Jump to content

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.

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

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

    • Surprise, surprise. It didn't take them long, did it. This will be something of a test as to how much the council really care about parks and the environment. A footfall of 60,000. Are they mad? There is no way this park is designed for or can sustain that sort of use. Just had a look at the schedule. If allowed to go ahead, this will involve a large slice of the park (not the common) sectioned off and out of use for three weeks of May and the first week of June. Here's an idea, why not trial the festival in one of the other Southwark Parks, so the 'goodness' can be shared around the borough?
    • There was another unprovoked attack on Monday this week on a young woman nearby (Anstey Road) at 6.45pm. Don't have any other details, it was posted on a Facebook group by her flatmate. Pretty worrying  https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EGfDrCAST/
    • OMFG is it possible for the council to do anything without a bunch of armchair experts moaning about it? The library refurb is great news, as it's lovely but completely shagged out - the toilets don't even work reliably. Other libraries in the area will be open longer house during the closure. July is a rubbish time to begin a refurb because it's just before the entire construction sector goes on summer holiday, and it would mean delaying the work another 8 months.
    • Licensing application for 2026 has gone in and they want to extend the event from 4 to 7 days accross two weekends.  There are some proposed significant changes to be aware of:   Event proposal moves to two separate weekends Number of days of the festival moves from 4 to 7 meaning also a change in the original licence is required Expected footfall in the park over the two weekends around 60,000.    Dear Peckham Rye Park Stakeholder,   Re: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – event application: ‘GALA and On The Rye Festival 2026’ – ref: SWKEVE000935   We are writing to you because you have previously identified yourself as someone who wishes to be informed about event applications for Peckham Rye Park, or we think that you might have an interest in knowing about this particular event application.   Please be aware that the council are in receipt of an event application for: GALA and On The Rye Festival 2026’   In line with the council’s Outdoor Events Policy and events application process we are carrying out consultation regarding this application.   The following reference documents are attached to this email:   Consultation information APPENDIX A – site plan weekend 1 APPENDIX B – site plan weekend 2 APPENDIX C – Production Schedule APPENDIX D – 2025 Noise Management Plan   The consultation is open from Tuesday 4 November and will close at midnight on Tuesday 2 December 2025   Community engagement sessions will take place on Wednesday 19 November.   If you would like to comment on application: SWKEVE000935 and take part in the online consultation, please visit:   www.southwark.gov.uk/GALA2026   If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us.     Kind Regards, Southwark Events Team Environment and Leisure PO Box 64529 London SE1P 5LX 020 7525 3639 @SouthwarkEvents APPENDIX A - SITE PLAN weekend 1.pdf APPENDIX B - SITE PLAN weekend 2.pdf APPENDIX C - PRODUCTION SCHEDULE.pdf And just to add that councillor Renata Hamvas chairs the licensing committee. Worth contacting her with views on ammendments to the original license. I am fairly sure she won't grant any amendments, but just in case.....
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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