A SINGLE mum who was hit by a car has seen the case against the alleged driver delayed by four months due to a typing error.

Rachel King, 33, was hospitalised for 17 days after she suffered serious head injuries and broke her collarbone, shoulder blade and five ribs when she was run over outside her home in Brook Street, Erith, in January last year.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) launched a prosecution against Robert Charles Skinner, of Woolwich Road, Bexleyheath, which was heard on September 30.

The 52-year-old driver did not attend and in his absence, it was proven at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court he had been driving with undue care and attention.

Mr Skinner did not attend Tower Bridge Magistrates' court for sentencing on October 17.

But on October 24 he provided the court with a legal document notifiying the CPS of a new and completely different address from his original stated address.

Two weeks later it was discovered the original summons had contained a typing error in the address.

Although the summons was contained in the same envelope as the evidence provided to Mr Skinner, which was correctly addressed, the CPS decided to re-issue the summons to the new address provided and restart the whole process.

In light of this, a civil suit planned by Ms King has also been affected and Mr Skinner's insurer has withdrawn an interim payment, which Ms King's solicitor estimated to be in the region of £10,000.

A new summons for the undue care and attention case has since been issued and the case will be heard again on January 26.

Ms King will relaunch her civil case once this has been settled.

She said: "I feel let down. For this to drag on for so long is a disgrace.

"I can't even begin to imagine how much a retrial will cost."

She added: "It's a total lack of communication the taxpayer is having to pay for twice.

"I wanted closure for me and my family before the new year.

"We need justice to be done and to get on with our lives."

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said: "Due to a typing error by the Metropolitan Police, an incorrect address was entered on the summons.

"However, other material relating to the case and a copy of the summons was sent to the defendant at an address supplied by him. The case was proved in his absence."