Possibly stupid question about ANPR
Discussion
I was driving past one of those ANPR gantries somewhere yesterday and it occurred to me that I didn't know the answer to this:
If something (no tax/MOT/insurance) is detected by a fixed ANPR camera, is a fine automatically sent to the registered keeper, or does the registered keeper have to identify who was driving at the time, in the same manner as a speed camera would?
In other words, is the driver or the keeper considered at fault?
I assume the driver.
If something (no tax/MOT/insurance) is detected by a fixed ANPR camera, is a fine automatically sent to the registered keeper, or does the registered keeper have to identify who was driving at the time, in the same manner as a speed camera would?
In other words, is the driver or the keeper considered at fault?
I assume the driver.
Johnnytheboy said:
I was driving past one of those ANPR gantries somewhere yesterday and it occurred to me that I didn't know the answer to this:
If something (no tax/MOT/insurance) is detected by a fixed ANPR camera, is a fine automatically sent to the registered keeper, or does the registered keeper have to identify who was driving at the time, in the same manner as a speed camera would?
In other words, is the driver or the keeper considered at fault?
I assume the driver.
It’s a subject that’s cropped up on SP&L regularly as to what ANPR cameras functions are, and the general consensus is unless they are particularly tasked for MOT/Insurance anomalies – they are not that bothered.If something (no tax/MOT/insurance) is detected by a fixed ANPR camera, is a fine automatically sent to the registered keeper, or does the registered keeper have to identify who was driving at the time, in the same manner as a speed camera would?
In other words, is the driver or the keeper considered at fault?
I assume the driver.
Johnnytheboy said:
I was driving past one of those ANPR gantries somewhere yesterday and it occurred to me that I didn't know the answer to this:
If something (no tax/MOT/insurance) is detected by a fixed ANPR camera, is a fine automatically sent to the registered keeper, or does the registered keeper have to identify who was driving at the time, in the same manner as a speed camera would?
In other words, is the driver or the keeper considered at fault?
I assume the driver.
I would say that you assume incorrectly. Tax/ MOT/ insurance is the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle, not whoever happens to be driving it at the time.If something (no tax/MOT/insurance) is detected by a fixed ANPR camera, is a fine automatically sent to the registered keeper, or does the registered keeper have to identify who was driving at the time, in the same manner as a speed camera would?
In other words, is the driver or the keeper considered at fault?
I assume the driver.
SpeckledJim said:
Huh? You reckon you can drive without tax / MOT / insurance as long as it's not your car?
The owner of a vehicle is responsible for keeping it road legal ie. having insurance, tax and MOT if applicable.If you are driving somebody else's car then you are responsible for having insurance cover in place which covers you to drive it. That is a different matter altogether.
Tax is an interesting question now because of course the tax disc is being abolished, so you might not actually know whether the vehicle is taxed or not. However if, for example, I hired a car that a car hire company had omitted to tax, the simple fact that I was driving it would not make me responsible for the car owner's obligations under the law.
If my house gets broken into, does the burglar become responsible for my Council Tax?
rs1952 said:
The owner of a vehicle is responsible for keeping it road legal ie. having insurance, tax and MOT if applicable.
I think you're wrong there. It's the driver's responsibility to make sure the car is road worthy before every journey. You can't drive a car with four baldy tyres and say "not my car, not my problem" when stopped by police. rs1952 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Huh? You reckon you can drive without tax / MOT / insurance as long as it's not your car?
The owner of a vehicle is responsible for keeping it road legal ie. having insurance, tax and MOT if applicable.If you are driving somebody else's car then you are responsible for having insurance cover in place which covers you to drive it. That is a different matter altogether.
Tax is an interesting question now because of course the tax disc is being abolished, so you might not actually know whether the vehicle is taxed or not. However if, for example, I hired a car that a car hire company had omitted to tax, the simple fact that I was driving it would not make me responsible for the car owner's obligations under the law.
"Constable, it is not my car. I have borrowed it, and so I suggest you leave me alone and take it up with the registered keeper."
"Thank you sir, I will do just that. Have a pleasant onward journey in this dangerous car."
rs1952 said:
If my house gets broken into, does the burglar become responsible for my Council Tax?
You're going to beat me with experience, aren't you?Fartomatic5000 said:
rs1952 said:
The owner of a vehicle is responsible for keeping it road legal ie. having insurance, tax and MOT if applicable.
