Speeding Ticket........DAM IT
Discussion
Ok here's the Rub, it's a Sunday I've got 2 prospective buyers coming to try the car first arrives, let him take it for a blat with me shotgun...great, same again with second fella......neither decide to buy about a week later get a speeding ticket through 57 in a 40 limit, Ok but I can't be sure it was me driving a that particular time so ask them to send photo through, a couple of days later gets a rather nice picture of my car (Fair enough) but can't see the driver or the passenger at all (bearing in mind this is a photocopy) but can arrange to see original photo if required, my question is if the original photo is just as inconclusive should I let this go to court as I do not have any details of the other drivers at all and to be honest I really can't remember who was driving at that particular time as I saw no police camera unit that would have reminded me which is why I asked for the photographic proof if its me then fair play, what do you reckon
vonhosen said:
Who's insurance were they driving it on ?
One would hope their own insurance allow them to drive or test car on third party basis.Or the OP has an "any driver" on his policy .. which ist rather expensive
I would always check policy .. check they actually licenced to test drive a car with ME in it und make note just in case we pass submarinated van.
I am a good cat really
vonhosen said:
Who's insurance were they driving it on ?
This is "The" point, How much is your car worth?, thats what the judge will ask, just who did you allow to drive your car and who's insurance were they driving on.You are in a corner really, because this "dodge" has worn very thin in the courts ( even if you are genuine ).
You should have had confirmation of licence details and insurance "Before" allowing driving sorry.
You could phone
www.motoringlawyers.com
ask for a price to defend ( they usually win) or advice.
Or roll over.
Johnbmw6 said:
vonhosen said:
Who's insurance were they driving it on ?
This is "The" point, How much is your car worth?, thats what the judge will ask, just who did you allow to drive your car and who's insurance were they driving on.You are in a corner really, because this "dodge" has worn very thin in the courts ( even if you are genuine ).
You should have had confirmation of licence details and insurance "Before" allowing driving sorry.
You could phone
www.motoringlawyers.com
ask for a price to defend ( they usually win) or advice.
Or roll over.
GT3-RS said:
surely they've got to be 100% sure who was driving otherwise the conviction would be unsafe
You'd have thought so wouldn't you? But they don't actually care about who was driving, just that they want their 60 quid. They have a business to run you know, and as far as they're concerned you're guilty of perverting the course of profit.SM
GT3-RS said:
I'm only ordinary Joe and the chaps obviously weren't 25yr old chavvies they turned up in quite expensive cars with an insurance certificate/driving license which I only had a look at all seemed in order didn't think to take photocopies etc, never done it before selling a car
Did you check that they had driving other cars cover or did you think it was OK because they were waving an insurance certificate at you? If you didn't read the certificate and check that the had DOC cover then I would be quite careful about how you proceed from here. If you get to the position of proving that it wasn't you driving then you may find yourself being asked to prove that the driver was insured. Do you not have a contact number for the two guys? nothing at all? How did they get in touch with you?
I think a court would be quite sceptical about your story, they will look poorly on the fact that you are saying that you sat in the passenger seat of your car (that the driver was unfamiliar with) and let a test driver break speed limits even if they overlook the fact that you can't prove that the other driver was insured.
I think there are probably a number of learning points from this experience...
Vonhosen = man of few words 
IN response to the thread I would believe that if they cannot prove without reasonable doubt who the driver is then I believe you have a chance as you yourself dont believe you were driving but then that is up to you to fight and if you lose the result will probably be worse, I may be wrong.
IN response to the thread I would believe that if they cannot prove without reasonable doubt who the driver is then I believe you have a chance as you yourself dont believe you were driving but then that is up to you to fight and if you lose the result will probably be worse, I may be wrong.
Piglet said:
If you didn't read the certificate and check that the had DOC cover then I would be quite careful about how you proceed from here. If you get to the position of proving that it wasn't you driving then you may find yourself being asked to prove that the driver was insured. Do you not have a contact number for the two guys? nothing at all? How did they get in touch with you?
