Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gardai not responding to request for info needed to commence a civil case, what next?
Options
Comments
-
Somewhat tangential to this discussion but say there's an incident whereby damage is caused to my property (maybe a car door does damage to my parked car in a carpark?). For whatever reason, it's not progressed as a criminal case (relatively minor damage in the grand scheme of things).
It's on CCTV or observed by someone but I don't know the identity of the person who did it. Is it possible for me to get the identity of the person who did it from anywhere? It seems from this thread that it's not
look at post #1160 -
Best advice I can off is for you to plough on ahead regardless op. You don't want to take any advice so you do what you gotta do. It's gonna cost you dearly, may even ruin your life when the little scrotes seek retribution every day of the week (and they will because they have nothing else to be at). But at least at the end you'll have proved some kind of point to yourself and I hope it gives you a sense of closure.0
-
ohnonotgmail wrote: »Somewhat tangential to this discussion but say there's an incident whereby damage is caused to my property (maybe a car door does damage to my parked car in a carpark?). For whatever reason, it's not progressed as a criminal case (relatively minor damage in the grand scheme of things).
It's on CCTV or observed by someone but I don't know the identity of the person who did it. Is it possible for me to get the identity of the person who did it from anywhere? It seems from this thread that it's not
look at post #116
Okay, maybe a car was a bad example, let's say damage is caused to some other type of property. Is there any way for me to get the identity of the person who did it?0 -
Even if you get this information you've already admitted that you know that you won't get any money or compensation off them. So why are you fixated on getting their details only to lodge a civil case that you know is a waste of time?
Not True Del2005, how could I know I won't get any compensation off them when I don't know where he lives or whether he has any assets or not? There's an assumption (by others) that the vandal comes from some sort of socially deprived / poverty background but that's not necessarily true.
What I actually said ref progressing my civil case is:-We'll see. There's a reason the civil courts exist and are separate to the criminal courts. Thankfully once I have the vandals contact details I can issue the writ, present the CCTV footage and the vandals letter of admission to the court along with the Guard as a witness (if they follow through on their written offer) and see how the cards fall.
If I end up losing and paying the vandals costs I'll come back and issue beer vouchers all round to those of you who warned me that would happen but if I somehow manage to get a judgement in my favour, even if it takes years to collect, I'll be back here to update and hopefully provide encouragement to others to not roll over and allow yourself, through inertia, to be a helpless victim.
My life view is that if you want to achieve something and you are committed to doing so you don't quit when you meet hurdles, if you fall you get up and try again or try something different until all potential avenues are exhausted.The system isn't fair but you wasting your time isn't going to fix it and you will never get any satisfaction. I know someone who had much more stolen from them and nothing could be done.
Ok, lets explore that.
At the moment I'm €2,000 out of pocket due to the gratuitous vandalism of a 15/16/17 year old who has admitted what he did but despite being referred to the Youth Diversion Programme which is supposed to be "Restorative Justice" (https://www.garda.ie/en/crime-prevention/community-engagement/community-engagement-offices/garda-youth-diversion-bureau/restorative-justice-and-the-diversion-programme-for-young-offenders.pdf) neither the youth or his parents/guardians have paid for the damage done and according to most contributors here I should basically just accept that the law places more emphasis on protecting the identity of the youth and/or his parents (from what I'm not really sure) than it does on my right to compensation. I fundamentally disagree and believe everyone, regardless of their age, should be accountable for their actions and, in addition to any punishment the criminal system seeks to impose, they should also put right or pay compensation for whatever it is they did wrong.
If the prevailing logic is that vandals under the age of 18 can damage property with complete impunity from financial recourse by the victim my question to you and others of that view is what, if any limit, is there to the damage they can do before they are in fact financially accountable for what they do?
I'm down €2,000 and the consensus seems to be I should stop even trying to get recompense.
What if the level of damage done was:-
€20,000
€200,000
€2,000,000
€20,000,000
Is there any point along that scale where the financial damage done to the victim is so great that the law preventing the Guards from providing the identity of the vandal to the victim would or should permit them to do so?
If anyone says the protection should be unlimited I'd like to understand why you believe the protection of vandal is more important that the right of the victim to seek compensation?
What if the vandal had been using a catapult to fire marbles at windows and one of his shots hit me in the eye resulting in the loss of my eye. Would the law still shield his identity from me so I couldn't seek compensation? According to GM228 the answer is "yes" as the only exception to the rule which prevents the Guards from sharing data with a victim of a Juvenile is if there's a road traffic accident involved.
Is that seriously how the law here sits today and educated people over the years who put that law in place thought it through and felt this was fair and equitable to all parties involved?0 -
Infernal Racket wrote: »Best advice I can off is for you to plough on ahead regardless op. You don't want to take any advice so you do what you gotta do. It's gonna cost you dearly, may even ruin your life when the little scrotes seek retribution every day of the week (and they will because they have nothing else to be at). But at least at the end you'll have proved some kind of point to yourself and I hope it gives you a sense of closure.
I appreciate that advice Infernal Racket, it's similar to what aratsarse101 said yesterday which I've taken on board.
Right now my position is I want to explore taking the case and my focus is on getting the vandal or his parents contact details. Once I have those I'll be in a better position to determine whether on receipt of a writ he's likely to behave as you have outlined in which case I may literally decide "discretion is the better part of valour" as I'm not interested in some sort of pyrrhic victory but I want that to be my choice, not forced upon me by a law which protects the perpetrator at the cost of the victim.
We all assume young scrote bags in their track suits and hoodies etc are from socially deprived backgrounds but sometimes they are from well to do families, go to private schools and are just bored and out looking for kicks. If my guy turns out to be the son of a well to do family I won't hesitate in bringing the writ but if he's from a tough neighbourhood and his family circumstances are likely to be challenging or not socially responsible I'll likely decide not to proceed but that should be my choice and not made for me.0 -
Advertisement
-
It doesn't matter what background the offender has, he will not have to pay you compensation in a civil case.
I understand that it is not what we would all wish, but it is the way it is.
You seem to take it personally when a poster has spent their time to explain the law to you. The poster doesn't make the laws, they merely have explained then to you. It is not their fault that you are emotionally involved.
As regards the question of how much the damage was, would it make a difference? Maybe criminally, the juvenile may be charged if it was a large amount of damage. That makes no difference to the civil case though, you would more than likely have to claim from your insurance.0 -
I appreciate that advice Infernal Racket, it's similar to what aratsarse101 said yesterday which I've taken on board.
Right now my position is I want to explore taking the case and my focus is on getting the vandal or his parents contact details. Once I have those I'll be in a better position to determine whether on receipt of a writ he's likely to behave as you have outlined in which case I may literally decide "discretion is the better part of valour" as I'm not interested in some sort of pyrrhic victory but I want that to be my choice, not forced upon me by a law which protects the perpetrator at the cost of the victim.
We all assume young scrote bags in their track suits and hoodies etc are from socially deprived backgrounds but sometimes they are from well to do families, go to private schools and are just bored and out looking for kicks. If my guy turns out to be the son of a well to do family I won't hesitate in bringing the writ but if he's from a tough neighbourhood and his family circumstances are likely to be challenging or not socially responsible I'll likely decide not to proceed but that should be my choice and not made for me.
OK, taking all that on board, do you intend eo employ a solicitor to look after the pleading for you at district court level?0 -
It doesn't matter what background the offender has, he will not have to pay you compensation in a civil case.
I understand that it is not what we would all wish, but it is the way it is.
You seem to take it personally when a poster has spent their time to explain the law to you. The poster doesn't make the laws, they merely have explained then to you. It is not their fault that you are emotionally involved.
I'm obviously not blaming anyone on this thread for the current state of the law and in fact I appreciate people taking time to contribute even if it's not what I want to hear.