I think you're wrong there. It's the driver's responsibility to make sure the car is road worthy before every journey. You can't drive a car with four baldy tyres and say "not my car, not my problem" when stopped by police. The vehicle keeper (not necessarily, but usually, the owner) is responsible for the vehicle tax and MOT. The driver is responsible for roadworthiness and insurance. If you drive you wife/partner's car without insurance then you are responsible. Your wife partner may also be responsible for causing or permitting the offence; ditto your children driving.
The ANPR will check against http://www.askmid.com/ and https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-status. The ANPR gantry will see that AN05 THR is currently insured by Bob Smith and has a valid MOT. It won't know that the car is driven Dave Jones (who isn't insured to drive it) or that it has 4 bald tyres, no working lights, leaky shock absorbers, only one functioning brake and is leaving its own smokescreen. Nor will the ANPR camera detect that AN05 THR has been cloned off Bob's immacualte saloon and put on Pete the
's ropey pick-up. However when Pete the parks in a bus lance, blocks a box junction and zooms through a few roadworks HADECs; you can be sure that Bob Smith will be the first to find out.Mr Taxpayer said:
Fartomatic5000 said:
rs1952 said:
The owner of a vehicle is responsible for keeping it road legal ie. having insurance, tax and MOT if applicable.
I think you're wrong there. It's the driver's responsibility to make sure the car is road worthy before every journey. You can't drive a car with four baldy tyres and say "not my car, not my problem" when stopped by police. rs1952 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Huh? You reckon you can drive without tax / MOT / insurance as long as it's not your car?
The owner of a vehicle is responsible for keeping it road legal ie. having insurance, tax and MOT if applicable.If you are driving somebody else's car then you are responsible for having insurance cover in place which covers you to drive it. That is a different matter altogether.
Is the offence not taxing your car/not having an MOT, or is it driving it without tax/MOT?
Johnnytheboy said:
rs1952 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Huh? You reckon you can drive without tax / MOT / insurance as long as it's not your car?
The owner of a vehicle is responsible for keeping it road legal ie. having insurance, tax and MOT if applicable.If you are driving somebody else's car then you are responsible for having insurance cover in place which covers you to drive it. That is a different matter altogether.
Is the offence not taxing your car/not having an MOT, or is it driving it without tax/MOT?
A car is perfectly allowed to not have an MOT, as long as it isn't on the road.
A car has to have tax whether or not it is being driven on the road UNLESS it is subject to a SORN (in which case it cannot be driven on the road).
Johnnytheboy said:
If something (no tax/MOT/insurance) is detected by a fixed ANPR camera, is a fine automatically sent to the registered keeper, or does the registered keeper have to identify who was driving at the time, in the same manner as a speed camera would?
The letters would come to the keeper. All 3 of them. The keeper will be responsible for tax and MOT.Insurance will be a matter for both. If the driver is someone other than the keeper then the keeper has a responsibility to ensure the driver has adequate insurance or the keeper maybe guilty of causing or permitting the offence of 'Driving without insurance'.
There are few scenarios where a vehicle is still 'on the road' but not insured since insurance is needed ot obtain tax; they are generally where insurance has been taken out to obtain tax and thus a tax disc and subsequently cancelled. Given the ending of the requirement to display a tax disc, I can foresee a lot of people not bothering with such temporary measures.
Any BiB care to say how they have dealt at the roadside with vehicle stopped for no MOT/VED but not being driven by the keeper/owner?
rs1952 said:
The owner of a vehicle is responsible for keeping it road legal ie. having insurance, tax and MOT if applicable.
If you are driving somebody else's car then you are responsible for having insurance cover in place which covers you to drive it. That is a different matter altogether.
Tax is an interesting question now because of course the tax disc is being abolished, so you might not actually know whether the vehicle is taxed or not. However if, for example, I hired a car that a car hire company had omitted to tax, the simple fact that I was driving it would not make me responsible for the car owner's obligations under the law.
If my house gets broken into, does the burglar become responsible for my Council Tax?
Nope - Its simple, if you drive a vehicle it is your responsibility to make sure that it is road legal as in, it has an MOT, TAX, you have insurance that will cover you for atleast 3rd party for that vehicle AND that it is fit for use on the road ie you should check tyres, lights etc before driving it. If you are driving somebody else's car then you are responsible for having insurance cover in place which covers you to drive it. That is a different matter altogether.
Tax is an interesting question now because of course the tax disc is being abolished, so you might not actually know whether the vehicle is taxed or not. However if, for example, I hired a car that a car hire company had omitted to tax, the simple fact that I was driving it would not make me responsible for the car owner's obligations under the law.
If my house gets broken into, does the burglar become responsible for my Council Tax?
