Pensioner scammed - he'd sold car
Discussion
Speeding fine shock for man who sold car Mix-up with paperwork leaves pensioner, 77, facing court after new owner is caught on speed camera
Alexandra Wood
WITH his young face and dark hair there can be no question of confusing the driver in the picture with elderly Laurie Motherby.
But despite Mr Motherby, 77, having being 12 miles away in east Hull, it is he who faces going into the dock over the speeding offence allegedly committed by the stranger.
Mr Motherby and his wife Doreen sold their E-registered Toyota Corolla to a man who described himself as an Indian last Spring.
So they were amazed when they found themselves facing a speeding fine, despite a picture taken by speed cameras clearly showing a young dark-haired male driver and two passengers in their old car.
The men were caught on camera doing 45mph in a 30mph zone in Welton, near Hull, last summer.
Although the couple claim they notified the DVLA when they sold their car in the spring, Humberside Police say the papers relating to change of ownership were dated much later, in September.
As the alleged offence occurred in June, 77-year-old Mr Motherby is still liable, as registered keeper of the car.
The couple, who sold the car for £300, now face a fine of £60, three penalty points and higher insurance premiums. Both have been driving for 40 years and have never had a speeding fine before.
Mrs Motherby, who has been driving since 1963, said she was worried about the effect on her husband's health.
"As far as I know we sold it to an Indian who had come from India two years previously and that was it.
"He said he wanted the car and we sold it and we got him to sign our papers and the papers that you send to the DVLA. We sent ours."
The couple have been informed that if Mr Motherby does not appear before Beverley magistrates on February 10 he could be arrested.
Mrs Motherby said they were at the end of their tether, having suffered recent family tragedy. Their daughter Sharon Jackson was killed after falling off a scooter in 2003.
Mrs Motherby said: "We just want to get it quashed. We have had too much tragedy in our lives."
A police spokeswoman said: "We can only go on the details provided by the DVLA and the Motherbys tell us they can't remember the name of the person they sold the car to.
"As Mr Motherby remains the registered keeper he maintains responsibility for the vehicle's use. That is why we always advise people to keep a note of the name and address of the person you sell your car to."
The DVLA said: "It is unfortunate that the Motherbys did not advise the DVLA. It is important to let them know when they dispose of a vehicle, or unfortunately this kind of thing can happen."
Under the Road Traffic Act, a person who is prosecuted for a driving offence must provide police with the name and address of the driver if they were not at the wheel.
Failure to send in notification of change of ownership is also an offence, carrying a fine of up to £1,000.
The case comes only days after Yorkshire sailor Steven Andrews was summonsed by York magistrates for driving while using a mobile phone – although he does not possess a driving licence or car and claims he was aboard his ship, HMS Ocean, in Plymouth when the ticket was issued.
01 February 2005
Alexandra Wood
WITH his young face and dark hair there can be no question of confusing the driver in the picture with elderly Laurie Motherby.
But despite Mr Motherby, 77, having being 12 miles away in east Hull, it is he who faces going into the dock over the speeding offence allegedly committed by the stranger.
Mr Motherby and his wife Doreen sold their E-registered Toyota Corolla to a man who described himself as an Indian last Spring.
So they were amazed when they found themselves facing a speeding fine, despite a picture taken by speed cameras clearly showing a young dark-haired male driver and two passengers in their old car.
The men were caught on camera doing 45mph in a 30mph zone in Welton, near Hull, last summer.
Although the couple claim they notified the DVLA when they sold their car in the spring, Humberside Police say the papers relating to change of ownership were dated much later, in September.
As the alleged offence occurred in June, 77-year-old Mr Motherby is still liable, as registered keeper of the car.
The couple, who sold the car for £300, now face a fine of £60, three penalty points and higher insurance premiums. Both have been driving for 40 years and have never had a speeding fine before.
Mrs Motherby, who has been driving since 1963, said she was worried about the effect on her husband's health.
"As far as I know we sold it to an Indian who had come from India two years previously and that was it.
"He said he wanted the car and we sold it and we got him to sign our papers and the papers that you send to the DVLA. We sent ours."
The couple have been informed that if Mr Motherby does not appear before Beverley magistrates on February 10 he could be arrested.
Mrs Motherby said they were at the end of their tether, having suffered recent family tragedy. Their daughter Sharon Jackson was killed after falling off a scooter in 2003.
Mrs Motherby said: "We just want to get it quashed. We have had too much tragedy in our lives."
A police spokeswoman said: "We can only go on the details provided by the DVLA and the Motherbys tell us they can't remember the name of the person they sold the car to.
"As Mr Motherby remains the registered keeper he maintains responsibility for the vehicle's use. That is why we always advise people to keep a note of the name and address of the person you sell your car to."
The DVLA said: "It is unfortunate that the Motherbys did not advise the DVLA. It is important to let them know when they dispose of a vehicle, or unfortunately this kind of thing can happen."
Under the Road Traffic Act, a person who is prosecuted for a driving offence must provide police with the name and address of the driver if they were not at the wheel.
Failure to send in notification of change of ownership is also an offence, carrying a fine of up to £1,000.
The case comes only days after Yorkshire sailor Steven Andrews was summonsed by York magistrates for driving while using a mobile phone – although he does not possess a driving licence or car and claims he was aboard his ship, HMS Ocean, in Plymouth when the ticket was issued.
01 February 2005
Liebchen - this does not surprise me und I hope they have good solicitor who ist aware of the background toe this little snippet which appeared in last Friday's "Manchester Evening News"
Tony Howard reported:
The DVLA must improve its data bases to help police solve car crime.
A report by the National Audit Office said the 32% of all records held by DVLA contained errors"
Und stated that records were not being updated quickly enough!
Und it stated that the ever growing use of speed cameras meant that ist even more important to have accurate records!
Surprisingly the report praised the government und not the police
for reducing car thefts/break-ins by 30% since 1999.
They should tell that to the victims of the scrotes who patrol Manchester's car jackers alley
But the report said that car park security should be improved in many areas.
The Report allegedly finds that there are signifiant gaps in the moves which are designed to make it harder for crroks to clone und give cars identities of written off vehicles.
Seven out of ten councils mit highest car rime rate have not set up a register of salvage yards. There ist also a loophole which allows purchase of number plates from unregistered suppliers in Scotland und Northern Ireland which needs clsoing.
Apparently there were 241,000 car thefts und 1.2 million break-ins in 2003.
The report concluded that the DVLA must improve its record keeping as this was leading to too many errors.