I do however question some of the contributions e.g. the statement that there was a blanket ban on the Guards sharing juvenile contact data with a victim who wishes to seek compensation through the civil courts when in fact there is at least one exception related to road traffic accidents.
Similarly I called out the assertion that the law preventing me from seeking compensation doesn't punish me.
That's not emotion, it's just arguing the logic of the point.As regards the question of how much the damage was, would it make a difference? Maybe criminally, the juvenile may be charged if it was a large amount of damage. That makes no difference to the civil case though, you would more than likely have to claim from your insurance.
Three things:-
1. Not everyone has all their personal property insured. Maybe it's a prudent thing to have but it's not a legal requirement.
2. What insurance would people typically have which covers the loss of sight in one eye for the remainder of their lives?
3. Why should people claim and burden insurance companies to pay for the actions of vandals? All that does is raise premiums for everyone else.
The first port of call for compensation should be the perpetrator, they should be held accountable for their actions. If that fails and the victim has an insurance policy which covers the damage then fair enough make the claim but it should be the last not first port of call.0 -
Infernal Racket wrote: »OK, taking all that on board, do you intend eo employ a solicitor to look after the pleading for you at district court level?
I have a right to represent myself which I may choose to do if a) I'm comfortable drafting the claim notice etc myself and / or b) I feel I may successfully get a judgement but struggle to get paid.
If I do get the contact details of the vandal or his parents so I can commence the case I'll do my research (see post above) and make a decision on whether to proceed or not and if I decide to proceed if I feel there's a good chance of getting paid I'll engage my solicitor.
I have been in business for myself for over 20 years so have a good relationship with one solicitor in particular who has handled business (and some personal) issues for me over the years plus I've referred a lot of business his way so I know he'd handle this for me and if wouldn't charge me a lot (may even do so FOC as I've done favours FOC for some of his clients over the years) but I want to explore the initial stages of this myself and only bring him in if it is warranted.0 -
I have a right to represent myself which I may choose to do if a) I'm comfortable drafting the claim notice etc myself and / or b) I feel I may successfully get a judgement but struggle to get paid.
If I do get the contact details of the vandal or his parents so I can commence the case I'll do my research (see post above) and make a decision on whether to proceed or not and if I decide to proceed if I feel there's a good chance of getting paid I'll engage my solicitor.
I have been in business for myself for over 20 years so have a good relationship with one solicitor in particular who has handled business (and some personal) issues for me over the years plus I've referred a lot of business his way so I know he'd handle this for me and if wouldn't charge me a lot (may even do so FOC as I've done favours FOC for some of his clients over the years) but I want to explore the initial stages of this myself and only bring him in if it is warranted.
You certainly have a right to defend yourself but it's not advisable unless you have a very good knowledge of how the court system works.0 -
Advertisement
-
costacorta wrote: »For the final time I’m saying it f a juvenile causes damage to another persons property like the OP then the parents should pay up for their child. Not rocket science for you to understand.
And regarding drug debts I said the Garda told the parent to pay the drug dealer her sons debt as otherwise she could be in more danger .
I understand completely that is what you are saying. I even stated it myself. That's why I quoted you saying it. The other user denied it.
I still don't see the purpose of the drug dealer story unless you think the drug dealers were correct and it's proof of your stance. Can you clarify why that story is relevant?0 -
Not True Del2005, how could I know I won't get any compensation off them when I don't know where he lives or whether he has any assets or not? There's an assumption (by others) that the vandal comes from some sort of socially deprived / poverty background but that's not necessarily true.
What I actually said ref progressing my civil case is:-
My life view is that if you want to achieve something and you are committed to doing so you don't quit when you meet hurdles, if you fall you get up and try again or try something different until all potential avenues are exhausted.
Ok, lets explore that.
At the moment I'm €2,000 out of pocket due to the gratuitous vandalism of a 15/16/17 year old who has admitted what he did but despite being referred to the Youth Diversion Programme which is supposed to be "Restorative Justice" (https://www.garda.ie/en/crime-prevention/community-engagement/community-engagement-offices/garda-youth-diversion-bureau/restorative-justice-and-the-diversion-programme-for-young-offenders.pdf) neither the youth or his parents/guardians have paid for the damage done and according to most contributors here I should basically just accept that the law places more emphasis on protecting the identity of the youth and/or his parents (from what I'm not really sure) than it does on my right to compensation. I fundamentally disagree and believe everyone, regardless of their age, should be accountable for their actions and, in addition to any punishment the criminal system seeks to impose, they should also put right or pay compensation for whatever it is they did wrong.
If the prevailing logic is that vandals under the age of 18 can damage property with complete impunity from financial recourse by the victim my question to you and others of that view is what, if any limit, is there to the damage they can do before they are in fact financially accountable for what they do?
I'm down €2,000 and the consensus seems to be I should stop even trying to get recompense.
What if the level of damage done was:-
€20,000
€200,000
€2,000,000
€20,000,000
Is there any point along that scale where the financial damage done to the victim is so great that the law preventing the Guards from providing the identity of the vandal to the victim would or should permit them to do so?
If anyone says the protection should be unlimited I'd like to understand why you believe the protection of vandal is more important that the right of the victim to seek compensation?
What if the vandal had been using a catapult to fire marbles at windows and one of his shots hit me in the eye resulting in the loss of my eye. Would the law still shield his identity from me so I couldn't seek compensation? According to GM228 the answer is "yes" as the only exception to the rule which prevents the Guards from sharing data with a victim of a Juvenile is if there's a road traffic accident involved.
Is that seriously how the law here sits today and educated people over the years who put that law in place thought it through and felt this was fair and equitable to all parties involved?
That's the law. The amount only matters in Criminal cases.
You can put together a beautiful argument all you want, the answer is "that's the law".
Our opinions don't count, they form no part of the answer. You are asking a legal question, not for opinions on how it should be.
You will not win. As long as you understand that part, do what you want. If this exercise helps you then great. If it widens your knowledge, again great.0 -
I'm obviously not blaming anyone on this thread for the current state of the law and in fact I appreciate people taking time to contribute even if it's not what I want to hear.
I do however question some of the contributions e.g. the statement that there was a blanket ban on the Guards sharing juvenile contact data with a victim who wishes to seek compensation through the civil courts when in fact there is at least one exception related to road traffic accidents.
Similarly I called out the assertion that the law preventing me from seeking compensation doesn't punish me.
That's not emotion, it's just arguing the logic of the point.
Three things:-
1. Not everyone has all their personal property insured. Maybe it's a prudent thing to have but it's not a legal requirement.
2. What insurance would people typically have which covers the loss of sight in one eye for the remainder of their lives?
3. Why should people claim and burden insurance companies to pay for the actions of vandals? All that does is raise premiums for everyone else.
The first port of call for compensation should be the perpetrator, they should be held accountable for their actions. If that fails and the victim has an insurance policy which covers the damage then fair enough make the claim but it should be the last not first port of call.
When it comes to road traffic, gardai do have an obligation to provide information but it is, as far as I am aware, to the insurance company. Not to the other driver. If the driver is a juvenile, I'm not so sure their details are allowed to be given out.
Insurance may not be a legal requirement but it is a sensible one. I have insurance for serious illness, or if like your question, I lost the sight in an eye.
I am currently renting a house, I have my possessions insured.
Normal times, I have an annual policy for travel insurance.
I don't agree with the claim culture in this country, I will act accordingly though and get insurance.
It's not fair, but that's thre way it is. You are now finding out what thousands of victims of crime have found out over the years.0 -
Niner leprauchan wrote: »That's the law. The amount only matters in Criminal cases.
You can put together a beautiful argument all you want, the answer is "that's the law".
Our opinions don't count, they form no part of the answer. You are asking a legal question, not for opinions on how it should be.
You will not win. As long as you understand that part, do what you want. If this exercise helps you then great. If it widens your knowledge, again great.
