Speeding ticket, but who was driving? HELP!
Discussion
Hi, I received a speeding ticket through the post about 19 days ago. The problem is the day the car got clocked me and my girlfriend shared the driving. Two days after I received the letter I sent a letter requesting the video/photo evidence. About three days later I had a conformation letter acknowledging my letter and saying the request was being processed. The problem is I only have about 5 days left before I have to send the declaration form back. I still have not heard anything. What do I do, hang out for the photo in an attempt to ascertain who was driving at the time, or do I just declare myself and take the blame?
thankyou for your time
thankyou for your time
I had a similar thing although there were 4 people who could have been driving.
I said I didnt know who was driving but provided them with a list of "potential drivers" and asked for their help in identifying the driver by whatever means they had at their means ( ie show me the photo ) they wrote back saying the photo was for "vehicle identification only", and dropped the matter
I said I didnt know who was driving but provided them with a list of "potential drivers" and asked for their help in identifying the driver by whatever means they had at their means ( ie show me the photo ) they wrote back saying the photo was for "vehicle identification only", and dropped the matter
They have acknowledged receipt, you have stopped the clock, end of story. Think about it, they give you 28 days to reply, you reply immediately saying that you can't answer the question without their assistance (by supplying you with the photographic evidence), they acknowledge receipt of your request but don't supply the photo. What do you think they are going to do? Think what the court will make of it if they summons you for failing to provide the information.
"Well Mr Magistrate sir, I'd like to be able to tell them who was driving but I don't know if it was me or my girlfriend. The Scamera Pratnership claim to have a photograph that would allow me to tell them but they won't give it to me". Case dismissed.
"Well Mr Magistrate sir, I'd like to be able to tell them who was driving but I don't know if it was me or my girlfriend. The Scamera Pratnership claim to have a photograph that would allow me to tell them but they won't give it to me". Case dismissed.
Thanks for your replies,
'Dropped the matter' didn't follow up the case? i.e. let you/the driver off the charge?
The other problem I have is it was a company vehicle, and IIRC isn't it the companies responsibility to know who was driving the vehicle at the time, and don't the directors take ultimately responsibility?
doctorpepper said:
I had a similar thing although there were 4 people who could have been driving.
I said I didn’t know who was driving but provided them with a list of "potential drivers" and asked for their help in identifying the driver by whatever means they had at their means ( i.e. show me the photo ) they wrote back saying the photo was for "vehicle identification only", and dropped the matter
'Dropped the matter' didn't follow up the case? i.e. let you/the driver off the charge?
The other problem I have is it was a company vehicle, and IIRC isn't it the companies responsibility to know who was driving the vehicle at the time, and don't the directors take ultimately responsibility?
rpm100 said:
Thanks for your replies,
doctorpepper said:
I had a similar thing although there were 4 people who could have been driving.
I said I didn’t know who was driving but provided them with a list of "potential drivers" and asked for their help in identifying the driver by whatever means they had at their means ( i.e. show me the photo ) they wrote back saying the photo was for "vehicle identification only", and dropped the matter
'Dropped the matter' didn't follow up the case? i.e. let you/the driver off the charge?
The other problem I have is it was a company vehicle, and IIRC isn't it the companies responsibility to know who was driving the vehicle at the time, and don't the directors take ultimately responsibility?
If the company are shown as the registered keeper, they have fulfilled their obligation by naming you as the person who had control of the car. It's now down to you.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 29th March 23:12
What you do is as follows!
Send the letter back saying that your cousin from South Africa was driving. Unfortunately he has returend to South Africa but you then provide a real address in Soufh Africa that he can be contacted at.
Police are then screwed as they cant summons him in SA.
You get off.
Happy days!
Send the letter back saying that your cousin from South Africa was driving. Unfortunately he has returend to South Africa but you then provide a real address in Soufh Africa that he can be contacted at.
Police are then screwed as they cant summons him in SA.
You get off.
Happy days!
steveb25 said:
What you do is as follows!
Send the letter back saying that your cousin from South Africa was driving. Unfortunately he has returend to South Africa but you then provide a real address in Soufh Africa that he can be contacted at.
Police are then screwed as they cant summons him in SA.
You get off.
Happy days!
www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16251362&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=silly-bulgar--name_page.html
steveb25 said:
What you do is as follows!
Send the letter back saying that your cousin from South Africa was driving. Unfortunately he has returend to South Africa but you then provide a real address in Soufh Africa that he can be contacted at.
Police are then screwed as they cant summons him in SA.
You get off.
Happy days!
rpm please dont do this it is terrible advice. unless the scamming parasites can prove you or the missus were driving you're ok. stick to your guns and good luck
francisb said:It is very dodgy advice and follow it at your peril. A conviction for attempting the pervert the course of justice will carry penalties far, far in excess of the alleged speeding offence.
What you do is as follows!
Send the letter back saying that your cousin from South Africa was driving. Unfortunately he has returend to South Africa but you then provide a real address in Soufh Africa that he can be contacted at.
Police are then screwed as they cant summons him in SA.
You get off.
Happy days!
rpm please dont do this it is terrible advice. unless the scamming parasites can prove you or the missus were driving you're ok. stick to your guns and good luck
If the scammers summons for failing to supply driver details, they do not need to prove who was driving. The charge relates to no satisfactory response being received to their s.172 request and has little relation to the speeding offence.
In cases where the driver of the vehicle genuinely cannot be identified, legislation exists to protect the innocent from prosecution.
S.172RTA 1988 said:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was".
Paramount here is "with reasonable diligence". It will be for a court to decide whether or not the RK has shown reasonable diligence in attempting to ascertain the driver. This may include asking for photos in the first instance. If these are inconclusive, then a paper trail of your efforts should be compiled - checking of credit card bills, revisiting the scene, checking garage CCTV if you stopped for fuel nearby, checking mobile phone records and diaries etc.
The key to a ss(4) defence is openness in all communication and credibility. IMO, the RK should, for instance, keep open a line of correspondence with the scammers indicating what steps have been taken to identify the driver. Do not fall into the trap of going overboard asking for CalCerts, police officer's competence, proof that the equipment was used correctly - the s.172 charge has nothing to do with the alleged speeding offence and credibility will be damaged by these requests, IMO..
When the RK considers they can do no more, a final letter to the scammers asking what, if anything, can they suggest doing in an attempt to identify the driver ? If the scammers have no suggestion, and if the RK appears credible with a comprehensive 'bundle' indicating the steps taken, then its very unlikely that a prosecution would be successful..Ultimately though, it will be for the Magistrates to decide..
Hopefully I can help:
We get a large number of people end up in court claiming they cannot prove who was driving - infact last week we had a chap who had travelled the same stretch of road 6 times - either him, his Dad or his wife were driving - they were moving offices and sharing the between journeys.
They were caught going through a red light - he ended up in court on the advice of his solicitor!! - to argue that they could not prove who was driving the car.
Result - the red light charge was dropped but he was charged with failing to identify the user of his car - 3 points and a £200 means tested fine.
If others use your vehicle you are expected to keep a log of who and when - so in these circumstances you can identify the driver - as he had failed to do so - this was classed as an offence.
Finally as it had come to court he had to pay court costs £35 plus the means tested fine - if he had paid the fixed penalty it would have been £60!!
We get a large number of people end up in court claiming they cannot prove who was driving - infact last week we had a chap who had travelled the same stretch of road 6 times - either him, his Dad or his wife were driving - they were moving offices and sharing the between journeys.
They were caught going through a red light - he ended up in court on the advice of his solicitor!! - to argue that they could not prove who was driving the car.
Result - the red light charge was dropped but he was charged with failing to identify the user of his car - 3 points and a £200 means tested fine.
If others use your vehicle you are expected to keep a log of who and when - so in these circumstances you can identify the driver - as he had failed to do so - this was classed as an offence.
Finally as it had come to court he had to pay court costs £35 plus the means tested fine - if he had paid the fixed penalty it would have been £60!!
elise-type25 said:
If others use your vehicle you are expected to keep a log of who and when - so in these circumstances you can identify the driver - as he had failed to do so - this was classed as an offence.
Companies are required to keep a log, I am not aware of the legislation which says that private individuals must do the same..
elise-type25 said:Situations like this leave me questioning the justification for issuing a summons for both the red light AND the failure to furnish offences... The charges are mutually exclusive - either it is one or the other, it cannot be both.
Result - the red light charge was dropped but he was charged with failing to identify the user of his car - 3 points and a £200 means tested fine.
It demonstrates either a fundamental lack of understanding (and subsequent application of) the law, or its bully boy tactics ie if you 'fess up to one we'll drop the other.
Wrong, IMO...
>> Edited by SS2. on Thursday 30th March 11:24
There is no requirement in law to keep a log of who was driving, either for companies or individuals. It's just more 'urban myth' which is what the scammers are increasingly relying on.
If it was you or your wife driving, then tell them that and require them to provide the photographoic evidence to enable you to identify the driver. If they have not responded with this, then write again, recorded delivery, requesting this immediately as you wish the matter to be dealt with as efficiently as possible. They may respond with useless photos or with no photos, just a 'bluff & bluster' letter threatening you with points and a fine for not giving them a name.
