Received an NIP for a car I don't own?
Discussion
I'm not in favour of any legal device which serves to coerce vulnerable innocent parties into providing information that leads to their wrongful conviction, or the wrongful conviction of their spouse, no exceptions. Numbers are irrelevant. If anyone disagrees on that fundamental point then so be it. Onwards and sideways.
Bet I don't either! Tb's take on evidence is, shall we say, idiosyncratic. He will say that this is personal, but I am commenting on what he says, not on whether he is kind to bunnies or calls his mum regularly. Look at his not at all emphatic, sit on the fence* stuff about climate change (although don't spend too long in N,P & E if you value your sanity). Not proven beyond reasonable doubt = must be a space lizard conspiracy*. Contrast speeding - TB used to rely on some ancient and (IIRC) not terribly conclusive document (I forget which one, but it was old when the Dead Sea Scrolls were brand new on Twitter*) as proof that speeding tickets are worse than Nazis*. He hasn't trotted that one out for a while, but now we get personal anecdote as a basis for statistically significant blah that supports a large conclusion.
This one is, I have to say, a tad personal, but I'm going to say it anyway. I am truly never quite sure whether tb is a troll (I think that is unlikely) or if he is, despite his evident intellectual gifts and apparently reasonable level of education, also quite irrational and unable to see the irrationality and inconsistencies in his various ultra libertarian positions on the wicked New World Order EU Liberal megaplot that so many of us any are tirelessly engaged in against him*.
* That's called irony, tb. Look it up!
This one is, I have to say, a tad personal, but I'm going to say it anyway. I am truly never quite sure whether tb is a troll (I think that is unlikely) or if he is, despite his evident intellectual gifts and apparently reasonable level of education, also quite irrational and unable to see the irrationality and inconsistencies in his various ultra libertarian positions on the wicked New World Order EU Liberal megaplot that so many of us any are tirelessly engaged in against him*.
* That's called irony, tb. Look it up!
turbobloke said:
BertBert said:
Send it back with a letter saying not me.
Have a cigar, go on holiday.
Bert
Quite possibly this couple were away on holiday at the time they were convicted in their absence after each completed and sent back their S172.Have a cigar, go on holiday.
Bert
Motoring Law Blog said:
In a recent case heard at Exeter Magistrates Court, both a husband and wife were convicted, fined, and had their licences endorsed with six penalty points after magistrates found that they had failed to identify who had been driving their vehicle.
The case involved the couple’s vehicle being clocked speeding, following which, the usual Notice requesting information to identify the driver was sent to the wife as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
As both she and her husband would use the vehicle and indeed had both used the vehicle that day, she could not recall whether she or her husband had been driving at the relevant point in time.
Photographic evidence, whilst identifying the vehicle concerned, failed to identify the driver.
As a result, her husband was also sent a Notice to identify the driver, with a similar response.
As both were unable to identify who was driving at the time, summonses were served against each of them alleging failure to provide information as to the identity of the driver pursuant to S172 Road Traffic Act 1988, on the basis that it was for them to satisfy the court that they genuinely did not know who was driving at the time.
When the matter came before the court, neither attended with a view to establishing their case that they did not know who had been driving and they were convicted in their absence.
Hopefully the present predicament arising from assinine S172 shenanigans resolves satisfactorily for the OP. Due diligence OK, not being around to attend Court, not OK. Justicial numptiness rules OK.The case involved the couple’s vehicle being clocked speeding, following which, the usual Notice requesting information to identify the driver was sent to the wife as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
As both she and her husband would use the vehicle and indeed had both used the vehicle that day, she could not recall whether she or her husband had been driving at the relevant point in time.
Photographic evidence, whilst identifying the vehicle concerned, failed to identify the driver.
As a result, her husband was also sent a Notice to identify the driver, with a similar response.
As both were unable to identify who was driving at the time, summonses were served against each of them alleging failure to provide information as to the identity of the driver pursuant to S172 Road Traffic Act 1988, on the basis that it was for them to satisfy the court that they genuinely did not know who was driving at the time.
When the matter came before the court, neither attended with a view to establishing their case that they did not know who had been driving and they were convicted in their absence.
So where two old folks cannot state with any certainty who was driving, both convicted? For what? How can they both be convicted for a driving offence because obviously one is innocent. Perverting the course of justice?
Just wondering how that sits / fits / relates to the recent case where a one of two people killed a child but both said it was the other one.
I know two cases aren't the same but surely if someone can get away with murder by lying then another person can "get away" with a motoring offence due to an honest mistake?
Hence the questioning of the blog story
I think the key bit of the blog story is:
"When the matter came before the court, neither attended with a view to establishing their case that they did not know who had been driving and they were convicted in their absence."
If you don't attend a court to plead your case, you run a risk.
"When the matter came before the court, neither attended with a view to establishing their case that they did not know who had been driving and they were convicted in their absence."
If you don't attend a court to plead your case, you run a risk.
BertBert said:
So where are we with the OP's predicament? Does he just have to fill in the S172 and say not me? Or does he need to carry out a host of other activities to prove his innocence?
Bert
Don't fill anything in and there is no requirement to "prove his innocence"Bert
Dear Sirs,
I refer to the attached notice and request for driver information.
I do not know who the driver was; I know nothing of this vehicle.
Yours,
agtlaw said:
Don't fill anything in and there is no requirement to "prove his innocence"
Dear Sirs,
I refer to the attached notice and request for driver information.
I do not know who the driver was; I know nothing of this vehicle.
Yours,
That's exactly what I've done- with a copy of the receipt (time stamped), credit card receipt and photo ID so if they do have a photo of the driver it should show that it wasn't me (guv......)Dear Sirs,
I refer to the attached notice and request for driver information.
I do not know who the driver was; I know nothing of this vehicle.
Yours,
Pedantic maybe, but hassle I don't need, or want.
I will update when I hear back.
agtlaw said:
Breadvan72 said:
I think that you may be misreading section 172. In particular, your statement
"The negative which he has to prove is that he does not have any information which he is required to supply per paragraph (2)(b)"
goes too far. The prosecution must prove that the person has not given information that it was in his power to give.
The burden placed on the keeper is arguably a bit heavier than that placed on any other person, and in the case of the keeper there is a partial transfer of burden of proof, but only to the extent that if the keeper runs the reasonable diligence defence then he must show reasonable diligence. There is also an evidential burden in respect of time of response, but that's a slightly different point.
Agree with BV. If a defendant contends that the information requested is not in his power to give then he must raise that issue by asserting that he is not the keeper. If the defendant does not reply then he will be found guilty; see R v Grant [2001] EWHC 1114. If he does reply then the prosecution would have to disprove that he was not the keeper and prove that the information was in his power to give; Mohindra v DPP [2004] EWHC 490."The negative which he has to prove is that he does not have any information which he is required to supply per paragraph (2)(b)"
goes too far. The prosecution must prove that the person has not given information that it was in his power to give.
The burden placed on the keeper is arguably a bit heavier than that placed on any other person, and in the case of the keeper there is a partial transfer of burden of proof, but only to the extent that if the keeper runs the reasonable diligence defence then he must show reasonable diligence. There is also an evidential burden in respect of time of response, but that's a slightly different point.
The relevant bit can be found in paragraph 14 for those who are interested - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/490...
I think this deserves to be more widely known and understood as it could save many people a lot of sleepless nights.
mmmunch said:
agtlaw said:
Don't fill anything in and there is no requirement to "prove his innocence"
Dear Sirs,
I refer to the attached notice and request for driver information.
I do not know who the driver was; I know nothing of this vehicle.
Yours,
That's exactly what I've done- with a copy of the receipt (time stamped), credit card receipt and photo ID so if they do have a photo of the driver it should show that it wasn't me (guv......)Dear Sirs,
I refer to the attached notice and request for driver information.
I do not know who the driver was; I know nothing of this vehicle.
Yours,
Pedantic maybe, but hassle I don't need, or want.
I will update when I hear back.
Bookmarked, awaiting news that there will be NFA as far as you are concerned.
k me, that bloke's a nutter!Peeps, do NOT listen to me. I talk bollix. DO listen to agtlaw. He is the Guru on these things.
