murderous motorist - developments

[Ian Smith]

Regulars may recall I was deliberately knocked off my bike by a
motorist (WVM) who did not stop.

The police have been well up in chocolate teapot territory. Phone
calls not returned, when I go into a police station the desk staff
know nothing, letters from the police are clearly form letters that
don't apply to my situation (eg, I give them a complete registration
number - I get a letter telling me it's jolly difficult to identify a
vehicle when there's no registration supplied).

The vehicle was uninsured, and registered to a non-existent address.
Tax expired about two weeks after I was rammed, and was not renewed.
The police wrote and told me they had not created a crime report
because the (two, independent) witnesses were not completely certain
that the driver deliberately ran me off the road, so they're treating
it as an accident. Presumably as well as accidently running me off
the road he also accidently matched my speed, accidently wound down
the window, accidently screamed abuse at me, accidently didn't stop,
was accidently uninsured and accidently gave a false address when
registering and taxing the vehicle.

Recently I noticed that the van has had its tax renewed. I phoned the
police and they were oblivious of this. Guess what? It has
apparently been renewed with the same false details. So a vehicle
alleged to have been deliberately used as a weapon and known to have
committed a hit-and-run while uninsured and having false registration
details has apparently been permitted to be retaxed with the same
false details (the same details come up on the police check).

It was also slightly surreal talking the police through how to use the
DVLA web site to check whether a vehicle was taxed. Yes, thats right
- the Surrey Police department charged with investigating vehicle
accidents did not know you can use the internet to check whether a
vehicle is currently taxed, and their own system apparently doesn't
until several months after the event.

Last week's local paper gave a hook for me to write about the
incident, and now (surprise) the whole district has a response:
http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/paper_letter.png

Shame they still haven't seen fit to actually communicate with me
directly. If I'd missed this week's edition I'd still be none the
wiser.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Ian Smith
says...

> Shame they still haven't seen fit to actually communicate with me
> directly. If I'd missed this week's edition I'd still be none the
> wiser.
>
I think the paper's readers need to know that. :-)

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Rob Morley > wrote:
> In article >, Ian Smith
> says...
>
> > Shame they still haven't seen fit to actually communicate with me
> > directly. If I'd missed this week's edition I'd still be none the
> > wiser.
> >
> I think the paper's readers need to know that. :-)

They will (or at least, I will ensure that the paper's editor knows
that).

They will also know that while the police are writing to the paper
saying they take all allegations of criminal activity very seriously,
they wrote to me saying that there is no crime number because no crime
report has been created.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Nigel Randell]

>
> It was also slightly surreal talking the police through how to use the
> DVLA web site to check whether a vehicle was taxed. Yes, thats right
> - the Surrey Police department charged with investigating vehicle
> accidents did not know you can use the internet to check whether a
> vehicle is currently taxed, and their own system apparently doesn't
> until several months after the event.
>

A while ago I had the same (phone) conversation with my local police. When
I mentioned that I'd checked the vehicle in question on DVLA I got a rather
accusing "I didn't know you could do that". To be fair, the actual police
were quite helpful, but sometimes their "customer facing" staff can let them
down.

--

Nigel

[Eatmorepies[_2_]]

snip<>
>
> It was also slightly surreal talking the police through how to use the
> DVLA web site to check whether a vehicle was taxed. Yes, thats right
> - the Surrey Police department charged with investigating vehicle
> accidents did not know you can use the internet to check whether a
> vehicle is currently taxed, and their own system apparently doesn't
> until several months after the event.

How do you do that? I've had a look on the DVLA site and can't find a link
to a reg number to tax disc status page.

Regards

John
>

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Eatmorepies
says...
> snip<>
> >
> > It was also slightly surreal talking the police through how to use the
> > DVLA web site to check whether a vehicle was taxed. Yes, thats right
> > - the Surrey Police department charged with investigating vehicle
> > accidents did not know you can use the internet to check whether a
> > vehicle is currently taxed, and their own system apparently doesn't
> > until several months after the event.
>
> How do you do that? I've had a look on the DVLA site and can't find a link
> to a reg number to tax disc status page.
>
http://direct.gov.uk/taxdisc - there's a "Vehicle Enquiry" tab on the
left. Results aren't completely current - I renewed a SORN online on
Monday and it's still showing as expired.

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Rob Morley > wrote:
> In article >, Eatmorepies
> says...
> > snip<>
> > >
> > > It was also slightly surreal talking the police through how to
> > > use the DVLA web site to check whether a vehicle was taxed.
> >
> > How do you do that? I've had a look on the DVLA site and can't
> > find a link to a reg number to tax disc status page.
> >
> http://direct.gov.uk/taxdisc - there's a "Vehicle Enquiry" tab on
> the left. Results aren't completely current -

.... but they are evidently many months more current than teh Police
results. In teh specific case of teh vehicle that hit me, teh web now
says tax is due 1/2/08, so presumably renewed for six months during
August (it was untaxed for a couple of months after hitting me). The
police computer apparently still has it down as untaxed.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[spindrift]

On 5 Oct, 08:03, Ian Smith > wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Rob Morley > wrote:
> > In article >, Eatmorepies
> > says...
> > > snip<>
>
> > > > It was also slightly surreal talking the police through how to
> > > > use the DVLA web site to check whether a vehicle was taxed.
>
> > > How do you do that? I've had a look on the DVLA site and can't
> > > find a link to a reg number to tax disc status page.
>
> > http://direct.gov.uk/taxdisc- there's a "Vehicle Enquiry" tab on
> > the left. Results aren't completely current -
>
> ... but they are evidently many months more current than teh Police
> results. In teh specific case of teh vehicle that hit me, teh web now
> says tax is due 1/2/08, so presumably renewed for six months during
> August (it was untaxed for a couple of months after hitting me). The
> police computer apparently still has it down as untaxed.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|

Look at the letters local papers get about pavement cyclists and the
lack of coverage of stories like this- illegal driversd who use their
vehicles as a weapon.

1 million regular cycle commuters.


1.25 million uninsured cars on our roads.

WTF?

[[email protected]]

In message >
Ian Smith > wrote:

> They will (or at least, I will ensure that the paper's editor knows
> that).

Excellent, Ian. Thanks from all of us.

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 4, 5:43 pm, Ian Smith > wrote:
> Recently I noticed that the van has had its tax renewed. I phoned the
> police and they were oblivious of this. Guess what? It has
> apparently been renewed with the same false details. So a vehicle
> alleged to have been deliberately used as a weapon and known to have
> committed a hit-and-run while uninsured and having false registration
> details has apparently been permitted to be retaxed with the same
> false details (the same details come up on the police check).
>
It's been a very long time since I renewed a tax disk but don't you
have to show an insurance certificate and MOT if you do it at a
postoffice. So the insurance must surely have had the (a) valid
address in order to get the postcode.

And if it was renewed online then presumably the tax disk is posted
so again a contact address must have been known.

Tim.

[Phil Cook]

wrote:

>On Oct 4, 5:43 pm, Ian Smith > wrote:
>> Recently I noticed that the van has had its tax renewed. I phoned the
>> police and they were oblivious of this. Guess what? It has
>> apparently been renewed with the same false details. So a vehicle
>> alleged to have been deliberately used as a weapon and known to have
>> committed a hit-and-run while uninsured and having false registration
>> details has apparently been permitted to be retaxed with the same
>> false details (the same details come up on the police check).
>>
>It's been a very long time since I renewed a tax disk but don't you
>have to show an insurance certificate and MOT if you do it at a
>postoffice. So the insurance must surely have had the (a) valid
>address in order to get the postcode.

Neither the insurance certificate nor the MOT show the address.

>And if it was renewed online then presumably the tax disk is posted
>so again a contact address must have been known.

But as long as the keeper knows where to go to get the letters there
isn't a lot that the DVLA or post office clerk can do about it.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

[Ekul Namsob]

Ian Smith > wrote:

> Last week's local paper gave a hook for me to write about the
> incident, and now (surprise) the whole district has a response:
> http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/paper_letter.png

I'm glad to here that your persistence is beginning to show results.

Slightly off-topic, I had a swift response from an incident I had in my
car a couple of days ago when I was tailgated down the motorway by a van
who was so close that I could see the reflection of my tail-lights on
the front of his vehicle.

As I pulled in, having overtaken another car, I saw to my horror, the
van accelerate to my left just before he swerved in front of me, almost
swiping my car.

I swiftly pulled over to note down his registration number and the
freephone number of his employer.

