NIP but no photo
Discussion
dick dastardly said:
My company got a NIP through from a speed camera and we requested a photo as it's a pool car but they don't have one, 'it's unclear from the photograph who was driving' is what their letter says.
What's the deal with this?
What's the deal with this?
They must have one or there's nothing to prosecute. I think you have to pay but this is your turn to give them a producer if you feel the need!
gridgway said:
vonhosen said:
A company or corporate body does not have the statutory reasonable diligence defence under Sec 172(4).
Ah yes but they do have a defence where thay can show that not keeping records is reasonable! 21(6).
Graham
In which case:-
Dick - how big is the company, what are the procedures for use of pool cars, who are possible drivers in this case...
And, quite importantly - who is the CoSec? Because they (if an individual not a company) could be in trouble unless you can provide a name or otherwise have a defence as Graham suggested above.
dick dastardly said:
12 people, 5 of which have use of the cars, 2 of which use that car daily. I'll find out about the company secretary bit.
I just read on another site that the company will be liable to a £200 fine, costs, and the 3 points go to the MD or CoSec. Has anyone ever seen this happen?
I just read on another site that the company will be liable to a £200 fine, costs, and the 3 points go to the MD or CoSec. Has anyone ever seen this happen?
Where the company commits the offence they can only be fined.
Where the company sec/officer in addition commits the offence they can fined & get points.
The company sec/officer etc commits the offence where the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
oogieboogie said:
dick dastardly said:
But they've already said there is no photo.
dick dastardly said:
{they said} 'it's unclear from the photograph who was driving'
Either they have one so can prove someone was speeding or they don't so no offence.
The requirement to name a driver & whether there is a photo or not are not part of the same thing. There is no obligation on them to produce a photo, in order for you to have to comply with Sec 172.
The requirement to name the driver, is not tied to the speeding offence. They are only going to seek to prove one or the other. If they can't prove the speeding, because the driver is not identified under Sec 172, they will look at whethere they can prosecute under Sec 172. Just because they can't prove the speeding, it doesn't mean there isn't an offence under Sec 172.
vonhosen said:
consent ... connivance or neglect on the part of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the [company].
That is the key extract - if it can be reasonably shown that an officer of the company SHOULD have known who was driving the pool car (and while IANAL, I would suspect there is a rebuttable presumption that the officers of the company SHOULD know who is using their assets), then CoSec will get the points. Potentially (IF I read VH's text correctly - please confirm/correct this VH) if the CoSec is a company, another 'officer' of the company may be liable.
Best bet before responding again (in writing, ideally registered post) is to establish:-
- what formal procedures (and records) the company DOES HAVE in place for use of pool cars;
- what INFORMAL procedures (and records) the company has in place for ID'ing who is using at any one time (e.g. expense claim, mileage log);
- whether there is any other information (fuel card / receipt / people's diaries) which may show who could have been driving.
Sadly as you're a company the onus is on you here to either give a name or give bloody good reasons why you don't know.
havoc said:
vonhosen said:
consent ... connivance or neglect on the part of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the [company].
That is the key extract - if it can be reasonably shown that an officer of the company SHOULD have known who was driving the pool car (and while IANAL, I would suspect there is a rebuttable presumption that the officers of the company SHOULD know who is using their assets), then CoSec will get the points. Potentially (IF I read VH's text correctly - please confirm/correct this VH) if the CoSec is a company, another 'officer' of the company may be liable.
Best bet before responding again (in writing, ideally registered post) is to establish:-
- what formal procedures (and records) the company DOES HAVE in place for use of pool cars;
- what INFORMAL procedures (and records) the company has in place for ID'ing who is using at any one time (e.g. expense claim, mileage log);
- whether there is any other information (fuel card / receipt / people's diaries) which may show who could have been driving.
Sadly as you're a company the onus is on you here to either give a name or give bloody good reasons why you don't know.
We've seen Constabularies plead guilty whilst the Chief Constable was not guilty under the offence. Because they didn't consent, connive or be neglectful etc. They have placed proceedures in order to record who is driving when and they have tried their damndest to identify drivers & therefore aren't guilty.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff