KB-2024-001402 - [2025] EWHC 2492 (KB)

There is no direct evidence that Mr Bair was the driver of the Collision Passat or the owner or registered keeper of the Burned Passat, or that the two cars are the same vehicle. None of the eye witnesses were able to identify the make or model of the Collision Passat.

The Claimants rely on a series of matters that they say I should make findings of fact about, and on one matter of law, which prove, on the balance of probabilities that the two vehicles are the same vehicle and Mr Bair was the driver.

Mr Bair’s case is simple; he was not driving the Collision Passat and has nothing to do with it or the Burned Passat and cannot comment if they are the same vehicle as a result. The Second Defendant’s case is that the matters the Claimants rely on, insofar as they are proved, are circumstantial and coincidence and the court cannot be satisfied on the basis of coincidence that the Claimants have proved the relevant matters.

Before I address the evidence I heard, watched and read, it is useful to set out the key matters that the Claimants rely up on to provide context to the evidence and findings I make. The matters relied upon are set in the particulars of claim and have not significantly changed, save in one respect since, then.

I set out below the relevant paragraphs of the particulars of claim. References to “the index vehicle” assume that what I am referring to as the Collision Passat and the Burned Passat are one and the same. That is indeed the Claimants’ case. I have added the words [Collision Passat] and [Burned Passat] to show where the evidence specifically relates to one or the other.

“6.

A Volkswagen (VW) motor vehicle badge was found at the scene and the Claimants’ case is that the index motor vehicle [Collision Passat] was (a) a VW Passat S FSI Auto, vehicle registration number AFO6 ZGT [Burned Passat], blue in colour and, (b) was being driven by the First Defendant. The Claimants will invite the Court to find on the balance of probabilities that it was so involved and was driven at the material time by the First Defendant on the basis of the following facts and matters:

(a)

On 05 June 2021 Mr Maqsood Khan sold the index vehicle [Burned Passat] to “Mr Roman Bair” as registered keeper as evidenced by the V5, and “Ali” from OMA Autos Ltd, 205 Gleneldon Mews, London, SW16 2AZ acted as a broker to sell the vehicle on. No person by the name of Roman Bair was known at, or traced, to the address.

(b)

At approximately 01.54 hours on 20 June 2021 the index accident occurred on Dartmouth Road, Forest Hill, London, SE3.

(c)

A VW vehicle badge was found at the scene and CCTV enquiries led the police to believe that the index vehicle was a

VW.

(d)

At 7:30 PM on 20 June 2021 (i.e. later on the same day of the accident) the index vehicle [Burned Passat] was reported stolen, purportedly by a Roman Bair, but from a telephone number associated with the First Defendant Conrad Bair (from Intel checks after previous arrests). The caller (whom the police do not believe was Conrad Bair), gave his name as “Roman Bair” and alleged that the index vehicle [Burned Passat] had been left outside 122 Streatham High Road, London (that being only a few hundred metres from OMA Autos Ltd, 205 Gleneldon Mews, London, SWI 6 2AZ and about 1.3 miles from where the index vehicle was subsequently found burnt out).

(e)

At 13:05 hours on 22 June 2021, Conrad Bair’s Lloyds bank account (see below), was used to pay for a Bolt taxi journey from OMA Autos Ltd, 205 Gleneldon Mews, London, SWI6 2AZ and taken to an address in Hackney. OMA Autos Ltd, 205 Gleneldon Mews, London, SW16 2AZ is approximately 3 minutes’ drive from the accident location and 0.9 miles from the location (see immediately below) where the index vehicle [Burned Passat] was found burnt out.

(f)

At around 03.30 Hours on 23 June 2021 the index vehicle [Burned Passat] was found burnt out in a carport of a block of residential flats, Baldry Gardens, Ryan Court, Streatham (being approximately a 4-minute Drive from OMA Autos Ltd, 205 Gleneldon Mews, London, SWI6 2AZ and about 4.5 Miles from where the collision occurred).

(g)

At 05.55 hours on 19 August 2021 Conrad Bair, the First Defendant was arrested at 1 Crown Point, Beulah Hill, Streatham, SEI9 for possession with intent to supply Class A drugs. That address is approximately 1.3 miles from Baldry Gardens where the index vehicle had been found burned out.

(h)

When he was arrested Conrad Bair initially gave his name as Roman Bair but subsequently interview, disputed that he had done so. During his arrest police officers found a Father’s Day card addressed to the First Defendant from “Roman”, with the handwriting appearing to be that of a young child.

(i)

During a search of 1 Crown Point, a letter was found from the DVLA to “Roman Bair” relating to a BMW vehicle, officers also found the First Defendant’s driving licence and a Lloyds bank account bank card and a credit card name, along with items including mobile phones and a large quantity of drugs.

(j)

At 15.37 hours on 19 August 2021 the police interviewed Conrad Bair under caution for l hr 53 minutes, in relation to variously his connection to the index vehicle, the index accident, the reporting of the index vehicle [Burned Passat] being stolen and subsequently burnt out, to which Conrad Bair responded almost completely “no comment”

In addition, the Claimants rely on the fact that Mr Bair has a son called Roman, that there was a policy of insurance (fraudulently) taken out on the Burned Passat in the name of Adam McLean under which the named driver was Mr Conrad Bair with the same day and month of birth as Mr Bair, but the year of birth being 20 years earlier than Mr Bair’s.

In summary, the Claimants’ case is that there are sufficient links between Mr Bair and the Burned Passat and the Burned Passat and the collision location for me to find on the balance of probabilities that the Burned Passat and the Collision Passat are the same car, and that Mr Bair was the owner and driver of the Collision Passat.

The Second Defendant’s case is that the matters the Claimants rely on are no more than coincidence. There is no evidence to directly link Mr Bair to either the Collision Passat or the Burned Passat, nor to directly link the Burned Passat to the Collision Passat and the claim should therefore fail. The fact that Mr Bair has previous convictions does not mean he was the driver of the Collision Passat, or has anything to do with the Burned Passat.

At this point I should mention that the Second Defendant’s opening skeleton point out that if this claim fails, the claimants will be able to claim for compensation under the MIB untraced drivers agreement. Mr Bright KC objected to this submission, not because it is incorrect, but that it is not something I should take into account. As I said during the hearing, whether or not the claimants can claim under the untraced drivers agreement, and whether that would lead to the same or different compensation to a successful civil claim are irrelevant to the findings I have to make and I give them no weight.

I should also confirm that the standard of proof I apply in making my findings and coming to my conclusion is the balance of probabilities. That is different, and lower, than the criminal standard of proof which would require me to be satisfied so that I am sure. I accept that from the police investigation perspective, they will have been addressing, when deciding if there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, the criminal standard of proof. They also had different evidence to the evidence I had before me. There are two consequences of that. The first is that the decision not to prosecute is not relevant to the decision I have to make. The second is the converse, the decisions I make are not relevant to any decision to prosecute.

The following matters are agreed by the Second Defendant:

The First Defendant is unrepresented and, understandably, has not confirmed which parts of the evidence he accepts. I accept that the facts above are correct.