Tony Howard reported:
The DVLA must improve its data bases to help police solve car crime.
A report by the National Audit Office said the 32% of all records held by DVLA contained errors"
Und stated that records were not being updated quickly enough!
Und it stated that the ever growing use of speed cameras meant that ist even more important to have accurate records!
Surprisingly the report praised the government und not the police
for reducing car thefts/break-ins by 30% since 1999. They should tell that to the victims of the scrotes who patrol Manchester's car jackers alley
But the report said that car park security should be improved in many areas.
The Report allegedly finds that there are signifiant gaps in the moves which are designed to make it harder for crroks to clone und give cars identities of written off vehicles.
Seven out of ten councils mit highest car rime rate have not set up a register of salvage yards. There ist also a loophole which allows purchase of number plates from unregistered suppliers in Scotland und Northern Ireland which needs clsoing.
Apparently there were 241,000 car thefts und 1.2 million break-ins in 2003.
The report concluded that the DVLA must improve its record keeping as this was leading to too many errors.

So even with absolute proof ie the pictures these muppets still want to go to court.
Anyone up for surrounding the court with cars for the hearing? We need about 3 hundred vehicles and the press. Just refuse to leave until the case is squashed and a written reprimand for those who brought it.
Anyone up for surrounding the court with cars for the hearing? We need about 3 hundred vehicles and the press. Just refuse to leave until the case is squashed and a written reprimand for those who brought it.
nonegreen said:
So even with absolute proof ie the pictures these muppets still want to go to court.
Anyone up for surrounding the court with cars for the hearing? We need about 3 hundred vehicles and the press. Just refuse to leave until the case is squashed and a written reprimand for those who brought it.
You want to take your car to Hull

BliarOut said:
nonegreen said:
So even with absolute proof ie the pictures these muppets still want to go to court.
Anyone up for surrounding the court with cars for the hearing? We need about 3 hundred vehicles and the press. Just refuse to leave until the case is squashed and a written reprimand for those who brought it.
You want to take your car to Hull
erm good point I'll nip down the auctions the day before and buy a banger with an Mot.

pdV6 said:
Fine. The old chap should see 'em in court.
The evidence will clearly prove his innocence and hopefully whoever is presiding will take the opportunity to lambast the scamera partnerships for wasting the court's time and the DVLA for having a cr4p system.
On that note, when you sell a car and send off your bit of the V5, is the DVLA's system so rubbish that it leaves the car in your name until such time as the new owner semds in their bit? If so, then suprise suprise I wonder why the database is so inaccurate in the 1st place?
No the filthy vermin will nick him for failing to supply the information.
The penalty for which is the same as the speeding plus an extra fine for daring to question the widsdom of the court and the scumrashits death/theft extortion racket. Thats why we need hundreds of motorists to invade the court and make our displeasure known. Nothing quite like fearing you might not get out alive to encourage the magistrate to make the right decision.

I don't understand this. The elderly gent would have received an NIP and should have given the name of the Indian buyer. That should have been the end of it - he would have provided the information as required under S172, so no offence. It is not for the owner, keeper or former keeper to trace the person named, so long as there is no attempt to pervert etc.
How has this happened?
How has this happened?
Because he's old (sorry to stereotype) he probably forgot to keep details of the buyer...he probably did send off the counterpart V5 with the name on (assuming it was the buyers real name!!!), but didn't keep anything else...it was a cash sale of a cheap car, FFS!
Then, when the V5 got lost by Royal Mail or DVLA, he had no leg to stand on legally, as the law in this case is quite clearly an ass!
So a clearly innocent person will be punished by laws intended to prevent defrauding of HM tax collectors (SCamera Branch), because those laws were worded so as to blanket-cover any loopholes, rather than leave the innocent with a way out.
Whatever happened to "better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent be punished"??? Oh, I remember, it's applied to burglars and muggers, isn't it?!?
Then, when the V5 got lost by Royal Mail or DVLA, he had no leg to stand on legally, as the law in this case is quite clearly an ass!
So a clearly innocent person will be punished by laws intended to prevent defrauding of HM tax collectors (SCamera Branch), because those laws were worded so as to blanket-cover any loopholes, rather than leave the innocent with a way out.
Whatever happened to "better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent be punished"??? Oh, I remember, it's applied to burglars and muggers, isn't it?!?

Cooperman said:
I don't understand this. The elderly gent would have received an NIP and should have given the name of the Indian buyer. That should have been the end of it - he would have provided the information as required under S172, so no offence. It is not for the owner, keeper or former keeper to trace the person named, so long as there is no attempt to pervert etc.
How has this happened?
Here's a wild guess ; they can't find the Indian buyer for some reason. So they simply pick an easy target.
A police spokeswoman said:....the buyer can lie
That is why we always advise people to keep a note of the name and address of the person you sell your car to
All sellers could start asking for proof of identity, but how are they able to know if a document is forged? article said:
the couple claim they notified the DVLA when they sold their car in the spring, Humberside Police say the papers relating to change of ownership were dated much later, in September.
and just how is it even possible for them to go and prove their claim? Quite conveniently, for the DVLA, they can't!
Guilty until proven innocent > law is ass
nonegreen said:I just thought: If it really does appear that the geezer will be done for failing to supply, he could change his plea to 'it was me speeding', so opting for the lesser of two evils. If the council/DVLA/scamera partnership accepts this it'll prove what we've all been saying all along:
No the filthy vermin will nick him for failing to supply the information.The penalty for which is the same as the speeding plus an extra fine for daring to question the widsdom of the court and the scumrashits death/theft extortion racket.
'they don't care about the driver, they just want the money'
A few years back my ex part-exchanged her old car at a dealers, and then sent off the new owner's slip to the DVLA within a week. She didn't receive a reminder when the tax was due so she spoke to the DVLA who told her the new car was registered to the dealer she'd bought it from. Apparently the dealer was lax in sending off their part of the registration documents so the car ended up being recorded as their property.
I can't remember all the details but I do know a simple checklist to be used on receipt of the paperwork would have avoided the mis-registration.
DVLA - couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery.
I can't remember all the details but I do know a simple checklist to be used on receipt of the paperwork would have avoided the mis-registration.
DVLA - couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Mein gott Vilde Kat vaz iss diss, nein mention 15% errors is der fault der old owners nein fingerextracting und notify der change.
Nein difficulty for 90% SS enquiries.
Und der report frum fiqures 2003 - svi years ago???
DVD
(PS apologies my German is so poor)
PMSL DVD has finally lost it

If he pleads guilty to speeding and the photos show it is clearly not him, then he is committing an offence or two (perverting.......).
If he pleads not-guilty to speeding and the photos show it is not him, he can't lose on a speeding charge.
He will, therefore, probably be charged with failing to name the driver. The DVLA say they do have a new owner registered, so he should get that name and name that person. Then he's not guilty on all counts. If they can't trace the person named they have to give up, after all, as the keeper is not a police officer and there is no requirement to help the police contact the person named.
G, S & M.
If he pleads not-guilty to speeding and the photos show it is not him, he can't lose on a speeding charge.
He will, therefore, probably be charged with failing to name the driver. The DVLA say they do have a new owner registered, so he should get that name and name that person. Then he's not guilty on all counts. If they can't trace the person named they have to give up, after all, as the keeper is not a police officer and there is no requirement to help the police contact the person named.
G, S & M.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff



On that note, when you sell a car and send off your bit of the V5, is the DVLA's system so rubbish that it leaves the car in your name until such time as the new owner semds in their bit? If so, then suprise suprise I wonder why the database is so inaccurate in the 1st place? 
