Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CaptainZok]

LMAO I got a mate at work with a paj, guess who's gonna be the laughing stock in the morning.

[rob114]

No such thing as a 'chat' mate!!

They will either take a statement from you as a witness or if they have cause to suspect you of an offence,conduct an interview under caution.

From your first post in this thread it appears you genuinely believed your mate had insurance. If it were me, I would happily give a brief statement to this effect.

If however, they intend to interview you under caution,again just my advice, arrange to do it at the police station with a legal representative present - this would in no way influence the outcome & would protect you from what can be complicated legislation.

If at any point you are reported for any offence say nothing & seek legal advice.

Another area to be careful of is speaking to your mate about this cause that can lead to more serious stuff

Just giving you a heads up mate,

[Hillper]

I agree.  Seek legal advice.
The onus is on you to verify the drivers insurance etc.  

Let us know the outcome of the 'chat'.

[Sir_Mixalot]

cheers hotel21 and rob114.

to fill in the story, it wasn't my car (fathers) - hes speaking to the police, i have to go and see them as well, but only to make a statement as a whitness (i assume), the thread was really on behalf of him.

Basically, a guy came round to test drive the car (coincidentally it was a facelift MV6...), i took him out and got him to sign a piece of paper saying he had a liscence and insurance for this (father was out at the time).  Next day he comes back with the cash, saying he wants to buy the car...the paper work (V5) is signed and as the guy starts the car he has his foot flat on the gas with the car in gear.

The car shot accross the road it was parked perpendicular to and smashes into a wall, destroying the wall (1ft thick, stone) and slightly damaging the cars bumper.  The guy got out, had a look at the damage, and left without reporting it. I wasn't here for this which makes me suspicious as to why the police want to speak to me - anyway.

The neighbour came round the next day asking for an explanation, my father filled them in and the police got involved, and here we are.

Not really sure as to why its got so serious, I am assuming he didn't have insurance and is also being done for not reporting an accident.  We have guessed that he had fully comp on his own car, and was therefore 3rd party on the MV6 until he owned it, at which point his 3rd party cover on cars he didn't own from his fully comp ended as he now owned the car.

[B52]

strikes me that your man was now the owner of the car and its his problem now?

[Sir_Mixalot]

Yes B52, I agree.

Then why do the police want to speak to me when:
a) I am nothing todo with the car.
b) I wasn't there when he had the crash.

Will have to wait till the afternoon and see what they have to say.

[hotel21]

Scenario makes more sense now....

strikes me that your man was now the owner of the car and its his problem now?

Agreed.

Police will probably need to speak to you regarding the paper you had the potential purchaser sign to say he had insurance.  Well done.  Hope you still have it, is a correct name and not a false one, and that signature was (hopefully) witnessed?  

You were not there when he had the crash but you were when you got the 'I have insurance' paper, hence the need to speak to you.  You can also describe the driver/purchaser, provide contact 'phone number etc etc.

Yes, the 3rd party cover/DOC ends when he buys the car.  Did he bolt on foot or take his new car with him?  Did he pass his details at the time to any person requiring them?  Wall owner, etc?  If not, then he has failed to stop and report an accident and committed further offences.

From all thats now explained, you and your father would appear to have a walk on part and, given there are now no missing links to the tale, will hopefully have no great worry.  

[rob114]

Well Sir Mixalot - glad to see this is not what it first appears & you took reasonable steps to protect yourself/your dad.

As Hotel21 says - more a walk on' part now!

FYI - if the police take a statement as a witness NOT under caution - they will not be able to use this in any prosecution involving yourself (there are exceptions but only in the most serious of cases)

[Sir_Mixalot]

To finnish up on this...

Spoke to the police today, basically it turns out the guy didn't have a liscence (provisional expired in 1984!), or insurance, PLUS he failed to stop and report an accident.  I had to give a whitness statement of the time i went with him for a test drive for the police to prosecute with the "no liscence" charge.

Thanks again.

[Martin_1962]

To finnish up on this...

Spoke to the police today, basically it turns out the guy didn't have a liscence (provisional expired in 1984!), or insurance, PLUS he failed to stop and report an accident.  I had to give a whitness statement of the time i went with him for a test drive for the police to prosecute with the "no liscence" charge.

Thanks again.

I hope they throw the book at him and he gets a custodial scentence

[Timbuk]

To finnish up on this...

Spoke to the police today, basically it turns out the guy didn't have a liscence (provisional expired in 1984!), or insurance, PLUS he failed to stop and report an accident.  I had to give a whitness statement of the time i went with him for a test drive for the police to prosecute with the "no liscence" charge.

Thanks again.

I hope they throw the book at him and he gets a custodial scentence

We all wish, more like a slap on the wrists!!

[nixoro]

To finnish up on this...

Spoke to the police today, basically it turns out the guy didn't have a liscence (provisional expired in 1984!), or insurance, PLUS he failed to stop and report an accident.  I had to give a whitness statement of the time i went with him for a test drive for the police to prosecute with the "no liscence" charge.

Thanks again.

I take it you was driving during the test run   so atleast your covered and not eligible for action against yourself by the police.

Or have I missed something.

[B52]

probably not enough corroboration for the test drive to be a problem for sir mixalot (the only other 'witness' being your wall killer)? id reckon theyd be more interested in the wall killer too....

[Sir_Mixalot]

no he was driving for the test drive; hence my statement as a whitness of him driving (to do him for driving without a liscence)

[nixoro]

no he was driving for the test drive; hence my statement as a whitness of him driving (to do him for driving without a liscence)

Ahhh gotcha hope he gets what he deserves