Interesting s.172 High Court case

[U T]

tangerine_sedge said:

U T said:

Wrong decision.

Anyone that allows their motor vehicle to be driven without assertaining the most basic infomation (name and address) is too stupid to own a motor vehicle.

I've sold a couple of cars privately, whereby the 'random' has turned up, shown me his license and I've let them drive whilst I've been the passenger. As soon as the sale went through/ended then I've pretty much instantly forgotten their name & address. 14 days later, I would be hard pressed to remember their name, and I guess so would most other sellers.

I rest my case!

[davepoth]

Section 172 is a bit of a nightmare, removing as it does the right to silence. the ECHR decided that it was fine to do so providing it was expedient (I'm paraphrasing), so this looks like a fairly big revision to it. Point 32 is interesting; it seems to suggest the "husband and wife" defence has become substantially more robust?

[blueg33]

havoc said:

Practically speaking, it doesn't really help much - how frequently does the average person let someone unknown drive their car/ride their bike???

Every time they get an NIP?

[Mojooo]

Rovinghawk said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

Ridiculous question to waste the High Courts time on IMO.

The High Court didn't seem to think so.

RH

Don't really think they had a choice but to answer?

[Red Devil]

U T said:

Wrong decision.

Anyone that allows their motor vehicle to be driven without assertaining the most basic infomation (name and address) is too stupid to own a motor vehicle.

Really? You ascertain the name and address of all the mechanics every time you take your car to the garage? If your car needed to be test driven how would know who actually did so on that day?

I know of one instance when a customer's car was taken home overnight by a spanner monkey because his own car developed an oil leak. The garage boss knew nothing about it and the perp denied it. Unfortunately for him not only had the mileage been recorded when the car went in but it had been seen on the road that evening by a friend of the owner who brought it to his attention. The guy who took it didn't stay in that job very long.

The High Court came to exactly the right conclusion in interpreting the legislation just as it did on a different point of law in the Gidden case.

[blueg33]

Red Devil said:

Really? You ascertain the name and address of all the mechanics every time you take your car to the garage? If your car needed to be test driven how would know who actually did so on that day?

I know of one instance when a customer's car was taken home overnight by a spanner monkey because his own car developed an oil leak. The garage boss knew nothing about it and the perp denied it. Unfortunately for him not only had the mileage been recorded when the car went in but it had been seen on the road that evening by a friend of the owner who brought it to his attention. The guy who took it didn't stay in that job very long.

The High Court came to exactly the right conclusion in interpreting the legislation just as it did on a different point of law in the Gidden case.

Spot on

[U T]

blueg33 said:

Red Devil said:

Really? You ascertain the name and address of all the mechanics every time you take your car to the garage? If your car needed to be test driven how would know who actually did so on that day?

I know of one instance when a customer's car was taken home overnight by a spanner monkey because his own car developed an oil leak. The garage boss knew nothing about it and the perp denied it. Unfortunately for him not only had the mileage been recorded when the car went in but it had been seen on the road that evening by a friend of the owner who brought it to his attention. The guy who took it didn't stay in that job very long.

The High Court came to exactly the right conclusion in interpreting the legislation just as it did on a different point of law in the Gidden case.

Spot on

You guys clearly know nothing about the motor trade. Garages keep a log of all trips their mechanics make in customers cars, as a matter of routine. If you get an NIP when your car was in for a service, the garage will check the log and find the driver responsible. If the garge don't put up a name, you just reply with evidence that the car was with the garage that day, and then it's between the authorities and the garage owner.

So, that argument well and truly despatched. Next....

[U T]

blueg33 said:

havoc said:

Practically speaking, it doesn't really help much - how frequently does the average person let someone unknown drive their car/ride their bike???

Every time they get an NIP?

Absolutely.

If this nutcase ruling becomes precident, that will be the standard defence. Was trying to flog my car, someone test drove it, no idea who.

[tangerine_sedge]

U T said:

tangerine_sedge said:

U T said:

Wrong decision.

Anyone that allows their motor vehicle to be driven without assertaining the most basic infomation (name and address) is too stupid to own a motor vehicle.

I've sold a couple of cars privately, whereby the 'random' has turned up, shown me his license and I've let them drive whilst I've been the passenger. As soon as the sale went through/ended then I've pretty much instantly forgotten their name & address. 14 days later, I would be hard pressed to remember their name, and I guess so would most other sellers.

I rest my case!

The point is, I get enough info for the short period of the test drive, but I certainly don't keep records and I doubt that 99% of other private sellers do either.

This of course opens up a loop-hole, but one that requires some proof that you actually have the car for sale - hence the 'open' for sale advert

[robsa]

Interesting - so what would happen if you did have the vehicle for sale, someone came and asked for a test ride (or drive), showed you their licence and insurance, and then took the vehicle out. On returning they said they would get back to you but never did. four week later you get a ticket, but can't remember the name and address of the person (which is entirely possible).

Would the ticket be cancelled in these circumstances? You had done nothing wrong at all, after all.

[U T]

robsa said:

Interesting - so what would happen if you did have the vehicle for sale, someone came and asked for a test ride (or drive), showed you their licence and insurance, and then took the vehicle out. On returning they said they would get back to you but never did. four week later you get a ticket, but can't remember the name and address of the person (which is entirely possible).