I accept that may be the case. My original question related to why the registered letter I sent to the Superintendent of the Youth Diversion Programme (at the suggestion of the local district Super) requesting the contact details of the vandal or his parents so I can pursue a civil case (regardless of whether I will win or not) has neither been acknowledged or replied to despite confirmation of receipt (by An Post) and a follow up email by me with soft copies of the letter and supporting documents etc?
First of all I need and believe under the various standards of practice, victims charter etc etc that as the law abiding victim my request is entitled to be replied to even if that reply confirms the Guards cannot share the vandal or his parents contacts details with me due to XXX of the Children Act or whatever. As of now, three months later I'm still waiting a reply and I don't think that is reflective of how a professional organisation like AGS operates. Both the investigating Guard and the local Super were very professional and responsive. Not sure why the Super of the Youth Diversion Programme isn't but I'll stick at it and I'll eventually get a formal response which will then inform what options are open or closed to me to move forward.
Secondly, laws are man made and not set in stone. There are numerous examples of laws which people asserted would never be changed and they were. I'm not suggesting I'm going to go on a crusade to "free the vandalised one" or any such nonsense but I do believe in civic duty and if a situation has evolved, whether by design or accident, where the victim of gratuitous vandalism is systemically blocked from seeking any form of compensation then the system needs to be reformed / rebalanced and one of the things I might do is write up a case study of my experience, attach copies of the supporting documents, photo's, correspondence with Gardai etc and do a mail shot to all TD's seeking their support for a Judicial Review of how victims of juvenile crime are unable to access any form of recompense via the civil courts. If one or more bite at the opportunity to get behind an issue which will help their profile or attract more voters that'll suffice to get the ball rolling.
It may be a total waste of time and I'm sure some here will sneer at or mock the idea but I'd rather try and fail than do nothing and meekly accept I can be victimised at will by young vandals and do nothing to hold them to account for the financial cost of the damage they do.0 -
I accept that may be the case. My original question related to why the registered letter I sent to the Superintendent of the Youth Diversion Programme (at the suggestion of the local district Super) requesting the contact details of the vandal or his parents so I can pursue a civil case (regardless of whether I will win or not) has neither been acknowledged or replied to despite confirmation of receipt (by An Post) and a follow up email by me with soft copies of the letter and supporting documents etc?
First of all I need and believe under the various standards of practice, victims charter etc etc that as the law abiding victim my request is entitled to be replied to even if that reply confirms the Guards cannot share the vandal or his parents contacts details with me due to XXX of the Children Act or whatever. As of now, three months later I'm still waiting a reply and I don't think that is reflective of how a professional organisation like AGS operates. Both the investigating Guard and the local Super were very professional and responsive. Not sure why the Super of the Youth Diversion Programme isn't but I'll stick at it and I'll eventually get a formal response which will then inform what options are open or closed to me to move forward.
.
On this, I don't know who the superintendent in charge of the national office of the youth diversion programme is, but I can guarantee he doesn't open his own post!
Your letter.could be on the bottom of a pile of correspondence sat on someones desk. Maybe not very professional, but it happens everywhere.
Get his name and send an email to the office, you may get a quicker response that way.0 -
Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,727 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 17367
Seems like a bit of a circus at this stage this thread, with very little in the way of active listening going on.
Anyway, there is no presumption that this child comes from a deprived background in any way. It's that children are generally not liable in tort. That means you generally cannot get judgment against them whether they live on the streets or a €20m mansion in Killiney. Makes no difference. Children are children and do not have the full responsibilities adults do, generally or in law.
If by some tyranny you did manage to get a judgment against the child, you would find that the child who lives in the €20m mansion in Killiney doesn't hold any more or fewer assets than the child living on the streets. Children do not have legal capacity to hold assets.
It's not a "current state of the law" thing. As I said in my first post, it's been like this for thousands of years of recorded laws on this island. Most people understand why it is the case. And that it won't change. And that it shouldn't change. Children do stupid things because they lack the cognitive capacity adults are supposed to have but that you would question after a thorough reading of this thread.0 -
When it comes to road traffic, gardai do have an obligation to provide information but it is, as far as I am aware, to the insurance company. Not to the other driver. If the driver is a juvenile, I'm not so sure their details are allowed to be given out.