Its your license that will get the points and your money that will pay the fine if something isn't right with the car, that's the law no getting around that, I suppose the tax point could be argued, but it would be an argument.
As for your analogy about breaking into some ones house, that makes no sense. If someone steals your car that is in a lock up without MOT, TAX etc its still the drivers responsibility to make sure thoughs things are present and im sure that some joy riders have been done for no insurance before.
Johnnytheboy said:
Is the offence not taxing your car/not having an MOT, or is it driving it without tax/MOT?
Road Traffic Act Section 47The law said:
A person who uses on a road at any time, or causes or permits to be so used, a motor vehicle to which this section applies, and as respects which no test certificate has been issued within the appropriate period before that time, is guilty of an offence.
("Test certificate" means "MOT" to you and me.)Vehicle Excise and Registration Act Section 29
The law said:
If a person uses, or keeps, on a public road a vehicle (not being an exempt vehicle) which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence.
("Unlicenced" means "untaxed" to you and me)So in both cases both the driver and the owner can be committing an offence.
Johnnytheboy said:
I was driving past one of those ANPR gantries somewhere yesterday and it occurred to me that I didn't know the answer to this:
If something (no tax/MOT/insurance) is detected by a fixed ANPR camera, is a fine automatically sent to the registered keeper, or does the registered keeper have to identify who was driving at the time, in the same manner as a speed camera would?
In other words, is the driver or the keeper considered at fault?
I assume the driver.
The answer to your question is no. Tax, mot and insurance is not dealt with automaticallyIf something (no tax/MOT/insurance) is detected by a fixed ANPR camera, is a fine automatically sent to the registered keeper, or does the registered keeper have to identify who was driving at the time, in the same manner as a speed camera would?
In other words, is the driver or the keeper considered at fault?
I assume the driver.
Mr Taxpayer said:
Any BiB care to say how they have dealt at the roadside with vehicle stopped for no MOT/VED but not being driven by the keeper/owner?
I would usually deal with no MOT by issuing a £100 non-endorsable COFPN to the driver - no action against the owner/keeper. I would deal with no tax by issuing the driver with a £100 non-endorsable COFPN - I would also send a CLE2/8 form detailing the circumstances to the DVLA who may then choose to issue a fine to the RK or to pursue them for outstanding/back tax due.
Cat
When I drove my untaxed, unMOT'd car to a pre-booked MOT, I set of an ANPR camera.
Got a letter from the DVLA a couple of weeks later telling me how much of a naughty boy I'd been, and I'd better tax it PDQ.
However they didn't bother to check was that I'd taxed it the same afternoon of the MOT after passing the MOT.
It wasn't even as if that the letter was sent on that date and that Royal Mail had delayed it!
Got a letter from the DVLA a couple of weeks later telling me how much of a naughty boy I'd been, and I'd better tax it PDQ.
However they didn't bother to check was that I'd taxed it the same afternoon of the MOT after passing the MOT.
It wasn't even as if that the letter was sent on that date and that Royal Mail had delayed it!
Mr Taxpayer said:
The letters would come to the keeper. All 3 of them. The keeper will be responsible for tax and MOT.
Insurance will be a matter for both. If the driver is someone other than the keeper then the keeper has a responsibility to ensure the driver has adequate insurance or the keeper maybe guilty of causing or permitting the offence of 'Driving without insurance'.
There are few scenarios where a vehicle is still 'on the road' but not insured since insurance is needed ot obtain tax; they are generally where insurance has been taken out to obtain tax and thus a tax disc and subsequently cancelled. Given the ending of the requirement to display a tax disc, I can foresee a lot of people not bothering with such temporary measures.
Any BiB care to say how they have dealt at the roadside with vehicle stopped for no MOT/VED but not being driven by the keeper/owner?
Deal with it the same way as if it was the owner of the vehicle. Insurance will be a matter for both. If the driver is someone other than the keeper then the keeper has a responsibility to ensure the driver has adequate insurance or the keeper maybe guilty of causing or permitting the offence of 'Driving without insurance'.
There are few scenarios where a vehicle is still 'on the road' but not insured since insurance is needed ot obtain tax; they are generally where insurance has been taken out to obtain tax and thus a tax disc and subsequently cancelled. Given the ending of the requirement to display a tax disc, I can foresee a lot of people not bothering with such temporary measures.
Any BiB care to say how they have dealt at the roadside with vehicle stopped for no MOT/VED but not being driven by the keeper/owner?
£100 ticket for no MOT, £100 ticket for no tax and form filled in for DVLA to look into.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff