painting is suitable evidence). In the absence of such evidence, it is unlikely that any charges will be made. However, where a charge is made, some of the following cases suggest the following:-
[Hallinan v Director of public Prosecutions] suggest

that the accused driver need not be aware that an accident has occured
Upon being notified that an accident has occured by a witness or the claimant himself, the driver must comply with section 170 RTA 1988[Lee v Knapp] suggest that a witness account to the event is very strong persuasive element of the procesution. Also that the obligations of s170 cannot be satisfied by anyone else other than the driver him or herself.

[Jone v Prothero] would suggest that this is a matter concerning the driver of the vehicle personally, regardless of who owns it or whether the accident occured while the vehicle was stationary.

Since this is a criminal law area, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They have to prove causation in that your vehicle actually caused the damage beyond reasonable doubt. That would take more than a few witnesses.
The lessen to be learnt here is not to assume that this is a scam because that may expose you to libel liabilities if you make such a claim. Secondly, paying for the damage will be covered by your company due to their vicarious liabilities. However, your company are not subject to section 170 RTA 1988, you personally are since the statute refers to the driver of the vehicle personally. Hence l recommend that you exchange all information required by the other party and state your honest observation to the insurance companies when requested.
Good luck matey. These are the cold facts as l know them to be.
Note:-Do not take this account to be a complete analysis of the situation. Where neccessary, l strongly advice you to seek proper legal advice.

[Lateshift]

Errr the driver knows that his vehicle did not touch this other one whatsoever, why does he have to seek legal advice or even justify it, as far as he is concerned there was no collision whatsoever, therefore no accident to report, no need for action under Section 170 of the Traffic act blah blah blah and therefore has nothing whatsoever to worry about.

Fair enough he might have something to defend if he actually had hit the car but if he is adamant that his vehicle was not involved in any way shape or form why should he report it?


More importantly what would he report? that he got close to another vehicle?



Since this is a criminal law area, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They have to prove causation in that your vehicle actually caused the damage beyond reasonable doubt. That would take more than a few witnesses.



Straight away if this is criminal law then that suggests to me that this becomes a matter for investigation, he doesnt hav to report it to be investigated where a plaintiff lodges a complaint, thats the job of the Police to come and interview him, inspect the vehicle he was driving and from that point come to the conclusion that the other driver is taking the mickey ;)

Personnally i hope if it comes to light that the car owner has been pulling the wool they actually do him for wasting Police time :D

[STEALTH52]

thanks for all the info i'll let you know what happens!

[NitroDaze]

Errr the driver knows that his vehicle did not touch this other one whatsoever, why does he have to seek legal advice or even justify it, as far as he is concerned there was no collision whatsoever, therefore no accident to report, no need for action under Section 170 of the Traffic act blah blah blah and therefore has nothing whatsoever to worry about.

Fair enough he might have something to defend if he actually had hit the car but if he is adamant that his vehicle was not involved in any way shape or form why should he report it?


More importantly what would he report? that he got close to another vehicle?



Straight away if this is criminal law then that suggests to me that this becomes a matter for investigation, he doesnt hav to report it to be investigated where a plaintiff lodges a complaint, thats the job of the Police to come and interview him, inspect the vehicle he was driving and from that point come to the conclusion that the other driver is taking the mickey ;)

Personnally i hope if it comes to light that the car owner has been pulling the wool they actually do him for wasting Police time :D
Firstly, l was presenting the scenario of what the situation would mean if it became a legal matter. In such a scenario, it does not matter what you know, think or believe. But it is a matter of what you can prove.
Secondly, in this situation discribed by Quickshift, yes you are quite right, he does not have to report anything. It is up to the claimant to report the incident to the police.
Thirdly, l was refering to the driver's obligation under section 170 to provide relevant information to the claimant if it is so requested, where the claim is that an accident had occurred, regardless of whether it is a falsehood.
Lastly, if the police are to investigate anything. It will be 2 things:-
(1) Did an accident occur.
(2) Did the accused driver knowingly left the scene of the accident in contravention of section 170.
I hope that it does not come to a legal issue. I sincerely hope that the car owner can be shown to be trying to pull a fast one also:grin2 :grin2 :grin2 .

[kasandrich]

I only have experience of two such incidents, one was when I was a Special Constable and was very similar in that someone reported a van by registration number, that had hit their car, we looked up the number on PNC, the description was correct, we attended the address and the van was parked outside, we looked at the van and there was fresh damage as escribed, so we knocked and had a word, we just suggested he report it to his insurance company, and he agreed. ....Sorted!


The other was a friend was actually involved in a little bump, he touched the back of another car, but I mean "touched" he was driving an almost new BMW and could see no damage to the front of his car, the car he touched, an Astra Estate also inspected the back of his car at the scene and said he cold find no damage, then nearly a week later he claimed he had had the car checked properly and there was damage to the boot floor and chassis. My friend was adamant that he had not hit it hard enough to do the damage claimed, so he informed his insurance company, but informed them that he thought this was a bogus claim, they had both cars inspected, and he heard no more of it!

In short, if there is no coresponding damage on the truck then you have nothing to worry about.

The only thing I would say is that Police and Insurance companies are quite picky about terminology and language used, you stated "I didn't see him hit anything" what you ought to say is, I was guiding him in, I had full view of X, Y and Z and he did not hit the car.

[STEALTH52]

i see your point i'll phrase it a bit better if i hear anything!

[Hells]

i had some one hit my car and drive off, i had atleast 2 witnesses, but police didnt want to know! w*nkers!

they went round to see the bloke, said there were no marks on his car "and he`s s very nice man" (apparently!!) and there was nothing more they can do!!!!!

id say your safe as houses!

[NitroDaze]

i had some one hit my car and drive off, i had atleast 2 witnesses, but police didnt want to know! w*nkers!

they went round to see the bloke, said there were no marks on his car "and he`s s very nice man" (apparently!!) and there was nothing more they can do!!!!!

id say your safe as houses!
It may be down to whether the info you provided would stand up in court. If you give the wrong reg no or vehicle description, then there would be nothing the police can do about that. It is bad luck. However if you get all the facts right and there was no damage, they would not have the neccessary evidence to prove that an accident did occur. Smash and run is very common nowadays, particularly among drivers without insurance.