Reply to this by saying it was definately you and your wife driving and that you are BOTH willing to pay the fine and receive points and ask to whom you should each send £60 and your licences. They will again demand a name and you then reply by asking from whom they would like to receive the 'confession' bearing in mind that the confession could be wrong. Ask them if, after receiving a confession, as they seem to want, they will indemnify both of you should it subsequently prove incorrect. Keep all this correspondence and go to court pleading not-guilty to the S172 offence.Remember, if, after making every reasonable effort, you are still unable to identify the driver then you are innocent of any offence - that's the law.
Don't listen to anyone suggesting that you 'invent' a foreign driver unless you are prepared to go inside for a few months for 'perversion.......'.
Go take a look at 'Pepipoo' for even better advice
If it was you or your wife driving, then tell them that and require them to provide the photographoic evidence to enable you to identify the driver. If they have not responded with this, then write again, recorded delivery, requesting this immediately as you wish the matter to be dealt with as efficiently as possible. They may respond with useless photos or with no photos, just a 'bluff & bluster' letter threatening you with points and a fine for not giving them a name.
Reply to this by saying it was definately you and your wife driving and that you are BOTH willing to pay the fine and receive points and ask to whom you should each send £60 and your licences. They will again demand a name and you then reply by asking from whom they would like to receive the 'confession' bearing in mind that the confession could be wrong. Ask them if, after receiving a confession, as they seem to want, they will indemnify both of you should it subsequently prove incorrect. Keep all this correspondence and go to court pleading not-guilty to the S172 offence.Remember, if, after making every reasonable effort, you are still unable to identify the driver then you are innocent of any offence - that's the law.
Don't listen to anyone suggesting that you 'invent' a foreign driver unless you are prepared to go inside for a few months for 'perversion.......'.
Go take a look at 'Pepipoo' for even better advice
cooperman said:
There is no requirement in law to keep a log of who was driving, either for companies or individuals. It's just more 'urban myth' which is what the scammers are increasingly relying on.
If it was you or your wife driving, then tell them that and require them to provide the photographoic evidence to enable you to identify the driver. If they have not responded with this, then write again, recorded delivery, requesting this immediately as you wish the matter to be dealt with as efficiently as possible. They may respond with useless photos or with no photos, just a 'bluff & bluster' letter threatening you with points and a fine for not giving them a name.
Reply to this by saying it was definately you and your wife driving and that you are BOTH willing to pay the fine and receive points and ask to whom you should each send £60 and your licences. They will again demand a name and you then reply by asking from whom they would like to receive the 'confession' bearing in mind that the confession could be wrong. Ask them if, after receiving a confession, as they seem to want, they will indemnify both of you should it subsequently prove incorrect. Keep all this correspondence and go to court pleading not-guilty to the S172 offence.Remember, if, after making every reasonable effort, you are still unable to identify the driver then you are innocent of any offence - that's the law.
Don't listen to anyone suggesting that you 'invent' a foreign driver unless you are prepared to go inside for a few months for 'perversion.......'.
Go take a look at 'Pepipoo' for even better advice
Good advice there. Especially about the 'keeping of the logbook'. There is no such law whatsoever which states you have to keep a record of who was driving your car, when you drove the car and where you went.
In court if this was implied that this should be done, I would ask the CPS solicitor or the rest of the court how many of us in the courtroom today filled out a logbook with the time they left and where they were going before they left the house....!!!
cooperman said:
There is no requirement in law to keep a log of who was driving, either for companies or individuals. It's just more 'urban myth' which is what the scammers are increasingly relying on.
Are you sure - the courts legal adviser confirmed that it is required by law to keep a log of who and when they drive your car - for exactly the above reason - if what you say is correct the chap charged - by us - has been charged unlawfully!!
cooperman said:Perhaps my use of the term 'required to' was a bit strong - 'encouraged to' might have been more appropriate. There is nothing in legislation which makes it a lawful requirement for companies to keep a log of drivers. However, if a company cannot name the driver because a log was not kept, they become liable for prosecution under s172 unless they can demonstrate that the failure to keep a log was 'reasonable'..
There is no requirement in law to keep a log of who was driving, either for companies or individuals. It's just more 'urban myth' which is what the scammers are increasingly relying on.
Section 172 RTA1988 said:
6) Where the alleged offender is a body corporate, or in Scotland a partnership or an unincorporated association, or the proceedings are brought against him by virtue of subsection (5) above or subsection (11) below, subsection (4) above shall not apply unless, in addition to the matters there mentioned, the alleged offender shows that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff