Hypothetical....
Discussion
To settle an argument:
If you were in the process of selling your car and, over the course of a couple of weeks, several people had been to view and test-drive the vehicle, then at a later date you, as the registered keeper recieved a NIP.
If you then wrote to ask for the photographs and they don't clearly identify the driver, and you couldn't be sure who was driving on that particular date, as it could've been one of the test drivers - how could you prove/disprove who was/wasn't driving?
If you were in the process of selling your car and, over the course of a couple of weeks, several people had been to view and test-drive the vehicle, then at a later date you, as the registered keeper recieved a NIP.
If you then wrote to ask for the photographs and they don't clearly identify the driver, and you couldn't be sure who was driving on that particular date, as it could've been one of the test drivers - how could you prove/disprove who was/wasn't driving?
I take it you've got copies of the 'Autotrader' advert or such. If so keep them, and providing you've checked the insurance status of the persons test driving I don't think you'd have much of a problem.
You just need to explain why you can't name the driver to the scamera dept that sent the hypothetical NIP
You just need to explain why you can't name the driver to the scamera dept that sent the hypothetical NIP
You'd just appear at court, tell the magistrates what happened, show them the car advert, show them the names of the people who drove it on a test, tell them that you'd contacted the people who had tested the car to ascertain if they were the driver on the day in question.
At the end of all that, they'd likely be satisfied that you'd made a reasonable attempt to determine the identity of the driver, and let you go.
At the end of all that, they'd likely be satisfied that you'd made a reasonable attempt to determine the identity of the driver, and let you go.
Was seriously a hypothesis, it came up in one of those lunch-time pub conversations this week. We were just talking about if there possibly any genuine conditions where you might not know, for certain, the identity of the driver of your car. I mean, does anyone actually take the name and address of everyone who comes to test drive their car, and the dates that each test drive takes place? I know its a good idea, but its not actually stated in law that you have to take their details is it?
Neil, here is another not knowing absolute. Your car is insured for all drivers and you go away on business for a couple of weeks, leaving the keys with your family, three of whom are permitted to drive the car. How could you be expected to know who was driving during that two week period?
kevinday said:
Neil, here is another not knowing absolute. Your car is insured for all drivers and you go away on business for a couple of weeks, leaving the keys with your family, three of whom are permitted to drive the car. How could you be expected to know who was driving during that two week period?
True.
The discussion lead on from this "absolute offence" phrase that gets thrown around, not just on here.
Seems to me that as long as the onus is, and should be, on the prosecution to prove positively that you were driving, then this "absolute offence" doesn't actually stack up. Of course, if you get a pull then the circumstances are a bit different. But in the case of a flash and NIP.....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff