Mobile Cameras - Photos taken of the rear of the car

[mg6b]

Superlight said:

'Was caught....'

As stated above. The first two words appear to rebut your denial of the situation!

So you lied when you sent the form back stating you were unsure!...

....Unless of course your psychiatrist can help if there are two of you

My advice is to write your name and address on the form and send it back.

You never know who is reading forums like this



>> Edited by mg6b on Saturday 11th March 11:59

[mg6b]

sean5302 said:

What's happened to him? Superlight? Super scarpered, maybe!

Guilty concsience maybe?

[stesrg]

Hmm er we go I was fined £1000.00 friday plus court costs, because I did not know who was driving, they fined me because I Did not keep records on who was driving,However if you can prove you keep the records(ie a direy or similar) and that they took the car without you knowing, "who ever it may have been" this could be possible ? but do not quote me on this. the good side is they could not issue me with points and fined my company
Ste.

[turbobloke]

That seems to go against previous cases where if you can show 'due diligence' in trying to find out who was driving but could not do so, there was a not guilty verdict. IANAL and all that, but this seems to represent a new 'low' in revenue raising zeal, at about the height of a daschund's danglies, and further removed from the principles of natural justice than before.

[r1yam]

turbobloke said:

That seems to go against previous cases where if you can show 'due diligence' in trying to find out who was driving but could not do so, there was a not guilty verdict. IANAL and all that, but this seems to represent a new 'low' in revenue raising zeal, at about the height of a daschund's danglies, and further removed from the principles of natural justice than before.

Who was it that said "There is no justice in this country, only law" ?