The Issue here is whether I was driving or not if it can be proven I wasn't thats all there is to it they won't be able to prosecute me, can I prove he was insured well yes I saw his insurance certificate can they prove he wasn't? No....firstly who the hell was he?supermono said:
You'd have thought so wouldn't you? But they don't actually care about who was driving, just that they want their 60 quid. They have a business to run you know, and as far as they're concerned you're guilty of perverting the course of profit.
Sadly it looks as though I will have to concede to Big Brother and the TAX your speed campaign another blow for the ordinary Joe.......I feel like a total criminal perhaps they ought to give me 200hrs community service or better still stick me in the village stocks so the local branch of the Green Eco loving, leaf eating, Black Lesbians against Fox Hunting council can throw GM Veg at me.....sob, sobEdited by GT3-RS on Tuesday 26th February 09:50
Ask for a better copy of the photograph?
Advise the situation, i.e. the car was being sold that day and had been test driven by multiple parties and you cannot identify the driver from that photo? You are still trying to exercise due diligance in obtaining the correct identification but are being hampered by plod ?
Advise the situation, i.e. the car was being sold that day and had been test driven by multiple parties and you cannot identify the driver from that photo? You are still trying to exercise due diligance in obtaining the correct identification but are being hampered by plod ?
Jasandjules said:
Ask for a better copy of the photograph?
Advise the situation, i.e. the car was being sold that day and had been test driven by multiple parties and you cannot identify the driver from that photo? You are still trying to exercise due diligance in obtaining the correct identification but are being hampered by plod ?
I'll be drafting a letter explaining the situation and asking them for their advise....cheers all, i'll keep evryone postedAdvise the situation, i.e. the car was being sold that day and had been test driven by multiple parties and you cannot identify the driver from that photo? You are still trying to exercise due diligance in obtaining the correct identification but are being hampered by plod ?
supermono said:
GT3-RS said:
surely they've got to be 100% sure who was driving otherwise the conviction would be unsafe
You'd have thought so wouldn't you? But they don't actually care about who was driving, just that they want their 60 quid. They have a business to run you know, and as far as they're concerned you're guilty of perverting the course of profit.SM
GT3-RS said:
Ok here's the Rub, it's a Sunday I've got 2 prospective buyers coming to try the car first arrives, let him take it for a blat with me shotgun...great, same again with second fella......neither decide to buy about a week later get a speeding ticket through 57 in a 40 limit, Ok but I can't be sure it was me driving a that particular time so ask them to send photo through, a couple of days later gets a rather nice picture of my car (Fair enough) but can't see the driver or the passenger at all (bearing in mind this is a photocopy) but can arrange to see original photo if required, my question is if the original photo is just as inconclusive should I let this go to court as I do not have any details of the other drivers at all and to be honest I really can't remember who was driving at that particular time as I saw no police camera unit that would have reminded me which is why I asked for the photographic proof if its me then fair play, what do you reckon
Did you eventually sell the car?Did you have it advertised for sale?
I presume you didn't sell it or they wouldn't have sent the ticket to you.
Jasandjules said:
FishFace said:
Lower the threshold of defences so everyone can get off.
You prefer innocent people being convicted?FishFace said:
Jasandjules said:
FishFace said:
Lower the threshold of defences so everyone can get off.
You prefer innocent people being convicted?He either was driving or he wasn't, and the photograph from the police should be able to indentify the driver (as that is who they should be trying to prosecute).
If the evidence is so unclear that it is impossible to identify the driver from it, that isn't the OP's fault.
If he does get to see a clear photograph which shows that he isn't the driver, but is then unable to indentify the driver then he might be guilty of failing to show due dilligence.
To be honest it's all getting a bit Technical, I may or may not have been driving at that particular time I honestly cannot say, I definitely was in the car this is why I asked for the photo (which was inconclusive) if it was me driving no problems I'll pay the fine & take my 3 points, I did have a prospective driver try the car, I did see that he had all documentation correct and present (driving license/Insurance) I did not photocopy or take any of the drivers particulars (Why would I nothing was going to happen was it?) and as said before I would not have thought the chap would have been all that happy with someone who he doesn't know taking copies of his legal documents for obvious reasons...afterall I've never done this selling cars before, there was no AD for car as I was only thinking of selling and it came up in a conversation on Trackday at Silverstone to which the chap took Mobile number & passed it on to the propective buyers to which I did get a couple of calls about a week later
the police are quite welcome to check the phone for incoming calls but which numbers are they looking for amongst the 100's i've had plu the numbers withheld? All I'm asking is for the Police to Identify the Driver if they cannot surely they cannot prosecute me, if you like to think this is just me trying to dodge my responsibility then fine but I can assure you I'm not, I'm just fed up with this totalitarian regime bullying everybody without redress, I'm just not letting them walk all over me because it's all to much trouble and effort plus them threating that if you do try and defend yourself and lose your liable to £1000 fine and 6 points whats that all about
the police are quite welcome to check the phone for incoming calls but which numbers are they looking for amongst the 100's i've had plu the numbers withheld? All I'm asking is for the Police to Identify the Driver if they cannot surely they cannot prosecute me, if you like to think this is just me trying to dodge my responsibility then fine but I can assure you I'm not, I'm just fed up with this totalitarian regime bullying everybody without redress, I'm just not letting them walk all over me because it's all to much trouble and effort plus them threating that if you do try and defend yourself and lose your liable to £1000 fine and 6 points whats that all about
GT3-RS said:
All I'm asking is for the Police to Identify the Driver if they cannot surely they cannot prosecute me
Thats the dodgy bit (that has many many topics dedicated to it).If they cannot identify the driver they will ask the registered keeper to do it for them, and if the RK is unable to then they have to show that they have exercised "due dilligence" in trying to identify the driver.
They can't (shouldn't be able to) prosecute you for speeding if they can't prove you were driving, but if they stick you with the section 172 (the above bit), then the penalty is 6pts + fine.
Its a s
tter isn't it?FishFace said:
Our system is bent around not convicting innocent people. Specifically to this, he wouldn't be innocent as he wouldn't have shown reasonable diligence (IMO).
Unless you are accused of speeding. Innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. a FUNDAMENTAL TENET. This means that it is up to the PROSECUTION TO PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that HE COMMITTED the offence. However, what you are saying is that he is guilty unless he can show that he tried his best to find out who was speeding i.e. he MUST confess or turn prosecution evidence against another person. It's BETTER TO HAVE 10 CRIMINALS WALK FREE THAN CONVICT ONE INNOCENT MAN.He still COULD possibly be innocent of the offence of speeding however. In the same way a company director can take the points and fine for a speeding offence he did not commit.
What sort of furore would there be if this was changed to any other offence? Did you rape her sir? No. Well, then you'll have to prove who as she's said you did and it was under your roof, and if you can't find anyone else, you'll go to jail.After all, you should be in control of events within your own home, you own it, don't you sir... Did you punch this person sir? No I did not. Well sir, I'm afraid you'll have to prove that you didn't do that and if you can't identify who did so, then you'll go to jail....Did you stab this person sir? No I did not. Well sir, I'm afraid YOUR knife was used in the offence, therefore if you can't prove who else did it, I'm afraid it falls to you. Did you shoot this security person? Nope. Well, I'm afraid your licensed firearm was used in the shooting, so unless you can prove who did, it's you going to jail for armed robbery........After all, you should exercise due diligince over your home, knives and guns.
So, what we are saying that speeding is such a revenue raiser that they have decided it's easier to prosecute anyone, and if you can't nick the right person, then charge the owner with the offence of having a vehicle registered to your home address, thank you and make your cheque payable to:
"We want your money and we want it now" fund, c/o Smarmy, self serving scum.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff