caught out by camera

[V40Vinnie]

Evening all, Recieved a friendly letter informing me that my Volvo was doing 37 in a 30 zone on Pin Hill canterbury, now i have a genuine alibi as i was at work at the time of offence, I assume the driver was my other half so have filled out the form accordingly. What would happen if she were to contest who was driving? Does it become my fault by default?

[konark]

In some areas of the law two suspects each blaming each other with no evidence one way or t'other would make a conviction difficult for the CPS.

However , as motorists are considered by our lawmakers as anti-social vermin these legal protections don't extend to motoring offences and the Registered Keeper would be deemed to be guilty, even if they could prove their innocence.

[talksthetorque]

See
Crown vs Huhne
and
Crown vs Price.



As you had an alibi, and if you can prove she was the only one that had access to keys ( live together, you and her alone have house keys, keys left in locked house) - I can't see it being a legal issue.
As for a relationship issue, that's another thing.

[speedking31]

V40Vinnie said:

Evening all, Recieved a friendly letter informing me that my Volvo was doing 37 in a 30 zone on Pin Hill canterbury, now i have a genuine alibi as i was at work at the time of offence, I assume the driver was my other half so have filled out the form accordingly. What would happen if she were to contest who was driving? Does it become my fault by default?

Are you supposed to nominate someone based on an assumption? What if she'd lent her keys to her lover to nip down the off licence?

[surveyor_101]

If the op accepted the endorsement, considering they are pretty convinced they were working at the time, they would in effect be guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice. However as the registered keeper and if the nonminated driver disputes the court service are happy to find the same person guilty?


Seems very odd that, but I suppose it's the lessor of two evils, because any registered keeper could deny it was them and have no obligation to name the guilty party, therefore cps would reach a stale mate.

Speeding guilty until proven innocent or your prove it wasn't the registered keeper. I assume that the same for hire cars then?

[jm doc]

In a slightly different scenario, if it was a hire car and there were two drivers insured to drive it, who would the hire company nominate as the driver on the form? And if, as was likely, it was several weeks after alleged offence, how could you be expected to know who was driving?

[InitialDave]

speedking31 said:

re you supposed to nominate someone based on an assumption? What if she'd lent her keys to her lover to nip down the off licence?

Well then it's up to her to decide if the sex is worth the points, isn't it?

[BlueHave]

7mph over, to the gallows with you sunny

[talksthetorque]

jm doc said:

In a slightly different scenario, if it was a hire car and there were two drivers insured to drive it, who would the hire company nominate as the driver on the form? And if, as was likely, it was several weeks after alleged offence, how could you be expected to know who was driving?

They would ask the hirer to nominate the driver be it the hirer or the other driver.

[jm doc]

talksthetorque said:

jm doc said:

In a slightly different scenario, if it was a hire car and there were two drivers insured to drive it, who would the hire company nominate as the driver on the form? And if, as was likely, it was several weeks after alleged offence, how could you be expected to know who was driving?

They would ask the hirer to nominate the driver be it the hirer or the other driver.

doesn't mean they were the actual driver though, and whoever was nominated would not be in a position to confirm or deny the offence

[Red Devil]

talksthetorque said:

jm doc said:

In a slightly different scenario, if it was a hire car and there were two drivers insured to drive it, who would the hire company nominate as the driver on the form? And if, as was likely, it was several weeks after alleged offence, how could you be expected to know who was driving?

They would ask the hirer to nominate the driver be it the hirer or the other driver.

I disagree. The hire company would name the hirer. i.e. the person who signed the hire contract.
Have a look at one and you will find that person is responsible for all contraventions/violations
Doing as you suggest would be an administrative PITA and tie up resources for no good reason.

jm doc said:

doesn't mean they were the actual driver though, and whoever was nominated would not be in a position to confirm or deny the offence

See above. The hirer would subsequently receive their own NoIP. If there was another authorised driver I can't see anything to prevent the hirer nominating the other party if he/she was behind the wheel at the relevant time. Given the likely time delay before issuing the second NoIP (the 14 day rule doesn't apply), whether the hirer could remember who was actually driving is a different matter.