Would the ticket be cancelled in these circumstances? You had done nothing wrong at all, after all.

Yes you have, you've let someone use your car and not kept the details for a suitable period of time. That's not the right thing to do, given the possibility of speed camera offences.

[blueg33]

U T said:

You guys clearly know nothing about the motor trade. Garages keep a log of all trips their mechanics make in customers cars, as a matter of routine. If you get an NIP when your car was in for a service, the garage will check the log and find the driver responsible. If the garge don't put up a name, you just reply with evidence that the car was with the garage that day, and then it's between the authorities and the garage owner.

So, that argument well and truly despatched. Next....

I disagree. The Magistrates decision said that the owner of the car was duty bound to know who was driving it and whether they had a licence. That is not what happens when you leave a car at the garage, the owner does not get the details of everyone there who may drive the car, they make a resonable assumption that the garage will deal with the details. In many ways that is not relevant to the case.

As I understand it, S172 is a requirement to provide details in the event of an NIP. You cannot know in advance that there will be an NIP therefore there is no onus on you to collect the information. The obligation only starts with the issue of the NIP. So the High Court was right IMO.

The fact that muppets will use this excuse is one of the unintended consequences.

[Lunablack]

U T said:

You guys clearly know nothing about the motor trade. Garages keep a log of all trips their mechanics make in customers cars, as a matter of routine. If you get an NIP when your car was in for a service, the garage will check the log and find the driver responsible. If the garge don't put up a name, you just reply with evidence that the car was with the garage that day, and then it's between the authorities and the garage owner.

So, that argument well and truly despatched. Next....

Absolute bks

[GC8]

robsa said:

Interesting - so what would happen if you did have the vehicle for sale, someone came and asked for a test ride (or drive), showed you their licence and insurance, and then took the vehicle out. On returning they said they would get back to you but never did. four week later you get a ticket, but can't remember the name and address of the person (which is entirely possible).

Would the ticket be cancelled in these circumstances? You had done nothing wrong at all, after all.

My guess is that youd be prosecuted for a S.172 offence and youd have to rely on this judgement for your defence.

Id be amazed if tickets were simply 'cancelled'...

[U T]

blueg33 said:

U T said:

You guys clearly know nothing about the motor trade. Garages keep a log of all trips their mechanics make in customers cars, as a matter of routine. If you get an NIP when your car was in for a service, the garage will check the log and find the driver responsible. If the garge don't put up a name, you just reply with evidence that the car was with the garage that day, and then it's between the authorities and the garage owner.

So, that argument well and truly despatched. Next....

I disagree. The Magistrates decision said that the owner of the car was duty bound to know who was driving it and whether they had a licence. That is not what happens when you leave a car at the garage, the owner does not get the details of everyone there who may drive the car, they make a resonable assumption that the garage will deal with the details. In many ways that is not relevant to the case.

As I understand it, S172 is a requirement to provide details in the event of an NIP. You cannot know in advance that there will be an NIP therefore there is no onus on you to collect the information. The obligation only starts with the issue of the NIP. So the High Court was right IMO.

The fact that muppets will use this excuse is one of the unintended consequences.

The original magistrates decision said the owner was duty bound to know who was in charge of it. That's different from driving it. When I leave my car at a garage I know that the garage is in charge, they can the allocate a driver. Same with a lease firm leasing a car. They lease it to someone, who may let someone else drive. But the leasee is the person in charge so they take the fine or say who was driving. Not the owner, the lease firm.

[U T]

Lunablack said:

U T said:

You guys clearly know nothing about the motor trade. Garages keep a log of all trips their mechanics make in customers cars, as a matter of routine. If you get an NIP when your car was in for a service, the garage will check the log and find the driver responsible. If the garge don't put up a name, you just reply with evidence that the car was with the garage that day, and then it's between the authorities and the garage owner.

So, that argument well and truly despatched. Next....

Absolute bks

Great comeback...really enhances the debate! Thanks for your insightful contribution.

[robsa]

U T said:

robsa said:

Interesting - so what would happen if you did have the vehicle for sale, someone came and asked for a test ride (or drive), showed you their licence and insurance, and then took the vehicle out. On returning they said they would get back to you but never did. four week later you get a ticket, but can't remember the name and address of the person (which is entirely possible).

Would the ticket be cancelled in these circumstances? You had done nothing wrong at all, after all.

Yes you have, you've let someone use your car and not kept the details for a suitable period of time. That's not the right thing to do, given the possibility of speed camera offences.

Ok, makes sense I suppose. But there is no legal obligation to do so is there? I could find no reference to such.

[GC8]

As a private individual, none at all.

[vonhosen]

GC8 said:

As a private individual, none at all.

That's correct, but if it becomes a big problem the law can of course be changed.

[Lunablack]

U T said:

Great comeback...really enhances the debate! Thanks for your insightful contribution.

Your welcome..... But if you're going to talk ste, the least I can do is bring it to your attention....

Are you trying to tell us that every back street garage in the UK, records every trip that the mechanics, make in customers cars???