Like you I'm not an expert but my understanding (happy to be corrected) is that the plaintiff has to be the injured party not the insurance company. A plaintiff walking on a footpath who doesn't have any form of private health insurance left in a wheelchair by a hit and run driver can only sue the driver and the drivers insurance company if the driver is insured and if the driver is an uninsured juvenile joyrider with no insurance the plaintiff can only sue the driver albeit there is an uninsured drivers compensation scheme but that'll only pay out of the plaintiff first of all successfully proves his/her case which he/she cannot do unless he/she is in possession of the drivers name and contact details in order to commence a proceeding.Insurance may not be a legal requirement but it is a sensible one. I have insurance for serious illness, or if like your question, I lost the sight in an eye.
I am currently renting a house, I have my possessions insured.
Normal times, I have an annual policy for travel insurance.
I don't agree with the claim culture in this country, I will act accordingly though and get insurance.
It's not fair, but that's thre way it is. You are now finding out what thousands of victims of crime have found out over the years.
I agree that insurance is a prudent thing to have.
Where there is accidental damage due e.g. to bad weather then 100% make the claim and move on but where the damage is not accidental and is a deliberate act by another person which causes loss IMHO the first port of call should be to claim recompense of the perpetrator not the insurance company. Why should the perpetrator get off scot free while the rest of us pick up his tab via increased insurance premiums?
Also, your insurance will likely cover you for the medical costs associated with the treatment you'll need to repair your eye, fit a glass eye or whatever but they won't (AFAIK) pay you for the pain and suffering imposed on you by the young vandal or for the loss in vision and enjoyment of life you'll unfortunately experience as a result of losing your eye e.g. career as a pilot or truck driver over, sports you can't play, mental trauma / depression you may suffer as a consequence of feeling disfigured etc etc. Who if anyone should pay for that other than the perpetrator?0 -
On this, I don't know who the superintendent in charge of the national office of the youth diversion programme is, but I can guarantee he doesn't open his own post!
Your letter.could be on the bottom of a pile of correspondence sat on someones desk. Maybe not very professional, but it happens everywhere.
Get his name and send an email to the office, you may get a quicker response that way.
Sent an email same day as the registered letter was received just in case the scenario you outline occured.
Same outcome.0 -
Like you I'm not an expert but my understanding (happy to be corrected) is that the plaintiff has to be the injured party not the insurance company. A plaintiff walking on a footpath who doesn't have any form of private health insurance left in a wheelchair by a hit and run driver can only sue the driver and the drivers insurance company if the driver is insured and if the driver is an uninsured juvenile joyrider with no insurance the plaintiff can only sue the driver albeit there is an uninsured drivers compensation scheme but that'll only pay out of the plaintiff first of all successfully proves his/her case which he/she cannot do unless he/she is in possession of the drivers name
If the driver is not insured, you must claim from the Motor Bureau of Ireland, MIBI.
Not sure why you would try to claim from the uninsured driver, who will probably have nothing to take.0 -
If the driver is not insured, you must claim from the Motor Bureau of Ireland, MIBI.
True but you must first establish that that person harmed you and that they don't have insurance cover.
In order for the MIBI to pay out they need the identity of the uninsured person so they can verify a) that person is indeed liable to you for the damages you claim and b) that they are in fact uninsured.Not sure why you would try to claim from the uninsured driver, who will probably have nothing to take.
See above, you first have to establish that the uninsured person harmed you.0 -
Advertisement
-
True but you must first establish that that person harmed you and that they don't have insurance cover.
In order for the MIBI to pay out they need the identity of the uninsured person so they can verify a) that person is indeed liable to you for the damages you claim and b) that they are in fact uninsured.
See above, you first have to establish that the uninsured person harmed you.
The gardai will furnish them with those details, you don't have to.0 -
It was misleading to make a blanket statement that the Guards couldn't share contact details of any minor without clarifying there are exceptions.According to GM228 the answer is "yes" as the only exception to the rule which prevents the Guards from sharing data with a victim of a Juvenile is if there's a road traffic accident involved.
There is nothing misleading about my posts, you should re-read them and then show me where I mentioned a minor:-Perhaps you need to realise that there is no requirement for the Gardai to give you the identity of people involved in any civil (or indeed criminal) case irrespective of the age or incident, this is no different except that it is also specifically an offence for them to do so when it involves a minor.
No mention of a minor.
Note what I said, “there is no requirement for the Gardai to give you the identity of people involved in any civil (or indeed criminal) case”. Then later I said:-There are specific statutory requirements for the disclosure of information regarding motor vehicles.
Again no mention of a minor.I do however question some of the contributions e.g. the statement that there was a blanket ban on the Guards sharing juvenile contact data with a victim who wishes to seek compensation through the civil courts when in fact there is at least one exception related to road traffic accidents.
The statutory entitlement to certain information in relation to a motor vehicle where there is damage to person or property was first provided for in Irish law in 1933 for the purposes of following up of compulsory motor insurance claims, that has nothing to do with any potential civil or criminal case that you may take, the fact that you have that information is inconsequential to you later taking a civil case if you so wish.
Now, if a criminal case were to be initiated involving a minor or they are accepted to the diversion programme then there is an issue as the Guard is then specifically prevented from giving you those details under the provisions of the Childrens Act 2001.
The exemption in the Road Traffic Act 1961 does not create any exemption to the point I made that there is no requirement for the Gardai to give you the identity of people involved in any civil or indeed criminal case.When it comes to road traffic, gardai do have an obligation to provide information but it is, as far as I am aware, to the insurance company. Not to the other driver. If the driver is a juvenile, I'm not so sure their details are allowed to be given out.
Just on this point, the owner of property is entitled to the information, not just the insurer, but, as I noted above when the driver is a minor the situation can change.True but you must first establish that that person harmed you and that they don't have insurance cover.
In order for the MIBI to pay out they need the identity of the uninsured person so they can verify a) that person is indeed liable to you for the damages you claim and b) that they are in fact uninsured.
This is untrue, MIBI also insure against unidentified drivers and untraced vehicles, done to death in the High Court and Supreme Court several times.0 -
Just on this point, the owner of property is entitled to the information, not just the insurer, but, as I noted above when the driver is a minor the situation can change.
Thanks for clarifying that contact details relating to a minor can in fact be passed to a plaintiff who wishes to pursue a civil case but that currently that exception is limited to specific circumstances related to vehicles/RTAs etc.
I guess the logical question to ask is why the €2,000 worth of damage to my property doesn't warrant similar treatment to a €500 claim for damage to a vehicle?
Also, while we're engaging do you still assert that the law which systemically prevents me from potentially seeking compensation (regardless of whether I'd be successful or not) is not punishing to me?0 -
Also, while we're engaging do you still assert that the law which systemically prevents me from potentially seeking compensation (regardless of whether I'd be successful or not) is not punishing to me?
No, this doesn’t punish you! It may not be fair but it’s not a punishment. You are in the exact same position now as you would have been had the kid not been caught and charged. Punishment can be defined as “Some pain or penalty warranted by law”. The law didn’t do the damage to your property.0 -
I guess the logical question to ask is why the €2,000 worth of damage to my property doesn't warrant similar treatment to a €500 claim for damage to a vehicle?
The provisions for giving details for road traffic accidents is a historical one, and unique in law (it mimics the provisions of the UKs Road Traffic Act 1930), the requirement to provide the details to the owner of property was on foot of recommendations from the Royal Commission on Transport: First Report: The Control of Traffic on Roads 1929 report following so many highlighted issues with road traffic accidents and the inability to recover costs for death or damage, another legal requirement was born out of the same report - compulsory motor insurance.Also, while we're engaging do you still assert that the law which systemically prevents me from potentially seeking compensation (regardless of whether I'd be successful or not) is not punishing to me?
See what Captain_Crash has stated. The law is not designed to punish innocent people, it is not imposing punishment on you, the same reason why the law will not generally punish parents for their child's actions.0 -
Captain_Crash wrote: »No, this doesn’t punish you! It may not be fair but it’s not a punishment.
Thanks Captain_Crash, you brought some humour to my day
Captain_Crash wrote: »You are in the exact same position now as you would have been had the kid not been caught and charged.
You're 100% correct there, the effect of the law on me here is exactly like the scrote bag wasn't even caught, isn't that a wonderful achievement, the drafter(s) of the law should be so proud
Problem is though he was caught, am I supposed to pretend he wasn't?Captain_Crash wrote: »Punishment can be defined as “Some pain or penalty warranted by law”.
Correct, the law systematically preventing me from seeking compensation via the civil courts is punishing me.0 -
The law is not designed to punish innocent people, it is not imposing punishment on you, the same reason why the law will not generally punish parents for their child's actions.
Of the three parties you mention, who do you think is most responsible for the young vandal's behaviour and who do you think the law is providing the most protection to?
Hint: Both questions have the same answer.
I'm the innocent victim but instead of the law assisting me it's blocking me and perversely it's all in the name of "restorative justice", what an oxymoron 0 -
To be honest, I believe your emotive about the matter and I feel for you. It’s not nice to have something like this happen but that’s life sometimes. You've come here looking to affirm your belief of the law and are not getting the answers you are looking for.
Your not being punished by anyone and although it isn’t on your side from a civil point of view, the law isn’t punishing you either.
You mentioned you have a solicitor who’s done work from you in the past and may take this on pro bono... if your close enough to presume he might do that, why not give him a call, surely he’ll give you advice for nothing on a quick 10 min phone call. Unless you already have and didn’t like his answer.
However, your original post was about the guards handling of the matter. Technically, the sergeant gave you a response and although it would have been nice for the super to get back to you, he didn’t and as sh*t as it is, it’s a fact. You can approach GSOC about that if you like and they’ll handle the lack of Garda process but it won’t make a lick of difference to you getting the info you want.0 -
Captain_Crash wrote: »Your not being punished by anyone and although it isn’t on your side from a civil point of view, the law isn’t punishing you either.
If confirmed by the Youth Diversion Bureau Super the law will 100% be preventing me from even seeking compensation. Not sure how anyone can view that as anything other than harming me.Captain_Crash wrote: »You mentioned you have a solicitor who’s done work from you in the past and may take this on pro bono... if your close enough to presume he might do that, why not give him a call, surely he’ll give you advice for nothing on a quick 10 min phone call. Unless you already have and didn’t like his answer.
He's a busy guy, I don't want to bother him with this unless there's good reason to. Once I have a response from the Youth Diversion Bureau Super I'll probably summarise to him and get his opinion.Captain_Crash wrote: »However, your original post was about the guards handling of the matter. Technically, the sergeant local Super gave you an inconclusive response and although it would have been nice for the super to get back to you, he didn’t and as sh*t as it is, it’s a fact.
The Youth Diversion Bureau Super hasn't responded to me yet but they will, I'll keep chipping away from all angles until they either reply to the request providing the contact details of the parents or denying my request and stating the basis on which I'm being denied that info.Captain_Crash wrote: »You can approach GSOC about that if you like and they’ll handle the lack of Garda process but it won’t make a lick of difference to you getting the info you want.
Yep, that's one of the options I'll pursue if I don't get a response form the Youth Diversion Bureau Super by the end of this month.
If GSOC confirm my expectations of being treated respectfully in an effective and efficient manner are OTT and the Youth Diversion Bureau Super is behaving to the expected standard by just blanking my request for 3 months I'll fold my tent in terms of pursuing co-operation from AGS but there will still be a number of avenues and potential outcomes open to me which I've outlined previously.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement