Hit and Run Vehicle - Police Did Not Review CCTV as Investigating Officer Was on Holiday

Fat Horny Ghost on 27/10/2018 - 11:31
Last edited 29/10/2018 - 17:53 by 1 other user

Hi looking for some advice.

My car broke down outside a petrol station, so I rolled it into a spot just outside the driveway on a local street as it was near my house, while I sorted out a plan to repair it and then sell it. Note that it was no longer insured but was still registered.

About two weeks later someone had crashed into it and drove off. Someone left a note on the car giving the registration details of the offender and said "saw an old fella in a ute crash into your car.. registration xxxx”.

  • Incident happened last week of August or first week of September
  • Reported to police 4 september.
  • Waiting for investigation to identify the driver and for me to send a claim
  • now is nearly 2-3 months since the incident and report to police, car been sitting there

The petrol station has CCTV cameras that cover where the car is parked. Additionally across the road was a Good Guys with another CCTV facing the street from the pick up area.

I only know the timeframe was one week, where it was not damaged and it was damaged. The police said he will have a look and go talk to the offender. He looked it up on the system and confirmed the rego given was a old man with a white Ute. But the person who left the note did not leave their own details. Police said he will go pay the man a visit but said "the old man must have not heard it happening".

Now I went to follow up on the report and they told us there’s not much they can do as the investigation police officer went on holiday with his kids and it is far too late to review CCTV footage. Additionally there is no witnesses as there was no contact number on the letter.

It’s been approximately a few months now since this.

So
1) What can I do about the police report? There was CCTV and the damages were more than 1k but they did not get someone to follow up. Feel that if they found the offender that I could make the insurance claim so much easier for not at fault. Seemed to take the issue very lightly too.

2) Should I get the car fixed or just sell for scrap? It is worth $3000-$4000 with repair costs $2-$3k not including the crash which will cost additional around $1k. Low km for 2003 car @160k and good condition. Will only sell for $200-400 for scrap.

Automotive

Comments

  • pegaxs on 27/10/2018 - 11:37
    +42

    It’s been sitting there for months.

    Lol…

      • pegaxs on 27/10/2018 - 11:59
        +79

        You’re lucky it wasn’t towed for being abandoned. I’ve read over this post and I am still not convinced that it isn’t a troll post…

        • Parked outside petrol station for months.
        • No longer insured (standard for OzB posts)
        • Check on car “every now and then” (How about tow it to your own driveway)
        • Time frame is one week (Really?)
        • No witness details (Anyone could have written the note)
        • a few months now since this (can’t be that urgent)

        The comedy of errors throughout all of this is on you. Abandoned car, no insurance, months to chase it up. Where are the police at fault here? Your dumped car is not their responsibility. It would have sat there till it rusted if no one had have damaged it.

        And if you think a dumped, 2003 car with 160,000+ km on it is worth anywhere in the vicinity of $5~6,000, you are deluded. You are here clutching at straws, looking for someone to pay you for it, because it is worthless.

        • Fat Horny Ghost on 27/10/2018 - 13:03

          Check update post below

        • smartazz104 on 29/10/2018 - 07:32
          +1

          You’re lucky it wasn’t towed for being abandoned

          But, we've learned on OzBargain that you can leave a car parked on the street for centuries and it can't be touched as long as it's registered.

          • pegaxs on 29/10/2018 - 09:19
            +3

            @smartazz104: Well, technically, you are right. If no one reports it and it goes unnoticed, it can stay there indefinitely.

            If it is reported to the local council, they will inspect the vehicle and make an effort to contact the owner and ask them to move it. If the owner cannot be contacted or fails to move the vehicle, it will then be towed and notice given to the owner to pick it up and/or it will be forfeited and sold to recover costs.

          • Mitch889 on 29/10/2018 - 20:51
            -1

            @smartazz104: Not true

            I reported a car that appeared abandoned on our street in Port Melbourne not too long ago. Car was registered but in increasingly poor condition. Flat tyres and covered in a film of dirt. Full of junk.

            Council had it removed, whether it was the owner that moved it after being alerted or the council towed it not sure, the report tracker didn’t say.

        • cameldownunder on 29/10/2018 - 09:24

          TLTR: How can I argue with lazy police force?

          • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 10:49
            +3

            @cameldownunder: Note: "lazy" in this case means unwilling to go through a week's worth of CCTV for a hit and run on a broken down car.

