Request to identify driver of vehicle- Parked Car, No Driver

[sim16v]

I received a letter today from the local fixed penalty unit,

Request For Information To Identify Driver Of Vehicle

At X time on Y date, my car, was observed at X address where it is alleged that the Non Endorsable offence of Cause unnecessary obstruction by motor vehicle/trailer outside of the Greater London area was committed.

My car had been parked there for about 5 days, and have parked one of my cars in the same place for the last few years, so I don't understand the actual obstruction bit. - I have photos if necessary.

But the main point - Identify the driver.

No driver to identify.

So do I just send it back saying I am the owner, but I can't identify the driver, as there wasn't one?

The supporting paperwork only goes on about endorsable offences of not identifying the driver, and camera speed offences, so a bit lazy on the the Fixed Penalty Unit's behalf.

[Bright Halo]

I think when they write driver they are referring to whoever was in charge of the vehicle at the time stated.

[vonhosen]

Somebody parked it there.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

vonhosen said:

Somebody parked it there.

Exactly this. A bit pedantic to say there was no driver. Whoever parked it is the driver.

[loskie]

I think the pedantry is wholly justifiable in this case. There's NO driver that's what they've asked. In whichever act they are trying to enforce there may be a definition of driver.

[Bill]

loskie said:

I think the pedantry is wholly justifiable in this case. There's NO driver that's what they've asked. In whichever act they are trying to enforce there may be a definition of driver.

It didn't magically appear there. Someone drove it there and left it.

Obviously.

[martinbiz]

loskie said:

I think the pedantry is wholly justifiable in this case. There's NO driver that's what they've asked. In whichever act they are trying to enforce there may be a definition of driver.

The driver will be the person who committed the alleged offence at the time, ie the person who parked it there, not sure what’s so hard to understand

[Riley Blue]

loskie said:

I think the pedantry is wholly justifiable in this case. There's NO driver that's what they've asked. In whichever act they are trying to enforce there may be a definition of driver.

You're being unnecessarily obtuse, every parked vehicle had a driver who left it there.

[Rushjob]

Definition of Driver RTA 1988

“driver”, where a separate person acts as a steersman of a motor vehicle, includes (except for the purposes of section 1 of this Act) that person as well as any other person engaged in the driving of the vehicle, and “drive” is to be interpreted accordingly

Last I remember to be defined as driving and therefore the driver required you to be in a position to have an effect on the propulsion braking and steering of the vehicle so how can you be the driver of the parked car?

Also the Clapham Omnibus rule - would the theoretical man on the bus describe what the person was doing at that specific time as driving - bit difficult to prove for an empty vehicle.

[Durzel]

Carry on playing silly buggers and trade a non-endorsable offence for 6 points for failing to identify the driver instead. Genius.

[CharlesElliott]

Was it parked on the curb / pavement? RC86405?

[Rushjob]

Riley Blue said:

You're being unnecessarily obtuse, every parked vehicle had a driver who left it there.

You 100% certain of that?? I can think of quite a few situations where that doesn't necessarily apply

[martinbiz]

Rushjob said:

Definition of Driver RTA 1988

“driver”, where a separate person acts as a steersman of a motor vehicle, includes (except for the purposes of section 1 of this Act) that person as well as any other person engaged in the driving of the vehicle, and “drive” is to be interpreted accordingly

Last I remember to be defined as driving and therefore the driver required you to be in a position to have an effect on the propulsion braking and steering of the vehicle so how can you be the driver of the parked car?

Also the Clapham Omnibus rule - would the theoretical man on the bus describe what the person was doing at that specific time as driving - bit difficult to prove for an empty vehicle.

It's not asking to ID the driver of a parked car, the S172 request that the OP has received will be asking to ID the driver at THE TIME THE ALLEGED OFFENCE WAS COMMITED, FFS it's not rocket science, or has everyone just taken a silly pill this morning

[Riley Blue]

Rushjob said:

Riley Blue said:

You're being unnecessarily obtuse, every parked vehicle had a driver who left it there.

You 100% certain of that?? I can think of quite a few situations where that doesn't necessarily apply

Care to give some examples?

[PurpleTurtle]

Care to give us the full story OP?

If you weren't obstructing anything, why would you park then take photos? Seems an unusual thing to do.

Who've you got an on-street parking beef with?

They've dobbed you in to the law, you're annoyed that it has gone this way, yes?

[LargeRed]

In days of old, this case would be before a judge. Who would send sim16v to the court cells to think about the answer.

sim16v, do the right thing !

[InitialDave]

Durzel said:

Carry on playing silly buggers and trade a non-endorsable offence for 6 points for failing to identify the driver instead. Genius.

PurpleTurtle said:

Care to give us the full story OP?

If you weren't obstructing anything, why would you park then take photos? Seems an unusual thing to do.

Who've you got an on-street parking beef with?

They've dobbed you in to the law, you're annoyed that it has gone this way, yes?

Some pertinent comments here.

[Rushjob]

martinbiz said:

It's not asking to ID the driver of a parked car, the S172 request that the OP has received will be asking to ID the driver at THE TIME THE ALLEGED OFFENCE WAS COMMITED, FFS it's not rocket science, or has everyone just taken a silly pill this morning

The problem is Martin that it most certainly IS an issue. The car had been parked for 5 days prior to the alleged offence. What had happened in the road landscape in that time that caused the alleged obstruction? What else was parked nearby, what roadworks our similar head been commenced, were the council trying to cut trees , grass etc? Can I come and nick you for being drunk if today you're pissed out of your head but you parked your car 5 days ago - after all you were THE DRIVER when you parked it??It

[Rushjob]

Riley Blue said:

Care to give some examples?

Street to street removals - shifting a parked car from a main route to an area where theres no chance of obstruction using either a spec lift or full lift. We used to do it loads around Nottingham on match days.

[kestral]

Durzel said:

Carry on playing silly buggers and trade a non-endorsable offence for 6 points for failing to identify the driver instead. Genius.

The OP does not mention S172. It looks like a request from the police only IE no power to enforce.