Jump to content

Car accident - van driver left without stopping


walktall

Recommended Posts

My car was parked opposite St Thomas the Apostle School, Hollydale Road on 13th December. A witness saw a Churches Fire van hit my car at 17.30 and drive off without stopping. A following car saw the accident and flashed the van. If you are that driver and remember the registration number of the van, or part of it would you please let me know. My car is badly damaged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Motor Insurance Bureau insures cars damaged by hit and run drivers. I should contact them. I would think that they will speak unkindly to Churches. Afterall the implication is that all their vans are so damaged (all the time) that they cannot tell which one has recently been in an accident If they can't be bothered to do that they will have to pay up themselves.


https://www.mib.org.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a terrible response from Churches - they haven't so many vans that they couldn't very easily establish which one was in the area at that time. Making your complaint public on a comapny's Twitter and Facebook pages (Churches have both) often seems to have considerable gee-up power these days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Churches Fire vans do not have trackers and the driver has not come forward. Churches Fire say they have looked at vans that were in the area but report none are damaged. I have spoken to their customer support and sent emails to their managing director but after 10 days they say they will not do anything. My hope now is to track down the vehicle following the van and also cctv in the area. I will also look at their Facebook page.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The company must know which vans they had operating in the area and therefore which drivers at that time.

It?s unlikely they had all their vans there or even more than one so anybody with an inclination to assist should be able to discern quite quickly which vehicle and driver were involved regardless of whether there was any damage to their.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sally Eva Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Motor Insurance Bureau insures cars damaged by

> hit and run drivers. I should contact them. I

> would think that they will speak unkindly to

> Churches. Afterall the implication is that all

> their vans are so damaged (all the time) that they

> cannot tell which one has recently been in an

> accident If they can't be bothered to do that they

> will have to pay up themselves.

>

> https://www.mib.org.uk


This - they have helped me in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drivers of fleet vans are usually required to fill in a log book detailing mileage at start and end of shift and any damage on takeover. This is so the company knows who was driving the vehicle in the event of accident or a driving offence. Assuming this procedure was being done correctly the company will know who was driving their vehicles at the time in question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have a quick consultation with a solicitor. I expect they would tell you that you don?t need to know the driver of the van (or which van) if you have a witness to confirm that a company vehicle damaged your car (don?t treat it as a motor incident, but as criminal damage).


I?d also make sure the CEO of Churches is involved - he may care more about the potential liability and negative PR than the fleet manager (who probably already knows who was driving - it may even have been him).


Finally, remind Churches that failure to stop after a collision is a criminal offence, and it may be better to resolve this issue now rather than escalate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

transalp Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would have a quick consultation with a

> solicitor. I expect they would tell you that you

> don?t need to know the driver of the van (or which

> van) if you have a witness to confirm that a

> company vehicle damaged your car (don?t treat it

> as a motor incident, but as criminal damage).

>

> I?d also make sure the CEO of Churches is involved

> - he may care more about the potential liability


Good logic and sound advice.

> and negative PR than the fleet manager (who

> probably already knows who was driving - it may

> even have been him).

>

> Finally, remind Churches that failure to stop

> after a collision is a criminal offence, and it

> may be better to resolve this issue now rather

> than escalate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • But you have to assess whether these persistent drivers are creating more safety issues than diverting emergency vehicles on a longer route and clearly they are not. The fact members of the pro-closure lobby have built their argument on this actually shows how desperate, some would say selfish, they are to have the junction closed and just the way they want it. And unfortunately they seem to have the council over a barrel on something as the council weakly concedes to their position without hesitation. Was this not borne from an FOI that said one of the emergency services confirmed that they had not been consulted on the new DV design that Cllr Leeming then said was actually a mistake by the emergency services - and then it's a case of whether you believe Cllr Leeming or not....and his track record is hardly unblemished when it comes to all things LTNs? Exactly! When the "small vocal minority" was given a mouthpiece that proved it was anything other than small then some have repeatedly tried to discredit the mouthpiece.  The far-left has never been very good at accountability and One Dulwich is forcing our local councillors and council to be accountable to constituents and it wouldn't surprise me if the council are behind a lot of the depositioning activities as One Dulwich is stopping them from getting CPZs rolled out and must be seen as a huge thorn in the side of the idealogical plan they have. Southwark Labour has a long track record of trying to stifle constituents with a view that differs from theirs (see Cllr Leo Pollack for one example) or depositioning anyone trying to represent them (see Cllr Williams during the infamous Cllr Rose "mansplaining" episode. But you know, some think it's One Dulwich that are the greatest threat to local democracy and should not be trusted! 😉
    • A song thrush visited my back garden today. I watched as it smashed open a snail by whacking it against the patio.
    • I have no doubt that local people are genuinely involved (and personally can understand their not wanting to publicise their involvement). That said the proliferation of One groups across London and the degree of co-ordination suggests it is more than just a local grassroots group. I’m not really that interested, except that many of their supporters do bang on about transparency and accountability. I would be interested in the substance of their latest missive. Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how? Who genuinely believes that people are partially covering their plates and driving through due to inadequate signage? Sounds a little ridiculous / desperate. It feels like it may be time for them to start coming to terms with the changes tbh.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...