            • pegaxs on 29/10/2018 - 11:55
              +6

              @HighAndDry: So what OP is suggesting is, police drop everything and go through over 160 hours of footage, which will be inconclusive anyway. And even if they go to the guy who is suspected as doing it, with no witness, all he has to say is, "wasn't me" and it's case closed.

              And then people wonder why police take forever to respond to things when this is the garbage they have to chase up…

              • Fat Horny Ghost on 29/10/2018 - 17:09
                +1

                @pegaxs: No, that'll be second course of action.

                First course would be as simple phone call to the owner of the rego given or pay them a visit / inspect damages to their car.

                The CCTV footage can be used as an aid to the investigation as a bargaining tool for the offender to admit guilt.

                There was CCTV on site so if driver does not admit guilt, CCTV footage can be used to prosecute the driver if found at fault.

                The offence for leaving a scene of accident without details is one (1) year jail or $2356 fine. Much bigger than your usual speeding fine, but I guess patrolling the streets to catch offenders for breaches of traffic incidents is better than causing the traffic incident itself?

                • HighAndDry on 30/10/2018 - 10:43
                  +2

                  @Fat Horny Ghost: Great. Let me know when you graduate from police academy, join the force, and can do that yourself. I'm sure your skills and knowledge is right now greatly missed.

            • ely on 29/10/2018 - 14:41
              +5

              @HighAndDry: Only if the police are stupid (and that's definitely a possibility here); if the damage is visible from the footage then you'll be able to find the incident without watching much footage at all using a simple binary search.

              If that sounds complicated… You first look in the middle - is it damaged? If yes, then you know it happened before that point, if not you know it happened after. Either way you only have half the video to go. Repeat until you're done, probably only 15 - 20 minutes work depending on how easily the video viewing software you have lets you jump around.

              • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 14:47

                @ely: Even if you're right because you're assuming the damage is obviously visible (remember, this is on the street opposite the petrol station) - now calculate time required for the police to get the footage, fiddle with file formats, import it, hope that you can read number plates (CCTV usually has lower resolution for higher storage capacity), etc. And you're still looking at least 50? man-hours of work for around $1,000 of likely accidental property damage. They'd save money if they just paid those wages directly to OP.

                Nah, if OP wants our tax money spent on that, they can take a hike.

                • ely on 29/10/2018 - 15:06
                  +2

                  @HighAndDry: I'm not assuming that, I explicitly stated it as a condition :D

                  if the damage is visible from the footage

                  Figuring out whether you have the resolution to read a number plate will be trivial as well, it'll be obvious from any vehicle and if not then no need to spend the extra 20 minutes looking for the incident.

                  But yes, it will take a some time to get the footage - most of that time is waiting time though, not man hours of actually doing something. If you divide your estimate by 10 you'll still be on the high side, but you're right - they'd do better to admit that after estimating the cost of investigating the crime it's cheaper for us to pay you out to resolve it. If they're unable to do the job because of resource constraints then taking the cheaper option seems reasonable.

                • Fat Horny Ghost on 29/10/2018 - 17:20
                  +1

                  @HighAndDry: Street directly next to the driveway exiting the petrol station

                  Petrol Stations have decent enough CCTV to catch rego plates to prosecute drive offs [less than $100 fuel] vs. [$1000 property damage]

                  I'm not sure what you expect the police to do, perhaps for them to fulfil Federal Police roles higher up on the offence order?

                  I expect them to enforce the law.

                  Today two police officers and centre security were looking for a shoplifter who stole cans of drinks from Kmart. You could argue that it's a waste of tax payers money, but in the end upholding and enforcing the law is their job.

                  • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 17:23

                    @Fat Horny Ghost:

                    Petrol Stations have decent enough CCTV to catch rego plates to prosecute drive offs [less than $100 fuel] vs. [$1000 property damage]

                    Petrol stations pay for and maintain CCTV systems to both protect them from and discourage drive-offs, which cost them money. They don't install them for your benefit. If you wanted coverage, maybe YOU should've shelled out for a dashcam. Stop expecting to freeload off others.

                    I expect them to enforce the law.

                    Sure. But until and unless they have enough manpower to investigate every single complaint (I hope that day never comes because we'll be paying 80% marginal tax rates at that point), they have to prioritise. And a non-violent, likely accidental act which caused =< $1,000 of property damage? I think they're right to have that very low on their list.

