Timmmy Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Lots of people come on the forum to ask for advice regarding numerous issues. As is the nature of this environment, differing opinions are offered (some helpful, some hostile, and some downright taking the proverbial just for the sake of it). The advice regarding the actual law surrounding the matter I raised in this thread may prove useful for others in a similar situation. Are you advocating that anyone who wants any help regarding anything that perhaps someone on the forum may be able to help with should not do so? So much for community spirit. Lots of people have already given you advice and you still don't believe it so why bother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msmouse Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 Lots of people have already given you advice and you still don't believe it so why bother Why bother with what? My OP involved asking a legitimate question .. should I have bothered with that in the first place (as in should anyone bother asking questions?). As in replying to posts in a thread that I myself initiated, what is the problem in that? As to what I do and do not believe, what on earth do you know? This is not a conspiracy thread, so 'belief' really shouldn't come into it. My simple question pertained to just what is legal in this country and what is not, which is the only reason why I asked the question in the first place. Oh, and by the way: I believe that man landed on the Moon I believe that Lady Diana died as the result of an accident I believe that 9/11 was not orchestrated by the US Government as a 'false flag' op .. or do I???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 There is still one unknown here. Perhaps msmouse could clarify. Was the request to 'produce' a phone conversation or was a formal document sent through the post? The police may have just wanted some formal documentation to confirm ownership in order to take the matter of damage any further. This would not have been a formal Section 164 'Producer'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 As you can see there have been a variety of answers, some possibly correct, some possibly wrong. If your friend is that concerned why does she not call the duty inspector to ask why she needs to produce her documents? Call 101. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msmouse Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 There is still one unknown here. Perhaps msmouse could clarify. Was the request to 'produce' a phone conversation or was a formal document sent through the post? The police may have just wanted some formal documentation to confirm ownership in order to take the matter of damage any further. This would not have been a formal Section 164 'Producer'. The request to 'produce' was through a simple phone conversation with the police. At this point, I asked my friend to query the police as to why this was necessary (and at the same time posted the question on the forum, as I thought it somewhat out of order). On a following call to the police, my friend was told 'she had to attend' with driving licence, insurance, MOT cert and tax info documentation (which seems a bit over the top to me), and so just went without any formal section producer request. I suppose now that is has happened, the whole situation is a moot point about the legalities surrounding incidents which involve having an unattended car parked on a public road. My only personal involvement with this was trying to help someone out, so please do not level any more insults at me (and apologies for the 'prat' comment earlier - just have a problem with 'yoof speak'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithy266 Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Apology accepted!! I am 63! Honoured to be classed as 'youf' though! Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmy Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 There is still one unknown here. Perhaps msmouse could clarify. Was the request to 'produce' a phone conversation or was a formal document sent through the post? The police may have just wanted some formal documentation to confirm ownership in order to take the matter of damage any further. This would not have been a formal Section 164 'Producer'. Yes this is exactly what it was a phone conversation! As I said earlier in the thread the same happened to me did anyone bother to read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Just obtained the definitive answer. When an RTC is reported there is a multi page form to compile. All vehicles involved have to be entered on to the RTC form ( yes, even though there is only one at the moment, but enquiries may reveal another) The details include place, date time,location,driver, owner, address of both, vehicle details, registration, make,model, insurance details, mot, vehicle excise licence and details of any damage to vehicles, property and injuries. This is standard for any RTC apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngryDog Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 As was pointed out in a previous post, if you have a vehicle parked on a public road, then you are 'considered to be in charge of it'. Does that preclude drinking, despite the fact you have no intention of subsequently driving? If so, then all those who don't have garages/driveways must remain teetotal at all times lest the 'feds' knock on your door. Generally you are considered to be in charge of a motor vehicle if you have the keys on your person if you're away from the car. You can be charged for DUI, even though you're not driving. The ower of a vehicle is the person who would normally report criminal damage to it. What if they don't have a driving licence? There is no requirement for them to have one. Not strictly true. The registered keeper is responsible for the vehicle, not the owner. Also, the person in charge of the vehicle at the time is responsible for reporting any accident etc, regardless of who that is. The request to 'produce' was through a simple phone conversation with the police. At this point, I asked my friend to query the police as to why this was necessary (and at the same time posted the question on the forum, as I thought it somewhat out of order). On a following call to the police, my friend was told 'she had to attend' with driving licence, insurance, MOT cert and tax info documentation (which seems a bit over the top to me), and so just went without any formal section producer request. I was requested verbally to take my documents in when I was crashed into. ANPR would've sufficed, but ANPR is generally found fitted to police cars, and not normally "panda" cars. If your friend has an issue with having to produce, then perhaps she could raise it with the relevant body. Otherwise she should try and forget about it and just consider that the Police are just being diligent. I hope she gets a positive result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.