Lad's been involved in an accident, what to do?
14 March 2007, 05:45 PM
#1
Lad's been involved in an accident, what to do?
My youngest has run into the back of somebody, no-one injured, all dealt with by insurance, (ongoing).
However, today, we get, (he gets), a letter from plod telling him they suspect he may have been driving without due care and attention, and threatening magistrate's court.
They want him to attend a driver training day-and-a-half at a cost of £160, and if he does, they waive the right to prosecute him.
Leaving aside the possible benefits of the course, has anyone else come across this?
It smells strongly of SCAM, they want money so they threaten, as in speeding.
Can they actually prosecute him, having NOT attended the accident, taken no measurements, etc etc? Or are they just trying it on?
Alcazar
However, today, we get, (he gets), a letter from plod telling him they suspect he may have been driving without due care and attention, and threatening magistrate's court.
They want him to attend a driver training day-and-a-half at a cost of £160, and if he does, they waive the right to prosecute him.
Leaving aside the possible benefits of the course, has anyone else come across this?
It smells strongly of SCAM, they want money so they threaten, as in speeding.
Can they actually prosecute him, having NOT attended the accident, taken no measurements, etc etc? Or are they just trying it on?
Alcazar
14 March 2007, 06:00 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish I was an expert on this alcazar as it sounds like a sick joke... A very unfair one at that!
I have twice driven into the back of vehicles, one no damage but bellend claimed whiplash for a 1mph shunt and once no damage and no claim. Both in my younger days and one was when I thought changing tapes (remember them?) was more important than looking where I was going
The other was at a junction when I thought the car in front of me waiting to go had gone - it hadn't
Thinking it through though. I was driving without due care and attention in both instances and I guess any rear end shunt could be construed as such in the eyes of a pedantic tw@t... I hope common sense beats pedantry and hope you challenge it and win.
Keep us informed.
I have twice driven into the back of vehicles, one no damage but bellend claimed whiplash for a 1mph shunt and once no damage and no claim. Both in my younger days and one was when I thought changing tapes (remember them?) was more important than looking where I was going
The other was at a junction when I thought the car in front of me waiting to go had gone - it hadn't
Thinking it through though. I was driving without due care and attention in both instances and I guess any rear end shunt could be construed as such in the eyes of a pedantic tw@t... I hope common sense beats pedantry and hope you challenge it and win.
Keep us informed.
Last edited by Abdabz; 14 March 2007 at 06:39 PM. Reason: Thanks Brendan :D
14 March 2007, 06:07 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scheme is legitimate, but it does sound like they are trying it on a bit.
National Driver Improvement Scheme
I can't see how the Police can possible have "collated sufficient evidence" if they didn't attend the scene, but then one could argue that running in the back of somebody is automatically driving without due care.
National Driver Improvement Scheme
I can't see how the Police can possible have "collated sufficient evidence" if they didn't attend the scene, but then one could argue that running in the back of somebody is automatically driving without due care.
14 March 2007, 06:09 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
personally i would say it was a scam, fight it all the way! but then i dont know all the details, how it happened, what type of road he was on, how fast he was travelling etc etc...
if you are worried give these people a try, Motoring Lawyers - Specialist Solicitors for Motoring Offences i phoned them last year and Hilary Kenway gave me some advice over the phone, and that gave me the confidence to go it alone, check this thread out to see how i done things. https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...ty-notice.html
i know its a bit different, but it shows just what an injustice it would be if we didnt fight these things.
BM
if you are worried give these people a try, Motoring Lawyers - Specialist Solicitors for Motoring Offences i phoned them last year and Hilary Kenway gave me some advice over the phone, and that gave me the confidence to go it alone, check this thread out to see how i done things. https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...ty-notice.html
i know its a bit different, but it shows just what an injustice it would be if we didnt fight these things.
BM
14 March 2007, 06:11 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
14 March 2007, 06:12 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless there are any independent witnesses prepared to testify he was driving without due care and attention it shouldn't even get to court.
Tell them to go right ahead as there is no evidence to prosecute him wth unless we are all of a sudden going to prosecute every single driver who drives into the back of another vehicle which I think unlikely.
Sorry think they are just hoping he will do the course and they get their £160 and a nice big governemnt gold star
Tell them to go right ahead as there is no evidence to prosecute him wth unless we are all of a sudden going to prosecute every single driver who drives into the back of another vehicle which I think unlikely.
Sorry think they are just hoping he will do the course and they get their £160 and a nice big governemnt gold star
14 March 2007, 06:19 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
They've got a damn cheek. They 'waive the right to prosecute him'?! They don't have that right in the first place, unless the police were there and have their own evidence! I'd write back and ask on what grounds they are believe their prosecution would be successful. Technically I think it's called a 'malicious prosecution' - the police or CPS throwing their weight around when they don't have any evidence or prospect of a conviction.
14 March 2007, 06:19 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 March 2007, 06:20 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: with your sister
Posts: 1,603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does sound about right tbh, if anyone drives up the rear of anyone then they do consider it as driving without due care etc etc and i think if he takes the course which is really easy by the way then he will avoid the magistrates for wether he gets 3 points etc, when i did the course it was over a period of 2 days, 1st day sat in a class with others and talking **** and 2nd day driving, when they 1st take you out they ask you to drive how you normally drive, then drive how they want you to drive, if you do that ok then you be ok. This is goin back about 3yrs mind.
14 March 2007, 06:33 PM
#12
I'm struggling to see how driving into the back of someone could be anything other than DCAA unless the other party reversed in the the car at the back. You should always drive at such a distance from the car in front that you can pull up safely even if they do an emergency stop. Pretty simple rule, and the courts follow it too. The good bit is when you are on the receiving end the courts are entirely on your side.