                  • [Deactivated] on 30/10/2018 - 02:52
                    +1

                    @Fat Horny Ghost: CCTV:
                    You have made a vast generalisation about petrol station cctv systems. How many systems have you seen?

                    In my experience, most systems only cover the bowsers. Even then, the footage is so poor that you cant read a registration plate about 60% of the time. In these cases you especially can't ID a driver.

                    That said, lets assume that the footage is good.

                    Its been mentioned before but who do you expect to take on the cost of obtaining and reviewing the footage?
                    Who would pay for the multiple usb drives or DVD's to burn this week of footage on to?
                    After that who would review the footage? CCTV software often doesn't work very well.
                    In most cases the options would be to play it at standard speed. So there goes a week to review the footage. Or to play it at maybe 4x or one system I've seen would only work at 16x. How are you supposed to locate the moment of impact reviewing it at that speed. Reviewing at 8x speed for 8 days worth of footage would take 24 hours. Surely you don't expect this from the service station or the police?

                    Property Damage:
                    Another issue is that this isn't criminal property damage.

                    Criminal Property damage in most states requires an intention or a recklessness. In the case of a vehicle collision someone would have to be actively ramming your car over and over again to be considered criminal property damage. In Terms of reckless property damage you would more be looking at someone doing burnouts or donuts and hitting the car.

                    In this case it would be a minor civil claim settled in the Magistrates Court. Police wouldn't have anything to do with this.

                    Leaving the scene of an accident:
                    I'm not sure what state you are in but read some case law about this. As crappy as it may be the driver didn't stop and leave details. If he was old then he probably didn't know he even hit your car. If thats the case then he cant be successfully prosecuted under this legislation. Proving any mens rea would be near impossible.

                    Unfortunately its a shitty situation where a person can damage someones car and get away with it. This is why people have insurance.

              • blitz on 29/10/2018 - 15:46
                +1

                @ely: Beat me by 13 minutes!

            • cameldownunder on 29/10/2018 - 15:07

              @HighAndDry: Lazy then. Just to Lazy to find out the inept driver that hits a parked car. I call it lazy.

              • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 15:10
                -4

                @cameldownunder: The thing is - no one cares other than OP, and no one should. OP didn't mention bits of his car strewn over the street, so this is basically the same as any other slow-speed prang in a car park by a scummy driver who doesn't leave a note.

  • Gronk on 27/10/2018 - 11:43
    +8

    Biggest mistake.

    You got that right, you took a gamble and lost. If it were me I'd scrap it and move on.

  • original15 on 27/10/2018 - 11:47
    +5

    what type of car? 2003 and still worth $5k-$6k? Is there a chance you’re valuing this old bomb more than it’s actually worth?

      • pegaxs on 27/10/2018 - 12:08
        +9

        From Redbook. (A far more reliable source than Carsguide)

        Mazda 6 Luxury Sedan;
        Private Price Guide: $3,000 - $4,600
        Trade In Price Guide: $1,100 - $2,700

        • Fat Horny Ghost on 27/10/2018 - 12:27
          -1

          I got 3.4k - 5k from red book

          https://www.redbook.com.au/cars/details/2003-Mazda-6-Luxury-…

          So technically if it was fixed with new parts and considering good condition and low odo, otherwise with no other issues should be mid to high 4K. 3k for quick sale. Either way much better than 400 for scrap.

          https://www.redbook.com.au/cars/details/2003-Mazda-6-Luxury-…

          It is our spare car so it’s always been garaged and driven only about 10k per year

          • pegaxs on 27/10/2018 - 15:21
            +2

            @Fat Horny Ghost: You quoted the sedan from cars guide, but quote hatch from redbook. Which is it?

            And the prices quoted are estimated prices, not guaranteed prices. Realistic prices are closer to the “trade in” price than it is to the upper private sale price.

            You can ask $10,000 for the car, but that does not make it “worth” that much. It is only worth something once money has actually changed hands.

            So, $6,000 for that car? Dream on.

          • Flanders on 28/10/2018 - 22:03
            +4

            @Fat Horny Ghost: Cars aint easy to sell. What its "worth" according to some website and averaged out sales etc and what you will actually sell it for is quite different.
            From my experience, look on redbook, then see 'trade in value' then go off the lower end of that for reasonably easy sale. Can ask for more, but probably won't get it unless you're lucky.
            Eveb with low km on odometer, ut doesn't mean the car is mint condition and low km cars can have massive problems still.
            There are people on gumtree trying to get big $$ for 15 year old cars with low km, pricing them as if the low km makes it like new. Doubt any of them sell.

          • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 14:49
            +2

            @Fat Horny Ghost:

            It is our spare car so it’s always been garaged and driven only about 10k per year

            No one cares. It's a 15 year old run of the mill Mazda 6 without a working engine.

            • Fat Horny Ghost on 29/10/2018 - 17:29
              +1

              @HighAndDry: If it was the windscreen of a Porsche with a working engine but the damages were equivalent in repair costs would they care?

              I think you seem to be missing the point.

              1. Clear law broken that is punishable by one year jail or $2356 fine.
              2. Prosecution will aid with the claim process.
              3. CCTV will aid in the prosecution process.
              4. Case not transferred to another officer after taking leave - poor operational management

              So far the only one person that won is the one that caused damage and got away with it.

              • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 17:33
                +2

                @Fat Horny Ghost:

                If it was the windscreen of a Porsche with a working engine but the damages were equivalent in repair costs would they care?

                Your car is worth around $500-$1,000 total. Literally could not come close to a windscreen for a Porche. Stop dreaming.

                So far the only one person that won is the one that caused damage and got away with it.

                Yes. But so far the losers have been:

                1. Us, for having to read your drivel.

                2. Police, for having to take time out to talk to you.

                3. Petrol station staff, also for having to talk to you.

                4. You, for having a broken-down car further broken.

                You could've saved us the trouble and avoided 1-3. But did you? No.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2018 - 12:00
    +27

    Broken down car sitting there for months? Move on. Cops barely care about property damage on working vehicles.

    • Fat Horny Ghost on 27/10/2018 - 12:36
      +1

      Hi rock check my update below.

      Are you saying they can be lazy to investigate incidents on damage against property damage on a working vehicle?

      So technically I could go damage someone’s working vehicle under cctv camera and get away with it? Or hit it and then drive off in this case without being prosecuted.

      IMO any damage, especially a hit and run to property should be investigated especially if it was under cctv

      • whooah1979 on 27/10/2018 - 12:47
        +3

        A vehicle collision where nobody is injured is a low priority offence. Note down the event number, give it your insurer and let them deal with it.

        • Fat Horny Ghost on 27/10/2018 - 12:57

          Thanks this explains why it’s taken so long

      • No ONE on 29/10/2018 - 21:23

        So technically I could go damage someone’s working vehicle under cctv camera and get away with it? Or hit it and then drive off in this case without being prosecuted.

        Technically yes unless someone is injured. It's a free country.

  • Fat Horny Ghost on 27/10/2018 - 12:17

    Here’s the nitty details + proof it is not a troll post

    1. Car broke down early-mid August. Was pushed to outside the petrol station. Contacted car repair shops to get quotes to get it fixed.

    2. 2-3 weeks later found someone had driven into it.

    3. Reported it to the police 4 September. The incident would have occurred anytime between the time of:(27 August 18 - 12:00PM) and today (4 September 18 - 3:00PM) - I sent this to the police.

    4. Reported to Brisbane city council so that they were aware it is not abandoned.

    5. It is parked close to our home so no need to tow + there will be CCTV footage if someone vandalized, steals parts or if they crash into it (surprised it happened).

    6. It’s been there for nearly 3 months now. Period of 2 months within this timeframe was waiting for the officer to identify the vehicle that hit our car so I can process and claim against the driver myself. The incident occurred about 2-3 weeks since the car was left there.

    (Mod: image link removed by request)

    • pegaxs on 27/10/2018 - 15:33
      +2

      It’s been there for nearly 3 months now.

      Lol. Ok, I’m convinced that it’s not a troll, but forced meme is forced.

    • Zachary on 28/10/2018 - 18:30

      C'mon, give us uncensored details…..along with pictures of the car…….

      • nith265 on 29/10/2018 - 14:22
        +2

        the image pretty much is uncensored, it reveals:

        • OP's real name
        • That OP appears to live with mother
        • The police officer's real name
        • The police officer's email

        Not sure how common the police officer's name is but if he's same one as the open facebook profile from qld, he perhaps doesn’t appear to be one for obsessively following up on details

        • Zachary on 30/10/2018 - 02:52

          …how? They were all blacked out….unless you have x-ray vision eyes…..