As for people getting wrongly convicted because they are confused or frightened by the forms and so on, I really do wonder how often this happens. Kudos to anyone who helps old and/or confused people not to be intimidated by form filling and so on, but private charity should not have to be a substitute for proper availability of affordable or free legal advice for those who do not have the confidence and/or ability and resources to sort stuff out by themselves.
As for people getting wrongly convicted because they are confused or frightened by the forms and so on, I really do wonder how often this happens. Kudos to anyone who helps old and/or confused people not to be intimidated by form filling and so on, but private charity should not have to be a substitute for proper availability of affordable or free legal advice for those who do not have the confidence and/or ability and resources to sort stuff out by themselves.
I'm fascinated to know how often it happens and why the CAB or a trip to the local cop shop can't sort it out. If it is a genuine case of not knowing who was driving and being confused by the forms I would humbly suggest that rather than trying to stick it to the man they should probably have a good think about how much attention they are paying while driving.
But when you get to people who are not capable of doing these things themselves, then it's a huge plethora of things they need help with. At the risk of transgressing the "in my experience rule", my mother in her 80s who is of reasonably sound mind gets pretty stressed about (to me) the simplest of admin. Insurance renewals etc. The world nearly ended when she tried to pay by installments and it was with a "credit company". She needs loads of help which of course she gets.
But I'm not sure that means that S172 is unjust (specifically) because of people like her.
Bert
But I'm not sure that means that S172 is unjust (specifically) because of people like her.
Bert
It's not really the same skillset and after 60 years driving if she's only popping out to the local shops I doubt there are any new or unexpected situations.
The amount of paperwork seemingly written by idiots we're required to fill in these days I do find frustrating. I know my dad's always left a lot of the house paperwork to my mum because it drove him mad and I find myself relying on my wife for the same. He seemed to cope ok with flying fast jets in war zones though.
At the moment we've just moved house and my wife's tried to move Dr's surgery. They keep phoning her up because our son's registered with them but she isn't and it's something they have to query for child protection apparently - but they won't let her register because we don't have any hard copy bills with our address on. Despite her driving licence showing the new address, that's from the photo ID column and so it can't be used as proof of address, even with a passport for satisfying the photo ID.
The amount of paperwork seemingly written by idiots we're required to fill in these days I do find frustrating. I know my dad's always left a lot of the house paperwork to my mum because it drove him mad and I find myself relying on my wife for the same. He seemed to cope ok with flying fast jets in war zones though.
At the moment we've just moved house and my wife's tried to move Dr's surgery. They keep phoning her up because our son's registered with them but she isn't and it's something they have to query for child protection apparently - but they won't let her register because we don't have any hard copy bills with our address on. Despite her driving licence showing the new address, that's from the photo ID column and so it can't be used as proof of address, even with a passport for satisfying the photo ID.
No Bend said:
Purity14 said:
mmmunch said:
I'm sure the photographic evidence of the driver would confirm that it wasn't me as I'm white and male, not female and Indian and therefore couldn't be driving.
This smells of racism, and transphobia to me.0000 said:
It's not really the same skillset
Yes, it is.0000 said:
and after 60 years driving if she's only popping out to the local shops I doubt there are any new or unexpected situations.
That you actually believe that is really rather frightening. If she's getting so flustered by simple paperwork, will she cope if the road's closed and she has to go a different way? Or if some other driver does something she's not expecting?Much as we're reluctant to admit it when they're our loved ones, there are people driving around who really shouldn't be - and who only cope because they're on absolute autopilot. Throw them even the smallest curve ball, and they can't deal with it. Should they be driving...? If she wasn't your mother, but a neighbour, would your attitude be any different towards her continued car use?
Turbobloke - it's very easy to opt out of your s172 responsibilities. Give up using a car.
MrTickle said:
No Bend said:
Purity14 said:
mmmunch said:
I'm sure the photographic evidence of the driver would confirm that it wasn't me as I'm white and male, not female and Indian and therefore couldn't be driving.
This smells of racism, and transphobia to me.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff