Speeding whilst not in the country.

[REM2112]

My mum has received an intention to prosecute notice from the police, for an offence when she was out of the country on holiday. The actual driver denies the offence. I have sent the police my mothers travel intinerary which shows the dates she was booked to travel, but this doesn't actually prove she was abroad. How can she prove she was abroad?

Sorry if this has been covered before.

[Spitfire2]

Where your mum was is irrelevant. She has to tell the police the name of the driver of the car while she was away and it is then for them to deal with the NIP. Presumably actual driver was a family member?

[AJB88]

Police would be able to ask immigration about passport in and out of the country?

[Bill]

REM2112 said:

My mum has received an intention to prosecute notice from the police, for an offence when she was out of the country on holiday. The actual driver denies the offence. I have sent the police my mothers travel intinerary which shows the dates she was booked to travel, but this doesn't actually prove she was abroad. How can she prove she was abroad?

Sorry if this has been covered before.

Are you the actual driver??

She needs to fill in the form as not filling it in is an offence in itself AIUI. She needs to tread carefully, if the only person who should have been driving it denies it you're potentially into driving without insurance or taking without consent territory. Or perverting the course of justice...

You might front it out, but they do seem very keen on digging these days.

[REM2112]

Thanks all. We'll fill in the form with the name of the actual driver (who was insured), and see what happens.

[BertBert]

I don't understand how she can tread carefully. She has no choice, she has to give any information to the identity of the driver as she can. If she can't find out using reasonable diligence then she needs to say that.

I guess there is a judgement call on how much backing info she should give at this stage.

She could just say not me and I have used reasonable diligence to find out who and failed. Or she could provide proof of her holiday and who might have been driving and leave it at that.

The other poss drivers will get an S172 request and they might think again as to whether they were or not.

Bert

[4rephill]

BertBert said:

I don't understand how she can tread carefully. She has no choice, she has to give any information to the identity of the driver as she can. If she can't find out using reasonable diligence then she needs to say that.

I guess there is a judgement call on how much backing info she should give at this stage.

She could just say not me and I have used reasonable diligence to find out who and failed. Or she could provide proof of her holiday and who might have been driving and leave it at that.

The other poss drivers will get an S172 request and they might think again as to whether they were or not.

Bert

Can't see the authorities simply accepting: "not me and I have used reasonable diligence to find out who and failed", and then just dropping the whole matter.

There's a whole section here about the requirements for a due diligence defence: https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring-offences/s...

Failure to identify a driver can get seriously messy, risking £1000 fine and 6 points - Hardly worth IMO.

If she knows who was driving the car, she would be far better off naming them, than trying to lie about it, as I see it.

[hutchst]

AJB88 said:

Police would be able to ask immigration about passport in and out of the country?

In, but not out. They might get that from airline passenger lists if she flew.

[shovelheadrob]

Surely filling out the request to name the driver & an accompanying letter explaining that "I was on holiday & x amount of persons have the use/are permitted to drive the vehicle" would have to be accepted, I understand that a pool car would have to have a log of drivers but there's no requirement for private people to do so.

[BertBert]

4rephill said:

BertBert said:

I don't understand how she can tread carefully. She has no choice, she has to give any information to the identity of the driver as she can. If she can't find out using reasonable diligence then she needs to say that.

I guess there is a judgement call on how much backing info she should give at this stage.

She could just say not me and I have used reasonable diligence to find out who and failed. Or she could provide proof of her holiday and who might have been driving and leave it at that.

The other poss drivers will get an S172 request and they might think again as to whether they were or not.

Bert

Can't see the authorities simply accepting: "not me and I have used reasonable diligence to find out who and failed", and then just dropping the whole matter.

There's a whole section here about the requirements for a due diligence defence: https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring-offences/s...

Failure to identify a driver can get seriously messy, risking £1000 fine and 6 points - Hardly worth IMO.

If she knows who was driving the car, she would be far better off naming them, than trying to lie about it, as I see it.

I don't think anyone was suggesting lying were they?
I was saying that if you told what you knew and did reasonable diligence and that resulted in no info to give, got could choose when you wanted to evidence it and still be in compliance with the law.
Bert

[Pica-Pica]

BertBert said:

4rephill said:

BertBert said:

I don't understand how she can tread carefully. She has no choice, she has to give any information to the identity of the driver as she can. If she can't find out using reasonable diligence then she needs to say that.

I guess there is a judgement call on how much backing info she should give at this stage.

She could just say not me and I have used reasonable diligence to find out who and failed. Or she could provide proof of her holiday and who might have been driving and leave it at that.

The other poss drivers will get an S172 request and they might think again as to whether they were or not.

Bert

Can't see the authorities simply accepting: "not me and I have used reasonable diligence to find out who and failed", and then just dropping the whole matter.

There's a whole section here about the requirements for a due diligence defence: https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring-offences/s...

Failure to identify a driver can get seriously messy, risking £1000 fine and 6 points - Hardly worth IMO.

If she knows who was driving the car, she would be far better off naming them, than trying to lie about it, as I see it.

I don't think anyone was suggesting lying were they?
I was saying that if you told what you knew and did reasonable diligence and that resulted in no info to give, got could choose when you wanted to evidence it and still be in compliance with the law.
Bert

But there would be information to give, such as who had access to house and (perhaps therefore) car keys.

[Wooda80]

Reading the Original Post, the OP's mum knows who the driver was and they deny the offence, from which I presume that person doesn't deny being the driver.

Therefore, as others have said, name the person who was known to be driving and let them plead not guilty if the driver feels that that they did not commit the offence.

[REM2112]

The think the other driver is denying driving the car, which as my mum was out of the country is quite a neat trick, hence I was keen for mum to establish that she could not have been the driver, as a matter of fact.

[Oceanrower]

Your mother isn't, by any chance, an MP from Peterborough, is she?

[AlexS_LDN]

Oceanrower said:

Your mother isn't, by any chance, an MP from Peterborough, is she?

[BertBert]

REM2112 said:

The think the other driver is denying driving the car, which as my mum was out of the country is quite a neat trick, hence I was keen for mum to establish that she could not have been the driver, as a matter of fact.

I would think that Mum being convincing that she was out of the country would be reasonably easy to show if plod wanted to investigate. Travel details, photos, facebook posts, testimony. There would normally be a pretty big trail of being away.

I would certainly be using the rationale of 'reasonable diligence' to ask for the photo. If it's face on, it could be quite compelling.

Bert

[kowalski655]

Why bother with all that? Name the actual driver,if they then want to name someone else then that's their risk. If they name mum then she has a damn decent defence.

[macushla]

Wooda80 said:

Reading the Original Post, the OP's mum knows who the driver was and they deny the offence, from which I presume that person doesn't deny being the driver.

Therefore, as others have said, name the person who was known to be driving and let them plead not guilty if the driver feels that that they did not commit the offence.

This is the perfect and correct answer, not sure why there’s still a discussion being held.

[EU_Foreigner]

If she was out of the country, she can only assume who is the driver and name that person, but she won't know for sure as she was not there.

Perhaps there are a number of people who are allowed to drive and if all deny, who would she need to nominate?

[macushla]

EU_Foreigner said:

If she was out of the country, she can only assume who is the driver and name that person, but she won't know for sure as she was not there.

Perhaps there are a number of people who are allowed to drive and if all deny, who would she need to nominate?

The OP says “the actual driver denies the offence”, so they know who was driving, just said driver doesn’t believe they were speeding. They can have their day in court if they want.

It’s not really that complicated and doesn’t need to be made complicated.