Speeding scenario question
Discussion
I was just reading this thread and wondered what would happen in the following scenario:
A car you and your family all were insured and had access to drive the family car, yet its registered keeper did not hold a driving licence, what would the situation be with regards to s172?
A car you and your family all were insured and had access to drive the family car, yet its registered keeper did not hold a driving licence, what would the situation be with regards to s172?
Edited by Kinky on Thursday 15th February 00:19
gingerpaul said:
I was just reading this thread and wondered what would happen in the following scenario:
A car you and your family all were insured and had access to drive the family car, yet its registered keeper did not hold a driving licence, what would the situation be with regards to s172?
A car you and your family all were insured and had access to drive the family car, yet its registered keeper did not hold a driving licence, what would the situation be with regards to s172?
Edited by Kinky on Thursday 15th February 00:19
Google the Hamilton defence.
The Hamilton defence isn't quite the same. I was wondering what penalty could be given to a registered keeper that does not have a driving licence, should they decide not to to disclose who was driving. One would assume they couldn't get points on a licence that they do not have, so would they just be issued with a fine?
gingerpaul said:
The Hamilton defence isn't quite the same. I was wondering what penalty could be given to a registered keeper that does not have a driving licence, should they decide not to to disclose who was driving. One would assume they couldn't get points on a licence that they do not have, so would they just be issued with a fine?
If they have been diligent enough then that is a statutory defence whether it is possible that they are a driver or not.
If they *are* found guilty, although the circumstances would be obscure they would still get points on a 'licence'. It is the same scenario if a 16 year old steals a car and convicted of an offence. A 'ghost' licence is created for them and the points added. If they want to upgrade to a full licence then these points are obviously carried over for totting up purposes, however they would not count for the 'New Driver' 6 point in two year rule.
Good question though!
Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 15th February 22:58
justinp1 said:
gingerpaul said:
The Hamilton defence isn't quite the same. I was wondering what penalty could be given to a registered keeper that does not have a driving licence, should they decide not to to disclose who was driving. One would assume they couldn't get points on a licence that they do not have, so would they just be issued with a fine?
If they have been diligent enough then that is a statutory defence whether it is possible that they are a driver or not.
If they *are* found guilty, although the circumstances would be obscure they would still get points on a 'licence'. It is the same scenario if a 16 year old steals a car and convicted of an offence. A 'ghost' licence is created for them and the points added. If they want to upgrade to a full licence then these points are obviously carried over for totting up purposes, however they would not count for the 'New Driver' 6 point in two year rule.
Good question though!
Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 15th February 22:58
this happened to a mate of mine years ago - he got points "on file" so to speak and when he got his first provisional it was already adorned with his previously acquired points - he wasn't best pleased because he wasn't expecting it
Ahh ok, so effectively you start collecting points on a pretend licence. If the registered keeper had no intentions of ever getting a driving licence then they could collect as many points as they wanted, paying only the fines. That is assuming that you didn't go crazy. This sounds like the sort of business that a student-type could run where cars owned by other people are registered in their name and they collect points and fines. I guess it'd only work a few times before the police figured out what was going on though!
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
gingerpaul said:
Ahh ok, so effectively you start collecting points on a pretend licence. If the registered keeper had no intentions of ever getting a driving licence then they could collect as many points as they wanted, paying only the fines. That is assuming that you didn't go crazy. This sounds like the sort of business that a student-type could run where cars owned by other people are registered in their name and they collect points and fines. I guess it'd only work a few times before the police figured out what was going on though!
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I cant be bothered to find the link at this time, but there was a case a few months ago where someone did start this 'business'. Bradford I believe?
At the current count about 20 of the 40 had been tried for perverting the course of justice and about the same amount were given jail sentences.
I kid you not!
justinp1 said:
gingerpaul said:
Ahh ok, so effectively you start collecting points on a pretend licence. If the registered keeper had no intentions of ever getting a driving licence then they could collect as many points as they wanted, paying only the fines. That is assuming that you didn't go crazy. This sounds like the sort of business that a student-type could run where cars owned by other people are registered in their name and they collect points and fines. I guess it'd only work a few times before the police figured out what was going on though!
