Application For Name And Address Of Driver - Wrong Dates On Letter

[mystic_bertie]

Good Evening 

Back in August a young dangerous driver nearly run me off the road on the motorway at high speed.

I was doing 70mph on the outside lane, the next thing i know a young male driver and his girlfriend were dangerously close to my rear, i put my hazard lights on but they sat there for a few minutes and continually flashed their lights and trying to force me to move over.

They then zoomed up the inside lane to try and undertake me, as they tried to move into the outside lane that's when they collided with my car, it was a miracle that i was able to hold the car on the road. The next thing i know is the driver is making a video from the middle lane while they are driving. Eventually they went up a slip road and from afar the driver was still holding his phone up to record me.

When i got to my destination i checked the damage to my car, there was light cosmetic damage but nothing worth making a claim for, most of it polished off. I did not have their details or any proof so i never took it any further. I did not think they would go to the police or insurance as they were the ones who early run me off the road also they were travelling at excessive speeds and video recording on a phone whilst driving. I was wrong about that.

I now have a letter from the police asking for my details and they have accused me of driving into them while they were in the middle lane, also not stopping to give my details. I would rather avoid any embarrassing questions from the police if i can, the letter they sent has the wrong date a few times throughout, it also has the correct dates too. 

Could you kindly have a look at the police letter to see if its still legally valid given the mistakes it has. Many thanks guys.

POLICE LETTER .pdf

[dx100uk]

well what ever else you do you MUST reply.

 

[mystic_bertie]

@dx100uk thanks for your reply.  Yeah i was thinking that too. The police said in the letter that i am supposed to report it within 24 hours, im puzzled by this as i was told previously that only to contact the police if somebody was actually injured.

[lolerz]

Any incident where there is damage to property you're required to stop or report to the police within 24 hours.

[jk2054]

Theres no mistakes in the letter. The dates for the offences commited are correct. The letter date is probs just from before a crime decision for charge was made.

yes respond, yes details

[Ethel Street]

Bear in mind in defending this that if the videos show that when the driver came up behind you it would have been possible for you to move safely into the middle/inside lane then you should have done so. 

Deliberately blocking the outside lane could be an offence. Consider whether you can justify your actions to police on the grounds that it was unsafe to move to an inside lane and when you could have safely moved the other drivers dangerous actions prevented you doing so. Would the video evidence support such a defence?

[Man in the middle]

I strongly recommend that you respond to the request rather than trying to pick holes in the information provided in the letter. You know when the incident took place, you know what they are asking you about. The penalty for failing to provide the driver's details is a hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code (MS90) which rings alarm bells with insurers. 

As for the alleged offence itself, you must wait to see what action (if any) the police propose to take.

As an aside, the letter from the police contains misleading information  It suggests that the "current owner of the vehicle or any other person who is able to do so is required by law to give any information which will lead to the identification of the driver". The police have no ready mechanism to establish who "the current owner" is and in any case Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act places no obligation on that person or body. "The person keeping the vehicle" has a duty to provide "...such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police" whilst "any other person" has a duty "...to provide  any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver". It doesn't help you much but if they're quoting legislation you'd think they'd take the trouble to get it right.

Quote

Deliberately blocking the outside lane could be an offence. Consider whether you can justify your actions to police on the grounds that it was unsafe to move to an inside lane and when you could have safely moved the other drivers dangerous actions prevented you doing so. Would the video evidence support such a defence?

But bear in mind, Ethel, his s172 notice does not mention a suspicion of committing any offences involved with his driving. It only mention s170 (Failure to stop/report).

Edited November 17, 2023 by Man in the middle

[Ethel Street]

4 hours ago, Man in the middle said:

 

But bear in mind, Ethel, his s172 notice does not mention a suspicion of committing any offences involved with his driving. It only mention s170 (Failure to stop/report).

Thanks and understood MitM. I was flagging it for the OP in case it came up further down the line. (I'm in Spain and on a mobile at present and trying to avoid downloads so hadn't read the s172)

[Man in the middle]

Understood!  

[mystic_bertie]

@lolerz Thanks for confirming this

 

@jk2054 thank you very much  for your reply i will respond to the letter like you have suggested

 

@Ethel Street Thanks very much for your reply and giving me something to consider. There were other cars in front of me going at the same speed as me, we were going a bit faster than the middle lane so there was no lane blocking involved.  

 

@Man in the middle  thanks very much for your reply and thorough explanation. I will fill in the letter and send it back as i don't want to get into trouble for ignoring it. It does make it confusing as im meant to reply within 28 days but the date on the letter is wrong. Hopefully they won't take any further action. As you said they have only mentioned failure to stop/report.