Yesterday, I received a reply: having listened to the driver's side of
the story, his boss has sacked him. He apparently had done this sort of
thing before.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Roger Merriman]

spindrift > wrote:

> On 5 Oct, 08:03, Ian Smith > wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Rob Morley > wrote:
> > > In article >, Eatmorepies
> > > says...
> > > > snip<>
> >
> > > > > It was also slightly surreal talking the police through how to
> > > > > use the DVLA web site to check whether a vehicle was taxed.
> >
> > > > How do you do that? I've had a look on the DVLA site and can't
> > > > find a link to a reg number to tax disc status page.
> >
> > > http://direct.gov.uk/taxdisc- there's a "Vehicle Enquiry" tab on
> > > the left. Results aren't completely current -
> >
> > ... but they are evidently many months more current than teh Police
> > results. In teh specific case of teh vehicle that hit me, teh web now
> > says tax is due 1/2/08, so presumably renewed for six months during
> > August (it was untaxed for a couple of months after hitting me). The
> > police computer apparently still has it down as untaxed.
> >
> > regards, Ian SMith
> > --
> > |\ /| no .sig
> > |o o|
> > |/ \|
>
> Look at the letters local papers get about pavement cyclists and the
> lack of coverage of stories like this- illegal driversd who use their
> vehicles as a weapon.
>
> 1 million regular cycle commuters.
>
>
> 1.25 million uninsured cars on our roads.
>
> WTF?

in the same way, people worry about their child taken, rather than
crossing the road etc.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Coyoteboy]

Ian Smith wrote:
> Regulars may recall I was deliberately knocked off my bike by a
> motorist (WVM) who did not stop.
>
> The police have been well up in chocolate teapot territory. Phone
> calls not returned, when I go into a police station the desk staff
> know nothing, letters from the police are clearly form letters that
> don't apply to my situation (eg, I give them a complete registration
> number - I get a letter telling me it's jolly difficult to identify a
> vehicle when there's no registration supplied).
>
> The vehicle was uninsured, and registered to a non-existent address.
> Tax expired about two weeks after I was rammed, and was not renewed.
> The police wrote and told me they had not created a crime report
> because the (two, independent) witnesses were not completely certain
> that the driver deliberately ran me off the road, so they're treating
> it as an accident. Presumably as well as accidently running me off
> the road he also accidently matched my speed, accidently wound down
> the window, accidently screamed abuse at me, accidently didn't stop,
> was accidently uninsured and accidently gave a false address when
> registering and taxing the vehicle.
>
> Recently I noticed that the van has had its tax renewed. I phoned the
> police and they were oblivious of this. Guess what? It has
> apparently been renewed with the same false details. So a vehicle
> alleged to have been deliberately used as a weapon and known to have
> committed a hit-and-run while uninsured and having false registration
> details has apparently been permitted to be retaxed with the same
> false details (the same details come up on the police check).
>
> It was also slightly surreal talking the police through how to use the
> DVLA web site to check whether a vehicle was taxed. Yes, thats right
> - the Surrey Police department charged with investigating vehicle
> accidents did not know you can use the internet to check whether a
> vehicle is currently taxed, and their own system apparently doesn't
> until several months after the event.
>
> Last week's local paper gave a hook for me to write about the
> incident, and now (surprise) the whole district has a response:
> http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/paper_letter.png
>
> Shame they still haven't seen fit to actually communicate with me
> directly. If I'd missed this week's edition I'd still be none the
> wiser.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

Sounds somewhat familiar, from when we had a 'tinternet fraud complaint.
"We dont have any computers here that are connected to the internet".
We cant deal with it because we dont know how to get the information
about the other party from the ISP. For christs sake, you'd think they
were a bunch of school kids, the amount of effort they put into some
things. But then we've had some very good dealings with the police and I
can honestly say its not "the police" but "Some police" that are useless.

[al Mossah]

On 4 Oct, 17:43, Ian Smith > wrote:
> Regulars may recall I was deliberately knocked off my bike by a
> motorist (WVM) who did not stop.
>
> The police have been well up in chocolate teapot territory. Phone
> calls not returned, when I go into a police station the desk staff
> know nothing, letters from the police are clearly form letters that
> don't apply to my situation (eg, I give them a complete registration
> number - I get a letter telling me it's jolly difficult to identify a
> vehicle when there's no registration supplied).
>
> The vehicle was uninsured, and registered to a non-existent address.
> Tax expired about two weeks after I was rammed, and was not renewed.
> The police wrote and told me they had not created a crime report
> because the (two, independent) witnesses were not completely certain
> that the driver deliberately ran me off the road, so they're treating
> it as an accident. Presumably as well as accidently running me off
> the road he also accidently matched my speed, accidently wound down
> the window, accidently screamed abuse at me, accidently didn't stop,
> was accidently uninsured and accidently gave a false address when
> registering and taxing the vehicle.
>
> Recently I noticed that the van has had its tax renewed. I phoned the
> police and they were oblivious of this. Guess what? It has
> apparently been renewed with the same false details. So a vehicle
> alleged to have been deliberately used as a weapon and known to have
> committed a hit-and-run while uninsured and having false registration
> details has apparently been permitted to be retaxed with the same
> false details (the same details come up on the police check).
>
> It was also slightly surreal talking the police through how to use the
> DVLA web site to check whether a vehicle was taxed. Yes, thats right
> - the Surrey Police department charged with investigating vehicle
> accidents did not know you can use the internet to check whether a
> vehicle is currently taxed, and their own system apparently doesn't
> until several months after the event.
>
> Last week's local paper gave a hook for me to write about the
> incident, and now (surprise) the whole district has a response:http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/temp/paper_letter.png
>
> Shame they still haven't seen fit to actually communicate with me
> directly. If I'd missed this week's edition I'd still be none the
> wiser.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|

Ian,

Well done for your persistence here. Please keep going.

btw, how do you know that the same false details were given?

Peter.

[al Mossah]

On 5 Oct, 10:51, " > wrote:
> On Oct 4, 5:43 pm, Ian Smith > wrote:> Recently I noticed that the van has had its tax renewed. I phoned the
> > police and they were oblivious of this. Guess what? It has
> > apparently been renewed with the same false details. So a vehicle
> > alleged to have been deliberately used as a weapon and known to have
> > committed a hit-and-run while uninsured and having false registration
> > details has apparently been permitted to be retaxed with the same
> > false details (the same details come up on the police check).
>
> It's been a very long time since I renewed a tax disk but don't you
> have to show an insurance certificate and MOT if you do it at a
> postoffice. So the insurance must surely have had the (a) valid
> address in order to get the postcode.
>
> And if it was renewed online then presumably the tax disk is posted
> so again a contact address must have been known.
>
> Tim.
When renewing on-line, the insurance policy details have to be given.
Presumably there's a cross-check to the insurance industries data....
or is there?

But you are right, the disc would have to be posted, so if only a tag
was put on this vehicle, then a report of the address could have been
sent to the police when it was renewed. Wow, sometimes my detective
skills amaze me.

Of course, it's possible that there are dozens of vans driving around
with the same registration number

Peter.

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:30:21 -0700, al Mossah > wrote:
>
> btw, how do you know that the same false details were given?

Only because when the police examined further they told me it had the
same details as last time. Of course, it's possible they were
mistaken in their minds - they seem to have been mistaken in their
minds before (eg letter to me: "there is nothing further we can do",
but later statement to the press "enquiries are continuing ... in the
process of several new lines of enquiry"; letter to me: "a crime
report was not created" statement to the press: "treat all allegations
of criminal activity very seriously"). It's also possible that their
system is still still giving months-old data, I suppose.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007, al Mossah > wrote:
>
> But you are right, the disc would have to be posted, so if only a
> tag was put on this vehicle, then a report of the address could
> have been sent to the police when it was renewed. Wow, sometimes my
> detective skills amaze me.

That's the sort of thing I had in mind, yes.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Tony Bryer]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:35:01 -0700 Al Mossah wrote :
> When renewing on-line, the insurance policy details have to be given.

No

> Presumably there's a cross-check to the insurance industries data....
> or is there?

Yes - presumably they look for a match on registration number, postcode
and perhaps surname. IIRC the notes say that if they can't confirm your
insurance you will have to renew at a PO.

The tax disk is then posted, but that's not foolproof - it might be a mail
drop address.


--
TonyB

[david lloyd]

"Tony Bryer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:35:01 -0700 Al Mossah wrote :
>> When renewing on-line, the insurance policy details have to be given.
>
> No
>
>> Presumably there's a cross-check to the insurance industries data....
>> or is there?
>
> Yes - presumably they look for a match on registration number, postcode
> and perhaps surname. IIRC the notes say that if they can't confirm your
> insurance you will have to renew at a PO.
>
> The tax disk is then posted, but that's not foolproof - it might be a mail
> drop address.
>

When you renew online, the DVLA have to have had notification from an
insurance company that you have valid insurance. You don't have to provide
these details yourself, the insurance companies have to log them with the
DVLA.

IMHO, it would help if the police could tag a registration number with the
DVLA so that if anything happens with vehicles of interest they could be
notified. In this instance, it would have been useful if the police could
have traced where the tax disk ended up.

David Lloyd