          …and now the links gone now so I can't re-check if I somehow missed my x-ray vision powers from working too…..I guess OP got a bit insecure…..

          If they were all there in clear eligibility, perhaps you would like to share those details with me then? Heh… :P

          • nith265 on 30/10/2018 - 21:35

            @Zachary: It was mostly just a mediocre blacking out job however one name was revealed by adjusting the image levels to make the shaded paint brush disappear

            If you're that desperate you can find it too…

    • Seedy seed on 29/10/2018 - 08:59

      Lol the officer prob went to the old fella nd said say it wasnt you, the scumbag is looking to make you buy his broken peice of shit he abandoned…

  • whooah1979 on 27/10/2018 - 12:41

    It's not uncommon for 24/7 CCTV to overwrite between 1 week to 30 days.

    • Fat Horny Ghost on 27/10/2018 - 12:54

      Thanks. The incident was reported to the police and would have occurred within a timeframe of 30 mins - 8 days from the time I reported it.

  • chumlee on 27/10/2018 - 13:01
    +22

    I'm dissapointed the cops didn't put every detective on this case, cause now we have to hear about this BS on ozbargain.

    Move on with your life

      • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2018 - 00:54
        +21

        Why didn't you spend 10 minutes of your own time organising a tow then?

      • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 14:51
        +2

        Sure, of your time maybe. Certainly isn't worth the police's time. 30hrs at ~$30+ per hour is already a thousand dollars, and there's zero certainty there even is a resolution.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2018 - 17:40
      +11

      So a cop shouldn't care that a driver without adequate control of his vehicle has collided with another vehicle and failed to provide details.

      But we're okay with them pulling motorist over who may be 5kmph over because they are potentially going to collide with someone.

      • chumlee on 27/10/2018 - 18:17
        -4

        Who does the driver leave details with? OP parked it and left it there for months.

        Maybe the driver went in to the servo & asked if they knew the owner.

        Who knows what happened. We are only getting OP's edited version to suit his/her claims

        • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2018 - 18:46
          +2

          They could tuck it under the wiper, go home, get some cling wrap or laminator and write up something more weather resistant.

          Who knows what happened. We are only getting OP's edited version to suit his/her claims

          That's the case with any scenario presented here or any forum. If we need both sides to form even the most basic opinion, there would be no intelligent thought outside of courtrooms.

          • Seedy seed on 29/10/2018 - 09:04
            -1

            @[Deactivated]: Thats more effort then you put into it and its your property. No offence but your being a bit of a tool really…

            1. Protect your stuff, if it breaks get it somewhere you own.

            2. Dont expect anyone to put more effort or care into your property then you do

            3. Learn to live with your mistakes

            This isnt ment to upset you, just to shake you out of your delusions…

            • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2018 - 09:15
              +2

              @Seedy seed: Not sure what absolution, delusion and poorly veiled insults have to do with the legal requirements to exchange or leave details.

              • Seedy seed on 29/10/2018 - 09:19

                @[Deactivated]: Lol, its the internet.

              • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 14:53

                @[Deactivated]: I don't think anyone's defending the scumbag who pulled the hit-and-run. But that's pretty much in the past, and right now it's OP wanting police to spend about 50-odd hours on a wild goose chase so that he can benefit to the tune of about $1,000.

                I haven't seen OP care anything about the law or fairness or justice, he only cares about how much the 15 year old Mazda 6 can sell for… ("assuming [engine] is fixed with good parts").

                I don't even think OP should waste time on this, much less the police.

                • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2018 - 16:11
                  +1

                  @HighAndDry: I'm not advocating that police spend 50 odd man hours investigating or for the OP to receive any sympathy.

                  If OP did indeed report a narrow timeframe (ie a few hours) that the collision occurred, the police could have requested a volunteery release of said CCTV with the timeframe specified. At increased replay rate, it will take a few minutes to find the car that's hit OPs car.

                  Police have no problems issuing summons without concrete evidence, this one has CCTV footage.

                  A wreckless idiot plows into a parked car and is opportunistic enough to scramble off without leaving contact details. That's the issue I have with police not responding. OP being involved is incidental.

                  • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 17:31
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]:

                    If OP did indeed report a narrow timeframe (ie a few hours) that the collision occurred, the police could have requested a volunteery release of said CCTV

                    Oh I actually agree with this. But OP has given a range of 8 days. And not to downplay this because I think people who hit-and-run are scum, but this is an everyday occurrence in car parks. Do I wish people who did this got strung up? Oh yeah, definitely. Do I realistically think the police have better things to do? Also yes.