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I cant be bothered to find the link at this time, but there was a case a few months ago where someone did start this 'business'. Bradford I believe?
At the current count about 20 of the 40 had been tried for perverting the course of justice and about the same amount were given jail sentences.
I kid you not!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ma
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 15th February 23:33
vonhosen said:
justinp1 said:
gingerpaul said:
Ahh ok, so effectively you start collecting points on a pretend licence. If the registered keeper had no intentions of ever getting a driving licence then they could collect as many points as they wanted, paying only the fines. That is assuming that you didn't go crazy. This sounds like the sort of business that a student-type could run where cars owned by other people are registered in their name and they collect points and fines. I guess it'd only work a few times before the police figured out what was going on though!
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I cant be bothered to find the link at this time, but there was a case a few months ago where someone did start this 'business'. Bradford I believe?
At the current count about 20 of the 40 had been tried for perverting the course of justice and about the same amount were given jail sentences.
I kid you not!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ma
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 15th February 23:33
Von, you are a star.
Although I believe that the case I knew of was in PH new about mid-late 2006 and Bradford area does stick in my mind, so I guess it is an additional case!
justinp1 said:
vonhosen said:
justinp1 said:
gingerpaul said:
Ahh ok, so effectively you start collecting points on a pretend licence. If the registered keeper had no intentions of ever getting a driving licence then they could collect as many points as they wanted, paying only the fines. That is assuming that you didn't go crazy. This sounds like the sort of business that a student-type could run where cars owned by other people are registered in their name and they collect points and fines. I guess it'd only work a few times before the police figured out what was going on though!
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I cant be bothered to find the link at this time, but there was a case a few months ago where someone did start this 'business'. Bradford I believe?
At the current count about 20 of the 40 had been tried for perverting the course of justice and about the same amount were given jail sentences.
I kid you not!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ma
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 15th February 23:33
Von, you are a star.
Although I believe that the case I knew of was in PH new about mid-late 2006 and Bradford area does stick in my mind, so I guess it is an additional case!
www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/news-item.htm?news=87
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th February 00:12
vonhosen said:
justinp1 said:
vonhosen said:
justinp1 said:
gingerpaul said:
Ahh ok, so effectively you start collecting points on a pretend licence. If the registered keeper had no intentions of ever getting a driving licence then they could collect as many points as they wanted, paying only the fines. That is assuming that you didn't go crazy. This sounds like the sort of business that a student-type could run where cars owned by other people are registered in their name and they collect points and fines. I guess it'd only work a few times before the police figured out what was going on though!
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I should add that this is all hypothetical. It just struck me from the thread I've linked to that this is a potential loophole I've never heard mentioned.
I cant be bothered to find the link at this time, but there was a case a few months ago where someone did start this 'business'. Bradford I believe?
At the current count about 20 of the 40 had been tried for perverting the course of justice and about the same amount were given jail sentences.
I kid you not!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ma
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 15th February 23:33
Von, you are a star.
Although I believe that the case I knew of was in PH new about mid-late 2006 and Bradford area does stick in my mind, so I guess it is an additional case!
www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/news-item.htm?news=87
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th February 00:12
Again, excellent Von. I think we can say that the loophole will be an expensive way forward?!?
The news items are not quite the same as the original question in that the vehicles appeared to be registered to a non-existent person/derelict address. The original suggestion was that a real person (Granddad, Granny, etc.) who was a real person but didn’t have a license, and had no intention of getting a license. The S172 could be issued and they could legitimately stand up (assuming the old knees are up to it!
) and say ‘its my car and I either don’t know who was driving or I’m not going to say who was driving’. They would then get the fine and 3 points.
On the insurance policy front there will have to be some sort of policy allowed for the registered keeper who has a car but has no intention of using it on the road in order to cover those with classic collections etc. Granddad would legitimately have this type of policy as the rest of the family would have their own policy for when the car is used on the road. All totally legal as long as Granddad pays the fines.
) and say ‘its my car and I either don’t know who was driving or I’m not going to say who was driving’. They would then get the fine and 3 points. On the insurance policy front there will have to be some sort of policy allowed for the registered keeper who has a car but has no intention of using it on the road in order to cover those with classic collections etc. Granddad would legitimately have this type of policy as the rest of the family would have their own policy for when the car is used on the road. All totally legal as long as Granddad pays the fines.
vonhosen said:
The law is changing so that the registered keeper has to have insurance on vehicles soon. Grandad is going to get a mighty high premium.
Well that would knock this idea on the head, unless it's possible to get insurance without a driving licence. A couple of questions about this:
-If a car is declared on SORN then do you still need insurance?
-Can you get insurance for a car that is not on the road that meets the requirements of the upcoming law?
The first article suggests the attention that you might bring if someone were to abuse an idea such as this. The second article is not the same thing, as the information supplied was false. All of the information supplied would be absolutely genuine in such an idea.
Sounds to me like it'd work for the odd speeding ticket. I'm not going to try it though, not work the potential consequences as far as I'm concerned!
gingerpaul said:
vonhosen said:
The law is changing so that the registered keeper has to have insurance on vehicles soon. Grandad is going to get a mighty high premium.
Well that would knock this idea on the head, unless it's possible to get insurance without a driving licence. A couple of questions about this:
-If a car is declared on SORN then do you still need insurance?
-Can you get insurance for a car that is not on the road that meets the requirements of the upcoming law?
The first article suggests the attention that you might bring if someone were to abuse an idea such as this. The second article is not the same thing, as the information supplied was false. All of the information supplied would be absolutely genuine in such an idea.
Sounds to me like it'd work for the odd speeding ticket. I'm not going to try it though, not work the potential consequences as far as I'm concerned!
A SORN'd vehicle won't require insurance for regsitered keeper, but the minute they are seen on the road/public place in breach of the act, it'll be a FPN to the regsitered keeper.
vonhosen said:
gingerpaul said:
vonhosen said:
The law is changing so that the registered keeper has to have insurance on vehicles soon. Grandad is going to get a mighty high premium.
Well that would knock this idea on the head, unless it's possible to get insurance without a driving licence. A couple of questions about this:
-If a car is declared on SORN then do you still need insurance?
-Can you get insurance for a car that is not on the road that meets the requirements of the upcoming law?
The first article suggests the attention that you might bring if someone were to abuse an idea such as this. The second article is not the same thing, as the information supplied was false. All of the information supplied would be absolutely genuine in such an idea.
Sounds to me like it'd work for the odd speeding ticket. I'm not going to try it though, not work the potential consequences as far as I'm concerned!
A SORN'd vehicle won't require insurance for regsitered keeper, but the minute they are seen on the road/public place in breach of the act, it'll be a FPN to the regsitered keeper.
Splendid. I've got a car off the road at the moment and don't want to have to fork out for even more bloody insurance!
vonhosen said:
The law is changing so that the registered keeper has to have insurance on vehicles soon. Grandad is going to get a mighty high premium.
Motorcyclists often have more than one bike. Does this mean that:
If the vehicle is not being used on the road is still has to be insured?
The vehicle must be insured by the RK *only* if it is being used on the road, even if the RK is not using it and it is being driven by someone else who has "any vehicle" insurance?
Will there be any exception for the motor trade or other legitimate uses? For example, one of my cars is off the road at the moment and is thus not insured. It's a summer car, so come spring time I'll need to get it MOT'd. My usual arrangement is for the local garage to come round with their own driver, who'll take it to the MOT station and bring it back. Does it now mean that I'll have to pay the extra for them to bring a truck instead of just driving the car?
To be honest, I'm not sure how this extra bit of paperwork is going to help keep the hard core uninsured or "community cars" off the road. The cars will just end up being registered to a non-existent RK.
It's just going to be another onerus bit of paper that the law abiding majority will end up getting hammered for, just because they had better things to do with their life than jump through ill thought out government hoops that don't even have the effect intended by that legislation. Aaaaaarrrghghghggh!!!! [/and breathe]
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff