Failure to provide driver details
Discussion
Hi
A friend (seriously) lent her car to a friend or hers, whilst she was performing at the Edinburgh Fringe last August.
Last month she got a court appearence summons, for failure to produce the driver details for a traffic offence (speed camera). The offence took place in London.
she never received the notice to provide driver details
This could of been because she was away at the time, it was never delivered ( she lives in a block of flats - so post gets delivered at the reception and seldom arrives)or her friend just destroyed the letter and it was just post the postal strike
My friend immediately wrote back, with the details of the situation, when she received the summons but she now has to go to court next week
The friend who borrowed the car is hugely unreliable (no good deed goes unpunished and all that) so she's not going to get any help from her
Any advice would be appreciated
A friend (seriously) lent her car to a friend or hers, whilst she was performing at the Edinburgh Fringe last August.
Last month she got a court appearence summons, for failure to produce the driver details for a traffic offence (speed camera). The offence took place in London.
she never received the notice to provide driver details
This could of been because she was away at the time, it was never delivered ( she lives in a block of flats - so post gets delivered at the reception and seldom arrives)or her friend just destroyed the letter and it was just post the postal strike
My friend immediately wrote back, with the details of the situation, when she received the summons but she now has to go to court next week
The friend who borrowed the car is hugely unreliable (no good deed goes unpunished and all that) so she's not going to get any help from her
Any advice would be appreciated
woof said:
Hi
A friend (seriously) lent her car to a friend or hers, whilst she was performing at the Edinburgh Fringe last August.
Last month she got a court appearence summons, for failure to produce the driver details for a traffic offence (speed camera). The offence took place in London.
she never received the notice to provide driver details
This could of been because she was away at the time, it was never delivered ( she lives in a block of flats - so post gets delivered at the reception and seldom arrives)or her friend just destroyed the letter and it was just post the postal strike
My friend immediately wrote back, with the details of the situation, when she received the summons but she now has to go to court next week
The friend who borrowed the car is hugely unreliable (no good deed goes unpunished and all that) so she's not going to get any help from her
Any advice would be appreciated
I think her only chance is to become a serving Police Officer PDQ - and retrospectively.A friend (seriously) lent her car to a friend or hers, whilst she was performing at the Edinburgh Fringe last August.
Last month she got a court appearence summons, for failure to produce the driver details for a traffic offence (speed camera). The offence took place in London.
she never received the notice to provide driver details
This could of been because she was away at the time, it was never delivered ( she lives in a block of flats - so post gets delivered at the reception and seldom arrives)or her friend just destroyed the letter and it was just post the postal strike
My friend immediately wrote back, with the details of the situation, when she received the summons but she now has to go to court next week
The friend who borrowed the car is hugely unreliable (no good deed goes unpunished and all that) so she's not going to get any help from her
Any advice would be appreciated
With apologies to all the good, decent BiB on here..............and everywhere.
Presumably, as far as she's concerned the only person she authorised to drive her car whilst away was her friend, (and for whom it was also, presumably, Insured. Only way to handle it is to name the friend and explain that she does so to the best of her knowledge. Friends who do that deserve stuffing, quite frankly.
I am pretty sure that if she signs an affadavit to the effect she did not receive the papers in the time frame, that is the end of it.
Although I may be referring to when the police do people in their absence - say you go on holiday for 6 months and come back to find you are a wanted man...you go to the court and sign the affadavit as above, the fines are dropped, the warrant quashed, and it all goes back to the CPS or police for them to re-consider another go.
What worries me if you have accepted the summons, so I'm not sure if that changes all.
It shouldn't. The above case lets you off if you genuinely did not know, so there must be a similar way to do it for you.
Citizens' Advice?
Although I may be referring to when the police do people in their absence - say you go on holiday for 6 months and come back to find you are a wanted man...you go to the court and sign the affadavit as above, the fines are dropped, the warrant quashed, and it all goes back to the CPS or police for them to re-consider another go.
What worries me if you have accepted the summons, so I'm not sure if that changes all.
It shouldn't. The above case lets you off if you genuinely did not know, so there must be a similar way to do it for you.
Citizens' Advice?
She is aware summons issued in her name so to some extent the die is cast and her attendance required at Court.
In a nutshell the fact that they have an alleged offence in relation to her vehicle of which she is the Reg keeper gives them the power to bring in the requirement of Sect 172 to name and shame the driver. She has not done so as stated poste never received.
Law:
Sect 172 RTA 88 as amended by Sect 21 RTA 91
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police
Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement above shall be guilty of an offence.
A person shall not be guilty of an offence above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made—
(a) it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and
(b) the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.
For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 as it applies for the purposes of this section the proper address of any person in relation to the service on him of a notice under subsection (7) above is—
(a) in the case of the secretary or clerk of a body corporate, that of the registered or principal office of that body or (if the body corporate is the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned) the registered address, and
(b) in any other case, his last known address at the time of service.
Sexct 7 Interpretation Act 1978
References to service by post.Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
Seems the only way to consider is a NG plea and argue that she never received the 172 and therefore not served as required by law.
dvd
[
In a nutshell the fact that they have an alleged offence in relation to her vehicle of which she is the Reg keeper gives them the power to bring in the requirement of Sect 172 to name and shame the driver. She has not done so as stated poste never received.
Law:
Sect 172 RTA 88 as amended by Sect 21 RTA 91
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police
Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement above shall be guilty of an offence.
A person shall not be guilty of an offence above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made—
(a) it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and
(b) the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.
For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 as it applies for the purposes of this section the proper address of any person in relation to the service on him of a notice under subsection (7) above is—
(a) in the case of the secretary or clerk of a body corporate, that of the registered or principal office of that body or (if the body corporate is the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned) the registered address, and
(b) in any other case, his last known address at the time of service.
Sexct 7 Interpretation Act 1978
References to service by post.Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
Seems the only way to consider is a NG plea and argue that she never received the 172 and therefore not served as required by law.
dvd
[
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Monday 18th February 15:55
woof said:
update
Case thrown out - the prosecution had failed to provide some documentation for the case.
(don't know what it was though)
Though the prosecutor had actually said to my friend prior to going in that the actually believed her
So a day off work, travel to court, sit around, waste time, only to find that the case was duff. Not really justice, is it?Case thrown out - the prosecution had failed to provide some documentation for the case.
(don't know what it was though)
Though the prosecutor had actually said to my friend prior to going in that the actually believed her
DIW35 said:
Why is it that a motoring offence in this crap country is the only crime where you are legally obliged to incriminate yourself, and where the punishment for failing to do so is often more severe than the punishment for the original offence?
Because otherwise it's too easy for people to take the piss and abuse the legal system. I think this particular exception to the prosection having to prove your guilt - i.e. with a speed camera notice, you (as the RK) have to prove your innocence is pretty damn sensible.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff