Something not right here.
Originally you said:
I was called early on in the morning by him and he informed me that he crashed it and ran from the scene.
and
I could not of contacted my insurance company about the incident because I didn’t have insurance on the car. I gave him the car on the basis that he would have traders insurance. I then found out he didn’t have a licence at the time so it appeared the whole exchange was built on trust.
which suggests to me that your "friend" not only had an accident in your car whilst uninsured and not having a licence but he also legged it from after the accident (a sure sign of guilt).
Then you say
He was convicted of the notice of intended prosecution I was initially given - Careless driving & Failing to stop at a collision.
which is a total contradiction.
i doubt he would have been prosecuted for "failing to stop" because theoretically he did stop. He would have been prosecuted for "leaving the scene of an accident" which I believe is a more serious charge.
Careless driving, I can understand that bit.
But if he had really had no insurance and licence he would have been 100% prosecuted for those.
So tell us the real story please.
|