Query Re: Speeding Ticket
Discussion
Hopefully a very quick question... Friend of mine (no, honest, it is!) was recently sent through a speeding ticket. No question that it was their car, however she can't remember whether it was her or her husband driving as they frequently share the car. She wrote back, very politely, and asked if they could send a copy of the photo through to help clarify.
Photo arrives but there is no way of telling who is driving. She, again very politely, writes back and says she can't, with a clear conscience, determine who was driving and asks for advice.
She hears nothing for almost 3 weeks until this morning she gets a letter through from the police saying they've not had an appropriate response to the ticket therefore the issue is going in front of the magistrate and no further correspondence will be entered into.
She's now kinda scared; she wasn't trying to escape the fine, and her and her husband both have clean licenses, she just wanted to be fair.
What's the likely outcome of all this? It's Thames Valley Police dealing with it.
Thanks
Photo arrives but there is no way of telling who is driving. She, again very politely, writes back and says she can't, with a clear conscience, determine who was driving and asks for advice.
She hears nothing for almost 3 weeks until this morning she gets a letter through from the police saying they've not had an appropriate response to the ticket therefore the issue is going in front of the magistrate and no further correspondence will be entered into.
She's now kinda scared; she wasn't trying to escape the fine, and her and her husband both have clean licenses, she just wanted to be fair.
What's the likely outcome of all this? It's Thames Valley Police dealing with it.
Thanks
Well done to your friends, how can they give a more appropriate response than what they did?! I can't believe the SCP are sending letters of that nature...if your friends dont know who was driving they dont know, simple as! You can't be done for refusing to guess or lie.
I'm not sure what the latest way of dealing with this issue is. I think the registered keeper may be assumed as the driver and points and fine given, which of course is very wrong, but I may have imagined that, so not much help. Can they ask to pay £30 each and have one & a half points each
.
Someone else will know....
I'm not sure what the latest way of dealing with this issue is. I think the registered keeper may be assumed as the driver and points and fine given, which of course is very wrong, but I may have imagined that, so not much help. Can they ask to pay £30 each and have one & a half points each
. Someone else will know....
There is the option of once the summons arrives for failing to declare who the driver was of pleading Not Guilty and stating before the Magistrates that you do not know who the driver was.
Whether or not they believe you is another matter for like Slider they have heard it that many times before. Likewise I often wonder whether it is the floride in the water
that it is causing loss of memory of the motoring public. Yes I am aware that there are genuine cases but hasn't this excuse been hammered to death.
dvd
Whether or not they believe you is another matter for like Slider they have heard it that many times before. Likewise I often wonder whether it is the floride in the water
that it is causing loss of memory of the motoring public. Yes I am aware that there are genuine cases but hasn't this excuse been hammered to death.
dvd
Many thanks for your responses... It's a road they drive about 5-6 times a day and they know it well, it's just that they drive it so often they can't tell!
I think the second letter was sent in an attempt to get some advice, not in an attempt to dodge the fine/points. As they both have clean licenses it really doesn't make much difference who takes the points. They needed clarification regarding what to do, if a letter had come back saying someone just needed to take the hit then they would have done.
There's no question of trying to dodge this, and they acknowledge their mistake but they don't know enough about the world of points/fines to know what the correct proceedure is!
Ideally they just want to take the hit now, and accept the points. The whole magistrate thing seems to have gone a bit too far for them...
I think the second letter was sent in an attempt to get some advice, not in an attempt to dodge the fine/points. As they both have clean licenses it really doesn't make much difference who takes the points. They needed clarification regarding what to do, if a letter had come back saying someone just needed to take the hit then they would have done.
There's no question of trying to dodge this, and they acknowledge their mistake but they don't know enough about the world of points/fines to know what the correct proceedure is!
Ideally they just want to take the hit now, and accept the points. The whole magistrate thing seems to have gone a bit too far for them...
Legislation exists to protect from prosecution those who genuinely do not, and could not with reasonable diligence, ascertain who was driving at the time of the alleged offence.
If summonsed for the offence of failing to identify the driver contrary to s.172 RTA 1988 (and a NG plea entered), the accused would need to demonstrate to the Magistrates what steps were taken when attempting to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. These may include checking personal / work diaries, mobile phone records, fuel receipts etc and should form part of a detailed paper trail (as well as copies of all correspondence with the Safety Camera Partnership) which can be presented in court.
Ultimately, it will be down to the Magistrates whether they consider those efforts amount to 'reasonable diligence' or otherwise.
S.172 Road Traffic Act 1988 said:
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
If summonsed for the offence of failing to identify the driver contrary to s.172 RTA 1988 (and a NG plea entered), the accused would need to demonstrate to the Magistrates what steps were taken when attempting to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. These may include checking personal / work diaries, mobile phone records, fuel receipts etc and should form part of a detailed paper trail (as well as copies of all correspondence with the Safety Camera Partnership) which can be presented in court.
Ultimately, it will be down to the Magistrates whether they consider those efforts amount to 'reasonable diligence' or otherwise.
SS2. said:
Legislation exists to protect from prosecution those who genuinely do not, and could not with reasonable diligence, ascertain who was driving at the time of the alleged offence.
If summonsed for the offence of failing to identify the driver contrary to s.172 RTA 1988 (and a NG plea entered), the accused would need to demonstrate to the Magistrates what steps were taken when attempting to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. These may include checking personal / work diaries, mobile phone records, fuel receipts etc and should form part of a detailed paper trail (as well as copies of all correspondence with the Safety Camera Partnership) which can be presented in court.
Ultimately, it will be down to the Magistrates whether they consider those efforts amount to 'reasonable diligence' or otherwise.
S.172 Road Traffic Act 1988 said:
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
If summonsed for the offence of failing to identify the driver contrary to s.172 RTA 1988 (and a NG plea entered), the accused would need to demonstrate to the Magistrates what steps were taken when attempting to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. These may include checking personal / work diaries, mobile phone records, fuel receipts etc and should form part of a detailed paper trail (as well as copies of all correspondence with the Safety Camera Partnership) which can be presented in court.
Ultimately, it will be down to the Magistrates whether they consider those efforts amount to 'reasonable diligence' or otherwise.
Hmmm...innocent until proven guilty...or the other way round? Same old story...
Do a search for 'Hamilton defence' on here and www.pepipoo.com.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff