RBH road incident

The diagram on the RBH accident report clearly showing the van pulled out on the motorcyclist

Greater Manchester Police are being questioned for refusing to investigate further a road incident between a Rochdale Boroughwide Housing (RBH) van and a motorcyclist – which has left a man severely injured and unable to work - due to "conflicting accounts" that enquiries by Rochdale Online cast doubt on.

Motorcyclist Tom Szakaly, was hit side on by the RBH van, which pulled out on him at the Railway Street/Wood Street junction on Tuesday 9 June.

Officers told Rochdale Online News they will not investigate further or take any further action due to “conflicting accounts”, yet the van driver's accident report, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from RBH, gives an account of the van pulling out on Mr Szakaly just as he describes in his accident report.

Rochdale Online has asked Greater Manchester Police to explain why they say there are "conflicting accounts" when there does not appear to be any confilct in the accounts. GMP say the traffic officer who dealt with the matter is currently on "annual leave", but a spokesperson said the matter is "being looked into".

Mr Szakaly, who is known to many as the front man of ELP tribute band Noddy’s Puncture, could be off work for months while he undergoes various bone-restructuring operations on his foot.

Mr Szakaly, of central Rochdale, hopes that a witness will come forward, who pulled him out of the road.

He said: “This was not my fault and I could be off work for months yet.” 

Grater Manchester Police has refused to provide Rochdale Online with sight of the van drvier's report, however, a spokeswoman said: "Accounts were taken from both motorists involved in the collision and there were differences between the two.

"There were no independent witnesses and, combined with the inconsistencies in the motorists' versions of events, this case would not meet the threshold for prosecution.

"Where there is no criminal matter to investigate, police inquiries cease and both parties were informed in writing there would be no further action.

"It would be an abuse of process to consider proceedings against anyone unless substantial further evidence came to light.

"However, this does not prevent the injured man from making a civil claim where the evidence threshold in a civil court is lower than that of a criminal court. "