                    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2018 - 18:50

                      @HighAndDry: I must be going off an earlier version of the OC.

                      I gathered it was detected almost immediately following the accident.

                      I agree, 8 days and the vehicle should be treated as abandoned and the owner fined.

                      • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 18:52

                        @[Deactivated]: Oh - was that edited in later? A lot of my comments would be different if it was right afterwards too. Giving a few minutes to an hour of CCTV footage would be ok imo, as opposed to giving a week's worth of footage (as an example in my other comments).

                        • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2018 - 19:10

                          @HighAndDry: Lol. Yeah. 8 days is like… Long.

        • Fat Horny Ghost on 29/10/2018 - 16:30

          Left for 2 weeks and incident happened. Months is waiting for response from police. Check image I posted.

      • whooah1979 on 27/10/2018 - 21:27

        There is no witness nor CCTV.

  • Randxyz123 on 27/10/2018 - 13:59
    +1

    Alright first of all…

    given that I was not driving it, I planned not to pay insurance for a few months. Biggest mistake.

    No, the biggest mistake was not moving it. I pay $250 a year for RACV cover. That is their top-level cover with as many tows as I need a year, with many other features including helping me out in ANY car I'm driving anywhere throughout Australia. At the very least you should have brought it home.

    Not to mention you just left it there. Insurance wouldn't cover it even if you had insurance.

    Now I went to follow up on the report and they told us there’s not much they can do as the investigation police officer went on holiday with his kids and it is far too late to review CCTV footage.

    It's a minor thing but I'd call BS on this. The constable SHOULD have had someone covering for him. I'd be calling the station and ask to speak with his supervisor. How is it too late?

    Unfortunately, these sort of incidents are considered low priority unlike catching people doing 5kph over the limit.

    Post pictures of the car? Is the damage bad? Maybe sell "As is". Someone might want it.

    • toristo on 27/10/2018 - 14:13
      +9

      F-ck the car, where's the MS Paint diagram of where this accident happened?

      This is an outrage that nobody has demanded at least that so far.

    • greatlamp on 29/10/2018 - 12:47

      Interested in the RACV cover
      What product are you referring to?

    • Fat Horny Ghost on 29/10/2018 - 17:33

      I have roadside assistance cover with 1 tow. I was saving to get it towed to the car repair shop with best quotes but incident happened a week or two after. Car has been sitting there since.

      The damage is not too bad, but would definitely affect resale value of the car and is quite noticeable.

  • Yummy on 27/10/2018 - 14:41
    +5

    Note that it was no longer insured but was registered.

    Someone left a note on the car giving the registration details of the offender and said “saw an old fella in a Ute crash into your car registration xxxx”.

    But the person who left the note did not leave details.

    DIY: How to frame an old man.

    • Fat Horny Ghost on 27/10/2018 - 14:47

      That’s what I thought however if there is cctv footage and damage to his car then no doubt his car was involved

  • Gandalf the Thrifty on 27/10/2018 - 14:47
    +4

    Yep police got nothing better to do. Recall all the detectives back from Cairns murder to investigate damage to an abandoned car worth maybe $3-5k.

  • indium on 27/10/2018 - 14:59
    +9

    Police aren't going to review a week of cctv footage from 2 separate stores over a minor hit and run. You could have tried getting the footage yourself.

    • Fat Horny Ghost on 27/10/2018 - 21:06
      +1

      Yes I tried doing that but they said they needed the police to look through it.. unfortunate

      • Seedy seed on 29/10/2018 - 09:08

        Lol "some time in the last week my diabetic child was at the servo, i need to get him insulin. Can i review your footage"

      • Yummy on 29/10/2018 - 11:52

        You need to ask the attendance out for a dinner date.

      • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 14:54

        I mean, that's what you get for trying to use other people's CCTV to protect your property.

  • Baysew on 27/10/2018 - 15:03
    +2

    Sell the car for scrap. You are just sending good money after bad.

  • brendanm on 27/10/2018 - 21:37
    +3

    I'm sure your broken down Mazda 6 worth a couple of hundred bucks is an extremely high priority to police. They will probably send 10 officers to review the 300 odd hours of footage from the week when it was possibly hit.

    Got what you deserved for leaving a broken down, uninsured car on the side of the road for months instead of towing it to your house or the wreckers.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/10/2018 - 22:09

    So you think the cops should review a weeks worth of CCTV over a car with a couple of thousand dollars? A lot of places don't keep CCTV long (more than 2 weeks would be unusual). I would be surprised if the CCTV gave good coverage of your car anyway.

    But seriously you basically abandoned the car leaving it dumped somewhere for months, forget about it and move on, there is nothing you can do about it now.

    • Fat Horny Ghost on 28/10/2018 - 00:52
      -3

      Yup looks like scrapyard for now and hopefully I can track down the vehicle so he gets prosecuted

      • [Deactivated] on 28/10/2018 - 17:21

        he wont

        • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2018 - 22:31

          Most security camera system get automatically deleted within 30 day frame or even less with no backup. Good luck with that. Also good luck with that being recorded if it only records motion only and event happen probably off frame and really far away.

          • Zachary on 30/10/2018 - 02:54

            @[Deactivated]: I thought for anyone to have any sort of camera system would archive all videos recorded till the day they die or something….?

    • cameldownunder on 29/10/2018 - 09:34
      +8

      What happended? A driver crashed into a car, and fled the scene, right? It should not matter what car got hit, how old the car was and if it was insured. Next time the "old man" will crash into a car, where a couple is just putting their baby in the bassinet, killing the parents and leaving an orphan behind. If the"old man" did not come forward and left his detail at the servo or called the police to report his accident, I suppose it's because he is afraid of losing his license, that is probably because he shoudl not drive.
      So everybody here stop abusing OP, and think about who this old man, with bad eyesight, slow reflexes, an old Ute that is not maintained well, with crappy brakes, is crashing in next time, maybe killing someone.

    • macrocephalic on 29/10/2018 - 10:41
      +3

      It's not like you have to sit there and watch the CCTV footage for a week - as long as the damage is visible from the camera vantage point. Monday morning: Not damaged, Tuesday morning: not damaged, Wednesday morning, damaged. Wednesday midday: damaged. Wednesday 10am not damaged. Etc. At most you should only need to watch about 20 minutes of footage (assuming it's digital footage that allows you to seek to a time).

      • raymosaurus on 29/10/2018 - 11:20
        +1

        Exactly. It's not rocket surgery. If the servo doesn't have a camera pointed at the area of damage, another establishment will. Too late now, but I would have done my own investigation if the police showed a lack of interest or lack of action in 5 days.

        You cannot rely on anybody, even police, for time critical matters.

        • pegaxs on 29/10/2018 - 12:15
          +2

          The point is that most places have CCTV to protect their own premises, not to video abandoned cars across the road.

          At the distance and angle of these cameras and the resolution, the best the cops would be able to say is "yep, a white ute looks like it may have touched your car in that frame…"

          I very much doubt that the footage would be good enough to chase down and get confirmation of the driver who is at fault.

          OP is asking the police to spend thousands of our tax payer dollars on a maybe and at best, even admits to the damage being minimal. If you are OK with your tax dollars being spent like this, then you are in the minority.

          • Fat Horny Ghost on 29/10/2018 - 16:34

            @pegaxs: Not hard for them to follow up and talk to the owner of the car reported. CCTV is only used as hard evidence is required + obtain the rego of the witness.

            • pegaxs on 29/10/2018 - 20:46
              +1

              @Fat Horny Ghost: You just don’t get it. You want the police to spend more time and resources than what your car is worth. You’re angry and want revenge and to you don’t care about the cost to tax payers, you just want some justice.

              You are banking everything on this random piece of paperwork that was left on your car. There is no details of the witness or the validity of the details. The chance that the CCTV footage shows anything useful is slim at best. It may only show a vague idea of a car if it even has coverage of your car. From the angle, it may not show anything reliable enough.

              You have watched too many CSI tv shows that have unrealistic CCTV footage. Even if they do see someone who put the notice on your car, how do they go about identifying them? I surprised you don’t want DNA and fingerprint analysis done on the note…

              What you are asking is that the police throw a lot of resources (ie: money) at something that will have a zero outcome, all because you want to feel vindicated.

              And to your above comments, no one is getting a $2500 fine and/or jail time for touching up your abandoned vehicle.

              All of this over a car that is worth next to nothing in in current state. You left it somewhere for months on end. It was only a matter of time until something happened.

