Failure to disclose driver vs very excessive speeding NIP?

[TooMany2cvs]

LocoCoco said:

TooMany2cvs said:

LocoCoco said:

On your second point, I could honestly nominate another driver but not be able to prove that they were driving, they deny all responsibility and I end up getting done for the original offence.

You gave the keys to somebody. They get named.

If they gave the keys to somebody else, then they can bloody well name them.

They didn't give the keys to anybody else, they were driving at the time and are now lying and putting the blame back on me. They bloody well named me!

Then you send it back, naming them again.

[JNW1]

LocoCoco said:

JNW1 said:

I agree it doesn't really matter whether or not the OP knows who was driving but the issue here is more whether the owner of the vehicle knew who was driving. I get the impression they do and they're just trying to work out whether it might be better to claim they don't rather than give the name of the driver....

I get that impression too tbh but I'm not 100% sure, not sure beyond reasonable doubt. I'd like to see some actual proof before I'd punish somebody for something they might not have done.

It's not for us to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt on here, that's the job of the police and the courts! However, the original post which started this thread gave the distinct impression the owner knew who was driving and he or she was just trying to evaluate whether it was best to confess to that or whether if they chose to with-hold the name of the driver the penalty would be less severe. If that is indeed the situation I'd say honesty is the best policy as knowingly giving false information - such as saying you didn't know who was driving when actually you did - will surely make the situation worse if the police pursue the matter and the truth comes out.

If however the owner genuinely doesn't know who was behind the wheel they can presumably respond to the NIP saying that and invite the police to supply some photographic evidence which may help determine the identity of the driver? If there's nothing that can confirm the identity of the driver - and the owner really doesn't know who was driving - I'm not sure what happens then; presumably case dropped unless it's an offence to not know who was driving your car?!

[LocoCoco]

TooMany2cvs said:

LocoCoco said:

TooMany2cvs said:

LocoCoco said:

On your second point, I could honestly nominate another driver but not be able to prove that they were driving, they deny all responsibility and I end up getting done for the original offence.

You gave the keys to somebody. They get named.

If they gave the keys to somebody else, then they can bloody well name them.

They didn't give the keys to anybody else, they were driving at the time and are now lying and putting the blame back on me. They bloody well named me!

Then you send it back, naming them again.

They denied it again and got an alibi from a dodgy friend saying that they were with them at the time of the offence. I feel pretty screwed now, can't prove that I wasn't driving. Police now charging me with PCOJ too. Would have been much better off just keeping my mouth shut from the start.

[S11Steve]

I've been in a similar position myself on two occasions. First was that my car was caught on a Gatso at 48 in 30. On that day I could prove that I was elsewhere, but I also identified two possible drivers who had access to the car on the day to use for vehicle deliveries and collections.
Normally they did fill out driver sheets, but on this occasion it was two agency drivers who used my car to collect a truck from a customer, and didn't complete the logs.
I provided the information to Cheshire Police, and after discussion between them, me, the driver agency and I believe, the two drivers, the police dropped it.

The second was a very high profile incident where a cyclist was deliberately knocked off his bike. My company was the RK of the vehicle, but it had been sublet through various hire companies and accident management agencies to a driver who had been in a third party accident.
Two people were insured/authorised to drive the vehicle, but both could prove they were elsewhere at the time, and neither would not disclose who may have had access to the keys. One of the two authorised drivers was given 6 points, and a means tested fine of £150. The cyclist went to the press, and as far as I know, nothing has changed since.

So will the police follow the speeding case up, rather than settling on the failing to furnish? Possibly not, based on my own experience. I'm sure there are legal reasons behind the decision that Agtlaw may know more about, or maybe practical reasons like the police don't want to use their finite resources investigating it.

[pork911]

LocoCoco said:

They denied it again and got an alibi from a dodgy friend saying that they were with them at the time of the offence. I feel pretty screwed now, can't prove that I wasn't driving. Police now charging me with PCOJ too. Would have been much better off just keeping my mouth shut from the start.

What was the previous offence you mentioned which you were unfairly found guilty of? Are there any more?

[LocoCoco]

pork911 said:

What was the previous offence you mentioned which you were unfairly found guilty of? Are there any more?

Don't wanna derail the thread any further, look through old posts if you're desperate to find out. Why do you ask?

[pork911]

I was pondering your bad luck. It's already derailed a bit since we are now talking about an owner being honest which wasn't really what OP was wondering

[PAULJ5555]

Tell them you lent the car to a Michael Patel from 25A West Ave, Poland. And yes he did show you proof of insurance.

[Pip1968]

Having seen the news about this 'little' incident I wondered if this story was a cover for the real story ie knowledge of who was driving a lorry near Manchester.........

M62 'road rage' driver attacks lorry with shovel

29 November 2016 Last updated at 22:26 GMT

A truck driver reversed at speed into a lorry then smashed its cab with a shovel in a terrifying "road rage" attack captured on camera.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-3814...

Pip

[RWD cossie wil]

So, bit of thread closure due...

Offender coughed, 108mph in a 50....

56 day ban, £200 fine plus usual add ons & a fairly hefty legal bill to offset the low fine... all in all not a bad result for the offender?

[Centurion07]

108 is just asking for trouble, but how did he come to be doing that in a 50 and not realise?

[Byker28i]

Centurion07 said:

108 is just asking for trouble, but how did he come to be doing that in a 50 and not realise?

He wasn't paying attention as he was on his phone/drunk/stoned (delete as appropriate)

[TooMany2cvs]

RWD cossie wil said:

So, bit of thread closure due...

Offender coughed, 108mph in a 50....

56 day ban, £200 fine plus usual add ons & a fairly hefty legal bill to offset the low fine... all in all not a bad result for the offender?

I presume his attempts to duck responsibility didn't come up in court?

[RWD cossie wil]

TooMany2cvs said:

RWD cossie wil said:

So, bit of thread closure due...

Offender coughed, 108mph in a 50....

56 day ban, £200 fine plus usual add ons & a fairly hefty legal bill to offset the low fine... all in all not a bad result for the offender?

I presume his attempts to duck responsibility didn't come up in court?

No attempt was made...

[Durzel]

Can't imagine 6 points for MS90 would've resulted in a worse outcome. He's going to get battered on insurance for a ban as it is, on top of the legal fees.

[dacouch]

Centurion07 said:

108 is just asking for trouble, but how did he come to be doing that in a 50 and not realise?

I think they were trying to get one up on you...

[vonhosen]

badum tish

[agtlaw]

RWD cossie wil said:

So, bit of thread closure due...

Offender coughed, 108mph in a 50....

56 day ban, £200 fine plus usual add ons & a fairly hefty legal bill to offset the low fine... all in all not a bad result for the offender?

Could have been slightly worse. I would have said to expect 1-3 months but most likely 2-3 months. Looks like he declared a fairly low income for his fine.

How much was his "hefty legal bill?"

[Centurion07]

dacouch said:

Centurion07 said:

108 is just asking for trouble, but how did he come to be doing that in a 50 and not realise?

I think they were trying to get one up on you...

I was still within A limit though.

[speedking31]

Should I get my MIL, who has never had a driving licence, to be the registered keeper of my car, 'just in case'