If the OP's son contests this he is looking at at least 4 points, and probably 6, with little chance of beating it. Take the course.
M
If the OP's son contests this he is looking at at least 4 points, and probably 6, with little chance of beating it. Take the course.
M
14 March 2007, 06:42 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I have ad blocked my rep - so dont waste your time!
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i expect the course will be less hassle for your kid than the hassle the poor sod is going through having been shunted by him.
14 March 2007, 06:43 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watchdog
On Watchdog a couple of weeks ago they were talking about Clio bonnets flying open. One example that they used was someone swerving off the road and having a serious accident because the Clio in fronts bonnet flew open and it did an emergencey stop that the following vehicle was unable to avoid.
Nothing to do with the bonnet, but a muppet driving too close. The emergency stop could have been initiated by anything.
Agree almost impossible to disprove DWDCAA. Start saving for the course. Presumably if your son can prove hardship you will only have to pay £1/week.
Nothing to do with the bonnet, but a muppet driving too close. The emergency stop could have been initiated by anything.
Agree almost impossible to disprove DWDCAA. Start saving for the course. Presumably if your son can prove hardship you will only have to pay £1/week.
14 March 2007, 06:58 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a few years ago i had 3 accidents in about 15 months, all 3 were hitting someone up the behind, and ive never been asked to attend a driver training day.
its all a load of bollox, write to them asking what evidence they have;
in accordance with the criminal procedure and investigations act 1996 they have to provide you with all evidence they intend to rely on in court;
also tell them you are currently exploring the possibility that their constabulary is guilty of demanding "money with menace", arguably a breach of human rights and unlawful pressure through this "pay now and save yourself harrasment later" position.
surely this would mean that everyone who has any type of accident will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention
its all a load of bollox, write to them asking what evidence they have;
in accordance with the criminal procedure and investigations act 1996 they have to provide you with all evidence they intend to rely on in court;
also tell them you are currently exploring the possibility that their constabulary is guilty of demanding "money with menace", arguably a breach of human rights and unlawful pressure through this "pay now and save yourself harrasment later" position.
surely this would mean that everyone who has any type of accident will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention
14 March 2007, 07:04 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a few years ago i had 3 accidents in about 15 months, all 3 were hitting someone up the behind, and ive never been asked to attend a driver training day.
its all a load of bollox, write to them asking what evidence they have;
in accordance with the criminal procedure and investigations act 1996 they have to provide you with all evidence they intend to rely on in court;
also tell them you are currently exploring the possibility that their constabulary is guilty of demanding "money with menace", arguably a breach of human rights and unlawful pressure through this "pay now and save yourself harrasment later" position.
surely this would mean that everyone who has any type of accident will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention
its all a load of bollox, write to them asking what evidence they have;
in accordance with the criminal procedure and investigations act 1996 they have to provide you with all evidence they intend to rely on in court;
also tell them you are currently exploring the possibility that their constabulary is guilty of demanding "money with menace", arguably a breach of human rights and unlawful pressure through this "pay now and save yourself harrasment later" position.
surely this would mean that everyone who has any type of accident will be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention
Sounds like they are being rather cheeky, it would probably be best to seek legal advice on this one.
14 March 2007, 07:11 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: google "SMACS" We're # 1!
Posts: 8,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Driving into the back of someone is not automatically treated as your fault. Old geezer pulled out in front of me a few years ago, causing me to emergency stop, then moved on, then stopped again! I hit him. Turns out he's 86, blind, deaf and in an auto for the first time in his life, and hit the brake when he thought it was the clutch! Muppet! I got full payout for the damage to my car off him.
14 March 2007, 07:12 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 March 2007, 07:43 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad your boy is OK.
It would annoy the hell out of me but I would swallow the annoyance and take the course. Peace of mind for a few quid and he may even learn something. dl
It would annoy the hell out of me but I would swallow the annoyance and take the course. Peace of mind for a few quid and he may even learn something. dl
14 March 2007, 08:01 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kent
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO NO NO NO NO!!!why should we let them walk all over us? they only do it because they know the majority of people will just accept it. fight it all the way, if they weren't there then they dont have any evidence, innocent until PROVEN guilty!
heres a perfect example of fighting it all the way: https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...ty-notice.html make sure to look at how it ended.
BM
14 March 2007, 08:10 PM
#24
It's just the principle of the thing that annoys me, it smacks of demanding money with menaces, and the cops seem very good at that at the moment.....
Alcazar
14 March 2007, 08:37 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if it was my boy I'd opt for the quiet life. If it was me it might be a different matter.
I would use the word BLUFF rather than SCAM though. But there is little excuse for bashing someone up the rear end.......
My problem, it seems, is that I am not as anti-cop as most folk on here. d
14 March 2007, 09:12 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats IAM mate? Have heard of that term before is it some kind of advanced driving?
14 March 2007, 09:16 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alcazar
I had a accident (my fault) many years ago. the Police told attended. and informed me I would have to pay £300.00 for a transporter to remove the car. I had green Flag etc and they told me they could attend in 1/2 hour. The Police said they thought it would be better if the car was removed straight away. It was the wasy they spoke to me... very calm and with "advice" I paid and never heard a single thing from the Police. I reccon I was lucky as it could have cost me more.
pay and move on
I had a accident (my fault) many years ago. the Police told attended. and informed me I would have to pay £300.00 for a transporter to remove the car. I had green Flag etc and they told me they could attend in 1/2 hour. The Police said they thought it would be better if the car was removed straight away. It was the wasy they spoke to me... very calm and with "advice" I paid and never heard a single thing from the Police. I reccon I was lucky as it could have cost me more.
pay and move on