              Imagine if one day, the police turned up at your house based on an anonymous note left on some random car saying you hit it months ago.

              • Fat Horny Ghost on 30/10/2018 - 00:59
                -1

                @pegaxs: I’ve seen enough cctv footage on the police Facebook to see that they go through cctv to catch culprits or identIfy witnesses but I’m guessing it could be a court order or case.

                The car worth is irreverent. We have 5 cars and if the same happened to my new bmw I would be doing the exact same. It was actually clipped on the mirror but there wasn’t any cctv footage and also our Lexus tail light got smashed. No cctv footage or witnesses so there’s not much I can do.

                If you read through my comments it was only left for 1-2 weeks as I was organizing to get it towed somewhere for repairs. Now it’s been sitting there because I have been waiting for a prosecution before doing any work to it.

                All it takes is a one phone call and potential cctv footage for the driver to admit fault and prosecution, doesn’t seem to cost thousands of dollars.

        • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 14:56

          You cannot rely on anybody, even police, for time critical matters.

          OP shouldn't have been relying on other people's CCTV either. There's no guarantee they'll agree to help OP, and I see no reason why they should considering it happened entirely off their property.

          • ely on 29/10/2018 - 15:16
            +1

            @HighAndDry: Because most people aren't assholes; given the opportunity to help someone out at close to zero cost, most people generally will help others out.

            • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 15:17

              @ely: But there is a very real cost for the police or any store owners here - in terms of time, possible risk/liability, effort, etc.

              • ely on 29/10/2018 - 15:18

                @HighAndDry: I thought we were talking about the owners of the CCTV cameras?

                The (profanity) thing doesn't factor in for police; it's their job to help out. Uninvolved CCTV owners that just happen to have footage, them you need to rely on their goodwill.

                Edit: interesting note on the profanity filter, (profanity) got stripped, but assholes didn't (extra "s"). Profanity filters are always pretty poor, but it's not often you see one so bad that the only thing you need is to pluralise it :D

                • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 15:22
                  +1

                  @ely: Hahah my bad. I did stealth-edit it.

                  The (profanity) thing doesn't factor in for police; it's their job to help out.

                  Opportunity cost. I'd rather those hours went towards patrolling the streets, working on cases where there's personal injuries or risk of injury, or higher value property damage. Hell, helping a kitty down from a tree is honestly still more valuable imo than helping OP recoup at most $1,000 in value for a broke down car.

                  Uninvolved CCTV owners that just happen to have footage, them you need to rely on their goodwill.

                  Sure, and that the owner is there when OP asks (and it's not just a store attendant). And the owner has nothing to do while copying files for OP (they're usually one-man places), and that there's nothing else on there that might affect the owner negatively.

                  Nah - OP wants to basically get a few dollars for himself, he can put in the work himself. He's not a good samaritan in case anyone's confused, he's only looking out for himself here too.

                  • ely on 29/10/2018 - 15:26

                    @HighAndDry: I'm not disagreeing with you re: the police, it will legitimately take a small amount of their time and that is time they will not spend doing other things - however we were having that chat up above, this one was just about the CCTV ;)

                    Re: store owners, all I'm disagreeing with you is on this

                    I see no reason why they should considering it happened entirely off their property.

                    They have no obligation to help out, but most people would, because most people are reasonably decent people. I'd be surprised that anyone wouldn't. If it's not the owner, or someone with access to the footage, it will also take a very small investment of their time to contact someone that does have access. Moot point if they're actually a one man place, they'll have access, and a likewise small portion of time to help out.

                    • HighAndDry on 29/10/2018 - 15:55

                      @ely:

                      They have no obligation to help out, but most people would, because most people are reasonably decent people. I'd be surprised that anyone wouldn't.

                      Anyone with any passing knowledge of the law wouldn't. I have no qualms in saying that I wouldn't. Literally all down-side, all so that OP can escape the consequences of abandoning their broken down car by the side of the road and maybe make $1,000 more in selling it?

                      There's no "decency" or "altruism" factor here at all, just money and time and effort.

                      • ely on 29/10/2018 - 15:58

                        @HighAndDry:

                        Anyone with any passing knowledge of the law wouldn't.

                        I lack said legal knowledge; why would you not provide CCTV footage to someone? If someone came to me and said someone had hit their car and asked for some CCTV footage that I had, then I'd help them out. Would I be letting myself in for some sort of trouble by doing so?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join