Interesting s.172 High Court case

[U T]

robsa said:

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.

That's exactly what the case was about. And you're right, the ruling says there is no legal obligation. My view is that the decision is the wrong one, and there should be a legal obligation.

[ExChrispy Porker]

U T said:

That's exactly what the case was about. And you're right, the ruling says there is no legal obligation. My view is that the decision is the wrong one, and there should be a legal obligation.

You may be right. But that is not what the current law, as written, says. The High Court interprets current law.
To achieve what you are suggesting there would need to be a change in the law itself.

[Puddenchucker]

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 can only speak from personal experience, but earlier this year I took my car to a main dealer for a pre-booked service that included a courtesy car. I arrived on time and all went well until it came to locating the courtesy car. 10 minutes later they had come to the conclusion that one of three people had taken the car for reasons unknown. This was despite the fact that all of the paperwork for use of the courtesy car had already been filled out with that vehicles details. 5 minutes later I was in a different, and hastily arranged, vehicle.

So it appears that they don't even know which member of staff is using their own vehicles.....

[Lunablack]

Puddenchucker said:

So it appears that they don't even know which member of staff is using their own vehicles.....

Ahh the real world....

[blueg33]

Puddenchucker said:

I can only speak from personal experience, but earlier this year I took my car to a main dealer for a pre-booked service that included a courtesy car. I arrived on time and all went well until it came to locating the courtesy car. 10 minutes later they had come to the conclusion that one of three people had taken the car for reasons unknown. This was despite the fact that all of the paperwork for use of the courtesy car had already been filled out with that vehicles details. 5 minutes later I was in a different, and hastily arranged, vehicle.

So it appears that they don't even know which member of staff is using their own vehicles.....

This is a very common occurrence, in my experience with main dealers over the last 20 years or so.

[Red Devil]

Puddenchucker 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 can only speak from personal experience, but earlier this year I took my car to a main dealer for a pre-booked service that included a courtesy car. I arrived on time and all went well until it came to locating the courtesy car. 10 minutes later they had come to the conclusion that one of three people had taken the car for reasons unknown. This was despite the fact that all of the paperwork for use of the courtesy car had already been filled out with that vehicles details. 5 minutes later I was in a different, and hastily arranged, vehicle.

So it appears that they don't even know which member of staff is using their own vehicles.....

I derive endless amusement from those like U T who can only see a world which is either black or white. The rest of us know that it is painted in numerous shades of grey. I can only assume that it is because they are unable to comprehend anything with conflicts with their own preconceptions or current life experience.

[U T]

Garages are just like any other business, you get good ones and bad ones.

But in my work I have dealings with several garages and they all have a rigid system for booking cars in and out, and no mechanic drives anything without it being logged.

If the garage owner or manager has any sense, this is what they do, otherwise they have all the hassle when the NIP drops on the doormat.

If a cutomer comes into the garage with an NIP and says "this was the day my car was in for a service", what are the garage going to say when they check there records and find the customer is telling the truth?

[U T]

Lunablack said:

U T said:

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

Your welcome..... But if you're going to talk ste,

And when people can only enter a debate with abuse and swearing, it's obvious the content of the debate is way beyond their limited intellect.

[havoc]

U T said:

And when people can only enter a debate with abuse and swearing, it's obvious the content of the debate is way beyond their limited intellect.

What is the difference between sarcasm used as an insult (which you were guilty of initially) and swearing used as an insult (which was used as a riposte to you)?

None, just sophistry...which you seem very keen to exploit. So please, either join the debate with an open mind or leave it.

[GC8]

Talk of 'limited intellect' is rich when you cant differentiate between a correct legal interpretation and your own opinion.....

[Red Devil]

U T said:

Garages are just like any other business, you get good ones and bad ones.

But in my work I have dealings with several garages and they all have a rigid system for booking cars in and out, and no mechanic drives anything without it being logged.

You have just proved my point. In your earlier post you extrapolated that experience and converted into incontrovertible and immutable fact. That's not what always happens in the real world.

U T said:

If the garage owner or manager has any sense, this is what they do, otherwise they have all the hassle when the NIP drops on the doormat.

Quite. For some though it will be a trade off between the need for scrupulously detailed record keeping and the likelihood of their staff being stupid enough to commit offences for which a S.172 request will come through the post.

U T said:

If a cutomer comes into the garage with an NIP and says "this was the day my car was in for a service", what are the garage going to say when they check there records and find the customer is telling the truth?

Misses the point by a country mile - namely that some 'independent businesses' may not keep a detailed log so there is nothing to check! An irate boss will be asking one of his employees an awkward question. It will probably be along the lines of "Right, the job card says you worked on Mr/Mrs X's car on (insert date here) so were you the one who took it out for a road test/get the fish and chips for lunch? If not, which did 'cos I'm going to be landed with a NIP to deal with. Somebody's going down for it and it well ain't going to be me!"

If the offence was committed when the car was in the custody of the garage (even better if the RK can show that he/she was elsewhere - e.g. at their place of work) then it's no contest. There is no need to know the name and address of the actual offender. In fact the garage owner should not disclose it as to do so would be a breach of the DPA. The RK just provides the name and address of the business on the S.172 request he/she received. It's then the garage's problem to sort out.

[Lunablack]

U T said:

And when people can only enter a debate with abuse and swearing, it's obvious the content of the debate is way beyond their limited intellect.

If you say so

A others have pointed out, you've made a number of incorrect statements on this thread, so based on that alone I'll take my intellect over yours anyday

But just to clarify I'm not interested in a debate (especially with you).... I just wanted to make you aware that just because you say somthing is so.... It isn't necessarily the case...

[mybrainhurts]

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.

How does your statement relate to the decision?

[streaky]

saaby93 said:

How do people find the money to risk taking further rather than just taking it on the chin?

As it is stated above, the question makes it appear that the Magistrates may have referred the matter to the High Court.

Streaky

[agtlaw]

It was an appeal case stated. The appellant was the registered keeper, Mrs Atkinson.

[saaby93]

agtlaw said:

It was an appeal case stated. The appellant was the registered keeper, Mrs Atkinson.

Any idea of the typical costs involved if she'd failed?

[agtlaw]

saaby93 said:

ny idea of the typical costs involved if she'd failed?

£5,000.

[saaby93]

agtlaw said:

£5,000.

not something you'd want to take on lightly rather than take points and fine

[Flibble]

U T said:

Wrong decision.

Right decision.
The High Court doesn't make up the law to fit your prejudice; they interpret the law as defined by statue. If you don't like the law complain at the government.

[Pontoneer]

ShampooEfficient said:

If they are subsequently stopped for no insurance (or indeed involved in an incident) they can be charged with TWOC, on the grounds that the consent was subject to the correct insurance being in place.

I'd have asked for ID though, in this case in case he decided to ride off with it...

When I sold a bike a good many years ago , I let the prospective buyer take it for a ride on his own - as security , I asked for the keys to his car which he left with me whilst on the test ride . Prior to letting him take the bike I had formed the opinion he was a genuine buyer since he asked the 'right' questions about service history , accident damage , pervious keepers etc as well as seeming knowledgeable and bringing his own helmet and protective clothing .

He returned safely and bought the bike , collecting it the next day . I must admit I never bothered asking to actually see documents , although I did ask if he was licenced and insured , being happy that his car looked to be worth more than my bike and I'd have held onto it until the bike was paid for if damaged .

Had he not bought the bike , I could not have told anyone more than his first name afterwards .