Dash cam footage

[Steve and Denise]

Is it me or has reason gone out of the window, I can understand the OP being indignant and upset over the damage and the fact that he believes the driver caused the damage due to the fact that he was on his phone, furthermore lack of Police interest or action grates with many of the Funsters on this thread.
Can I ask why do we have motor insurance ? it’s to pay for damage to vehicles and if there has been no injury, generally the Police are not interested, whether offences have taken place or not, because they are not in the business of trying to recover costs for damage only accidents.
the police now have so many additional tasks to perform with short numbers that you cannot expect them to spend any time on your unfortunate incident.

The damage was minimal due to the fact I got over as much as I could given the speed of events,
If you have ever registered a claim (non fault) you would fully understand the reason why we never went that route☹
Not only was the other driver on his phone he was clearly on my side of the road and failed to stop after making contact with my vehicle.
That’s two offences you will agree without the phone even being in the equation.

As for prosecution if no injuries incurred not really sure how that works with speed cameras or ANPR just because there is no MOT or vehicle excise paid to the Government,

It would seem it’s all about income you must agree not a good situation

 

[Otter Spotter]

The damage was minimal due to the fact I got over as much as I could given the speed of events,
If you have ever registered a claim (non fault) you would fully understand the reason why we never went that route☹
Not only was the other driver on his phone he was clearly on my side of the road and failed to stop after making contact with my vehicle.
That’s two offences you will agree without the phone even being in the equation.

As for prosecution if no injuries incurred not really sure how that works with speed cameras or ANPR just because there is no MOT or vehicle excise paid to the Government,

It would seem it’s all about income you must agree not a good situation

Correct, Apnr and speed cameras are nothing to do with safety they are revenue generators pure and simple, the added bonus with APnr cameras is that the Police can track a drivers travels which will assist in collecting evidence for drugs raids, disco drivers, repeat offenders etc.
Yes I report a damage only to my insurance company and they treated it as a no fault and I had to pay the excess and an increase premium the following year. I would say you are wasting your time chasing the bobbies, consider the cost for repair and your time wasted trying to get a prosecution. If you have obtained the drivers ID then send him 10ton of readymix for his driveway whilst he is out

 

[Steve and Denise]

I am not wasting any time trying to chase any one I am just informing the MHF community not to bother with reporting anything and it is best dealt with by what ever means you have available to you

 

[Ukbandit]

If you contact DVLA and tell them your vehicle was damaged in an accident and the other person did not stop you can obtain the other owners details for about £3.00. I did this when my car was hit in an airport carpark and the person did not stop but a kind witness left a note on my screen with the cars reg no.
I contacted DVLA and told them what happened i paid about £3.00 and they sent me the owners registered address so i could persue them for damages caused.

See below

Request information about a vehicle or its registered keeper from DVLA

Request details about a vehicle's registered keeper: bulk data, anonymised data, mileage data requests, other information requests

www.gov.uk

Oops, shouldn’t have told Steve about this one, I can hear his brain cogs grinding away with plans of revenge and pain.

 

[Ukbandit]

Welcome to the real world I was a factory manager I was on a salary based on 40 hrs a week I used to work 80 hrs + I took work home.
I was lucky if I got a sandwich for lunch I also worked every weekend and bank holidays and when I got called out I never ever said there was no one available to come out

But what makes me mad was when I got home and the house had be burgled and you ring the police and all you get is a crime number and don’t get me started on car crime also watched a old man beat up and the police did nothing the second time I saw the same old man being attacked by the same family I went out and sorted it out

My cars were damaged my kids got verbal abuse and what did the police do absolutely nothing

When I was a lad, dad would wake us up 3 hours before we went to bed and make us lick the street clean with our tongue.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Otter Spotter]

I am not wasting any time trying to chase any one I am just informing the MHF community not to bother with reporting anything and it is best dealt with by what ever means you have available to you

My apologies I thought you were. Oh do you mean hit men or land mine his motor

 

[Steve and Denise]

My apologies I thought you were. Oh do you mean hit men or land mine his motor

No you are right I am not wasting any amount of time on this it was purely for members information and to help them avoid wasting time.

If you want the police to turn up and make arrests just try to eject a non rent paying tenant that owes you a few thousand pounds

 

[tonyidle]

When I was a lad, dad would wake us up 3 hours before we went to bed and make us lick the street clean with our tongue.

You had a street???

 

[dabhand]

Tell the police you want charges of attempted murder brought against white van man, you cant go into details but MI5 might be able to shed some light on the matter, the Russian Maffia were after your “ pipe” as it’s easier to spread Novichok that way, hell of a story for the newspapers Steve

 

[Paulypaul]

Tell the police you're a freemason.....their response and the time it takes them to respond, will be completely different

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deneb]

Tell the police you're a freemason.....their response and the time it takes them to respond, will be completely different

Yes, I'd have put you at the back of the queue straight away.

 

[Paulypaul]

Standard response...complete denial, the thing about predictability is that it's so predictable.

 

[Deneb]

Standard response...complete denial, the thing about predictability is that it's so predictable.

OK, I'll bite. I've never understood why people think that quoting who they are, who they know, becoming angry or aggressive, or downright rude, is going to sway the behaviour of the person they are trying to "impress" or belittle into acting in their favour. It usually results in much digging in of heels, in my experience.

My "predictable" response, and that of those I worked with, was always to behave towards such people with the utmost politeness, courtesy and civility, whilst dealing with them completely by the book, with no "fear or favour", nor discretion that might otherwise be applied. That might mean that the incident would take longer to resolve than might otherwise have been the case, and it might also mean that the end result might not be what the complainant had anticipated or desired.

It did however have the benefit that no matter what might happen, we would always be completely beyond reproach. An additional benefit was that it often wound the "customer" up no end, but there was nothing they could do about it, because we acted with the utmost professionalism and completely in line with protocols.

On the many occasions that a customer told me they knew the Chief Constable/another high ranking officer/someone else I was supposed to be impressed by, it turned out on a very small number of occasions that they actually did, to the extent that they had mentioned the encounter to said person, who had felt it necessary then to speak to me.

In every case it appeared from what the Chief Constable or other high and mighty person said to me, that the "customer's" impression of his or her relationship with the individual concerned was very much at odds with that person's view of the relationship - at least as recounted to me, and I was usually congratulated on my approach.

That doesn't mean that I necessarily believed the Chief Constable or other "important" person's version of their relationship, but as my record of the encounter had already been committed to an official document (or in these days, a tape more likely) there was little else that could be said in the circumstances, and certainly no improper influence that could be brought to bear.

That doesn't mean that there aren't masons in the police. Of course there are, the same as in many other spheres of life, and I was invited to join them on more than one occasion, but always turned them down.

Nevertheless, if your view of predictability arises from a conversation with a mason over a pint at the lodge, you might want to consider how much weight you attach to their version of events.

Whilst some of what you allude to may have had an element of truth in the 60's and 70's, the past was a very different world (thankfully in some ways, but regrettably so in many others) and the great majority of officers serving in the police today would not even have been born at that time.

 

[Steve and Denise]

A bit like the guy who said to me
You have a problem, do you know who I am ?
My reply was
I HAVE A PROBLEM ! .... and you don’t even know who you are !

He did look father silly then

 

[Deneb]

Reminds me of the officer who answered the phone one evening with, "Belinda's brothel, how can I help?".

"Do you know who I am?" came the belligerent response.

"No", replied the officer.

"This is the Chief Constable", replied the caller.

"Oh", said the officer, "and do you know who I am?"

"No", said the Chief Constable.

"Thank **** for that", said the officer, before quickly hanging up and departing from the office.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Ingwe]

I had dash cam, from a passing car, of a car going through my house fence and hitting the house. Police showed no interest.

It was probably being driven by the Chief Constable on the way home from a Masonic meeting.

 

[Paulypaul]

My view of predictability does not manifest from "a conversation with a mason over a pint at the lodge" as I'm not a freemason and don't know anyone who will openly admit that they are one.

I fear that generational differences has no bearing on the masons being an integral part of our judicial infrastructure. They have and always will be an influence as to how justice is dished out, or ignored, depending on what side of the law the mason or "associate" is. I think that's where the term "brothers in law" is derived?

I'm not suggesting for one minute that you are a mason or questioning your integrity. I do however find that serving or ex cops can't help but tow the party line, and the predictability I refer to is the way in which the propaganda of under funding and under resourcing is relied upon to defend a lack of policing.

Your reference to the 60's & 70's is something of a double edged sword. Yes, in some ways things are best left back in those times, but I would say that in large, the police of today, as a service tasked to "serve the people" has fallen into disrepute, and subsequently has lost the respect of the general public.

That's just my opinion and I'm not trying to justify it or influence anyone else's opinion. I am certainly not trying to cause offence to you, in fact, I commend your conviction (no pun intended) to your perception of the ethos of the police service.

 

[gus-lopez]

Can I ask why do we have motor insurance ? it’s to pay for damage to vehicles and if there has been no injury, generally the Police are not interested, whether offences have taken place or not, because they are not in the business of trying to recover costs for damage only accidents.

No it isn't .It is to pay for acts of God & 'accidental' damage is claimed from the other party. You should note that the Uk is fairly unique in still offering full comp to older vehicles.

If you have obtained the drivers ID then send him 10ton of readymix for his driveway whilst he is out

Always a favourite at charity auctions was the 30 tonnes of chicken manure.

 

[Ingwe]

An old man rang the police to report seeing an armed man breaking into his shed. A firearms team was dispatched immediately. When they found no armed intruder they asked the old man for further details. He said the burglar was unarmed but if he had just reported a burglar in the shed, no one would have attended.
Apocryphal tale but probably accurate.

 

[Paulypaul]

On reading the thread again I see that I see that my comment regarding masons was misinterpreted by Deneb, who perhaps thought I was proclaiming to be a mason?

My subsequent response was to denounce such a suggestion and I feel that I perhaps should tip my hat slightly to Deneb as he was clearly a cop who wasn't influenced or cajoled into complying with Masonic justice/injustice.

There are/were some good cops, but my opinion of the service is unchanged. It must be, or have been, so frustrating working in an environment where you wanted to do your job properly but have to work amongst a culture that turns a blind eye to misfeasance.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deneb]

Chilloutsolutions thank you for your measured response.

I think the one thing that is clear is that we both have to agree to disagree, and whilst I agree with some of the points in your previous post, including the police having lost the respect of some (but certainly not all) of the public, I also have to say that a culture of turning a blind eye to misfeasance is not something I recognise at all.

On the contrary, whilst there are undoubtedly some bad apples in the police, as in any and all walks of life, the majority of officers that I have had the pleasure to work with have been dedicated and hard working individuals who all did their best in what could often be difficult or very trying circumstances. Any frustration in the service comes mainly from the lack of support shown by the courts and legal system as a whole, and by the public, who expect the police to pull results out of a hat, as if by magic, but have no concept of the actual evidence required to secure a conviction, and the procedures through which it must be obtained to satisfy the legal process, and often no willingness to provide the evidence required or follow through in supporting the legal process when push comes to shove.

It is frustrating for instance, as happened to me just before I retired, to be involved in an investigation of two individuals responsible for the theft of several hundred cars, and spend literally thousands of man hours spread across the entire team involved in the investigation, to secure sufficient evidence against the culprits to convince the CPS to authorise charges. In the case of one of the pair, there was a substantial amount of evidence that indicated his complicity in the thefts, but unfortunately most of it circumstantial. One aspect though, was incontrovertible evidence showing that he had travelled over 200 miles from his home address, in the early hours of one particular morning, to a location where a specific car had been stolen, returning to his home directly afterwards, the exact moment of the theft having been determined by CCTV footage, the route of the stolen car evidenced by ANPR cameras, and his journey, including his arrival and departure from the location shortly before and after the theft, evidenced by mobile phone network data that took many hours to assemble. In addition, several dismantled parts of the stolen car were found with those from several other vehicle in a garage that he had rented, and other parts from that same car were found to be fitted to his own vehicle.

He made no comment during interviews. He subsequently appeared at court, smartly dressed in a suit and tie, polite and well-spoken, a string of character witnesses produced by his defence to state what a fine, upstanding, model citizen he was. He denied any knowledge of the stolen car, claiming that he had simply rented the garage on behalf of his accomplice, and new nothing of what had taken place there. He claimed that the parts found fitted to his car must have been fitted by his accomplice when he let him repair the car following a breakdown.

As for his journey to the location where the car had been stolen, the evidence that he had travelled there was overwhelming, and he did not deny it. But, he claimed, he had received a text message from his sister at 3.00 a.m. that morning. She was staying in holiday accommodation near to where the car had been stolen and had texted him because she had lost her watch and wanted him to bring her another watch that was at his home (as you would normally do at 3.00 a.m.). So he left straight away to take the watch to her, dropped it off and almost immediately drove home (as of course you also do after travelling over 200 miles to see your sister).

He was acquitted of any involvement in any of the offences by the jury. The following day, he was back in court to see his (alleged) accomplice sentenced, this time dressed in a hoodie and dripping gold jewellery from every imaginable part of his body. Following the sentencing of the "accomplice", he had to be ejected from the court on the Judge's orders owing to the stream of profanities being expelled from his mouth. The jury's faces were a picture, but of course too late.

In Steve and Denise 's case, you might think that the police had all the evidence they needed to proceed against the driver, with the registration mark of the van and the renter's name being supplied by the hire company. None of that is enough, on its own, to secure a conviction. Evidence has to be obtained and presented in such a way as to be accepted by the legal system to the required standard of proof.

To obtain the driver's identity and meet that standard, a notice issued under the Road Traffic Act must first be sent to the registered owner of the vehicle, requiring them to identify the driver. The hire company of course would not be able to categorically identify the driver at the time of the incident, but they would be able to confirm who the vehicle had been rented to, and possibly also that he was the only person entitled to drive under the terms of the rental agreement (although rental companied will often back out of confirming that when it comes to court proceedings in my experience). So a second notice must then be served on the person nominated by the rental company.

That person might confirm that he was the driver. If so, he would be sent a second form requiring him to give his version of the incident. He might nominate a third person as the driver, in which case the serving of a notice would have to be repeated with that person, or he might state that the vehicle was hired on business use and he could not be certain who was driving at the time.

At each stage, a certain amount of time has to be allowed to elapse before further action can be taken, and if the person(s) in receipt of the notices delay their responses to the last possible moment, whilst ensuring that they comply with the requirement to respond, it is easy to see where weeks and months can elapse before subsequent stages in the process can be contemplated.

Additionally, the CPS will rarely prosecute any allegations arising from a damage only road traffic collision without independent witness evidence. That means someone not in either of the vehicles and not connected to the occupants of either of the vehicles in any way. Even if the police have managed to assemble the required documented evidence trail within sufficient time, and decided that the evidence meets the public interest test for consideration of prosecution, the file still has to be reviewed by the CPS which invariably involves further delay unless it relates to a very serious criminal matter. But the statute of limitations on commencing proceedings is exactly the same as it was 40 or 50 years ago, when assembling prosecution files was not subject to the same time-consuming processes as now mandated by the legal system.

Ultimately, when the public see action not being taken, the police get the blame for all of this. I'm not claiming that the police are always free of any fault, but by and large the public are let down by the systems that they themselves continue to clamour for in protection of individual rights and freedoms, much of the process of which is completely out of the hands of the police.

 

[Steve and Denise]

Chilloutsolutions thank you for your measured response.

I think the one thing that is clear is that we both have to agree to disagree, and whilst I agree with some of the points in your previous post, including the police having lost the respect of some (but certainly not all) of the public, I also have to say that a culture of turning a blind eye to misfeasance is not something I recognise at all.

On the contrary, whilst there are undoubtedly some bad apples in the police, as in any and all walks of life, the majority of officers that I have had the pleasure to work with have been dedicated and hard working individuals who all did their best in what could often be difficult or very trying circumstances. Any frustration in the service comes mainly from the lack of support shown by the courts and legal system as a whole, and by the public, who expect the police to pull results out of a hat, as if by magic, but have no concept of the actual evidence required to secure a conviction, and the procedures through which it must be obtained to satisfy the legal process, and often no willingness to provide the evidence required or follow through in supporting the legal process when push comes to shove.

It is frustrating for instance, as happened to me just before I retired, to be involved in an investigation of two individuals responsible for the theft of several hundred cars, and spend literally thousands of man hours spread across the entire team involved in the investigation, to secure sufficient evidence against the culprits to convince the CPS to authorise charges. In the case of one of the pair, there was a substantial amount of evidence that indicated his complicity in the thefts, but unfortunately most of it circumstantial. One aspect though, was incontrovertible evidence showing that he had travelled over 200 miles from his home address, in the early hours of one particular morning, to a location where a specific car had been stolen, returning to his home directly afterwards, the exact moment of the theft having been determined by CCTV footage, the route of the stolen car evidenced by ANPR cameras, and his journey, including his arrival and departure from the location shortly before and after the theft, evidenced by mobile phone network data that took many hours to assemble. In addition, several dismantled parts of the stolen car were found with those from several other vehicle in a garage that he had rented, and other parts from that same car were found to be fitted to his own vehicle.

He made no comment during interviews. He subsequently appeared at court, smartly dressed in a suit and tie, polite and well-spoken, a string of character witnesses produced by his defence to state what a fine, upstanding, model citizen he was. He denied any knowledge of the stolen car, claiming that he had simply rented the garage on behalf of his accomplice, and new nothing of what had taken place there. He claimed that the parts found fitted to his car must have been fitted by his accomplice when he let him repair the car following a breakdown.

As for his journey to the location where the car had been stolen, the evidence that he had travelled there was overwhelming, and he did not deny it. But, he claimed, he had received a text message from his sister at 3.00 a.m. that morning. She was staying in holiday accommodation near to where the car had been stolen and had texted him because she had lost her watch and wanted him to bring her another watch that was at his home (as you would normally do at 3.00 a.m.). So he left straight away to take the watch to her, dropped it off and almost immediately drove home (as of course you also do after travelling over 200 miles to see your sister).

He was acquitted of any involvement in any of the offences by the jury. The following day, he was back in court to see his (alleged) accomplice sentenced, this time dressed in a hoodie and dripping gold jewellery from every imaginable part of his body. Following the sentencing of the "accomplice", he had to be ejected from the court on the Judge's orders owing to the stream of profanities being expelled from his mouth. The jury's faces were a picture, but of course too late.

In Steve and Denise 's case, you might think that the police had all the evidence they needed to proceed against the driver, with the registration mark of the van and the renter's name being supplied by the hire company. None of that is enough, on its own, to secure a conviction. Evidence has to be obtained and presented in such a way as to be accepted by the legal system to the required standard of proof.

To obtain the driver's identity and meet that standard, a notice issued under the Road Traffic Act must first be sent to the registered owner of the vehicle, requiring them to identify the driver. The hire company of course would not be able to categorically identify the driver at the time of the incident, but they would be able to confirm who the vehicle had been rented to, and possibly also that he was the only person entitled to drive under the terms of the rental agreement (although rental companied will often back out of confirming that when it comes to court proceedings in my experience). So a second notice must then be served on the person nominated by the rental company.

That person might confirm that he was the driver. If so, he would be sent a second form requiring him to give his version of the incident. He might nominate a third person as the driver, in which case the serving of a notice would have to be repeated with that person, or he might state that the vehicle was hired on business use and he could not be certain who was driving at the time.

At each stage, a certain amount of time has to be allowed to elapse before further action can be taken, and if the person(s) in receipt of the notices delay their responses to the last possible moment, whilst ensuring that they comply with the requirement to respond, it is easy to see where weeks and months can elapse before subsequent stages in the process can be contemplated.

Additionally, the CPS will rarely prosecute any allegations arising from a damage only road traffic collision without independent witness evidence. That means someone not in either of the vehicles and not connected to the occupants of either of the vehicles in any way. Even if the police have managed to assemble the required documented evidence trail within sufficient time, and decided that the evidence meets the public interest test for consideration of prosecution, the file still has to be reviewed by the CPS which invariably involves further delay unless it relates to a very serious criminal matter. But the statute of limitations on commencing proceedings is exactly the same as it was 40 or 50 years ago, when assembling prosecution files was not subject to the same time-consuming processes as now mandated by the legal system.

Ultimately, when the public see action not being taken, the police get the blame for all of this. I'm not claiming that the police are always free of any fault, but by and large the public are let down by the systems that they themselves continue to clamour for in protection of individual rights and freedoms, much of the process of which is completely out of the hands of the police.

That must be very frustrating!

On the other hand speed cameras don’t need all that evidence they just need £60

 

[Deneb]

On the other hand speed cameras don’t need all that evidence they just need £60

Only if you accept guilt and consent for the offence to be dealt with under the fixed penalty procedure. In those circumstances, your case will invariably never go anywhere near a police officer!