Failing to give drivers name....
Discussion
Hi - Probably been answered a hundred times before but any advice on following...
Photo came through of car at 81mph in 70 limit.
Really was oblivious until NIP came through post - was caught by camera van near Chieverly services on A34.
Both me and girlfriend were in car - and it is clear from photo that two of us are in car. I wrote back saying thank you for photo, etc, etc but have you got a better picture because don't know who was driving.
Now I know you are all going to say "yeah yeah" but really don't know. There are no speed camera signs and I didn't see the camera van - and was totally oblivious before the NIP came through.
They said no better picture give us name of driver - to which I replied well it was either me or my girlfriend but without better evidence I can't tell which of us it was..
Now they have written to my company (as car is registered to Ltd company) with a court date for not giving the name of the driver - but I did! Whats the story and likely punishment (fine/points?)?
Photo came through of car at 81mph in 70 limit.
Really was oblivious until NIP came through post - was caught by camera van near Chieverly services on A34.
Both me and girlfriend were in car - and it is clear from photo that two of us are in car. I wrote back saying thank you for photo, etc, etc but have you got a better picture because don't know who was driving.
Now I know you are all going to say "yeah yeah" but really don't know. There are no speed camera signs and I didn't see the camera van - and was totally oblivious before the NIP came through.
They said no better picture give us name of driver - to which I replied well it was either me or my girlfriend but without better evidence I can't tell which of us it was..
Now they have written to my company (as car is registered to Ltd company) with a court date for not giving the name of the driver - but I did! Whats the story and likely punishment (fine/points?)?
The original NOIP will have gone to the Keeper (The Company) Presume you are the Company? otherwise you would have been named by them.
Along with it will have been a request by/on behalf of Chief Of Police to name driver.
S 172 (2) Road Traffic Act 1988:
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies (Speeding is mentioned)—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
So far you haven't named the driver so
A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (a) above is guilty of an offence unless:
he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or,
as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
... and that Sir, could lead to a fine of £1000 (max), discretionary disqualification or 3 points.
Up to you satisfy the Court that you cannot ID the driver......
dvd
Along with it will have been a request by/on behalf of Chief Of Police to name driver.
S 172 (2) Road Traffic Act 1988:
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies (Speeding is mentioned)—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
So far you haven't named the driver so
A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (a) above is guilty of an offence unless:
he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or,
as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
... and that Sir, could lead to a fine of £1000 (max), discretionary disqualification or 3 points.
Up to you satisfy the Court that you cannot ID the driver......
dvd
supermono said:
Dwight Vandriver said:
Presume you are the Company?
Nope. He said it's a limited company. Nobody is the company. Interesting situation I'd have thought if the registered keeper fails to notify.
SM
Then the company gets the fine, but as the company is not a person then there can be no points punishment.
However, the company does have to show diligence that they have kept good records of who has which company owned car at whatever time. If not then I *think* in serious situations then the company directors get the blame and thus the fine/points.
However, *if* your company has a record that shows that the car was in the posession of both yourself and your girlfriend, and it writes back to them stating this, then the ball is really back in their court as what to do next!
I have heard of these cases stopping at this stage as they realise that if someone is making them prove their case and they cant do it, then there is no point in taking it further. Other cases have 'pinged' back and forth as they try and get someone to sent the money and claim the points, and some have gone to court, where you explain your story and the CPS would then have to explain to the court how they prove who is driving from the photo...
tvrgit said:
supermono said:
Dwight Vandriver said:
Presume you are the Company?
Nope. He said it's a limited company. Nobody is the company. Interesting situation I'd have thought if the registered keeper fails to notify.
SM
I thought in that situation, Company Secretary is liable?
Our company secrerary doesn't have a driving licence. Next?
SM
Who is the Company Secretary? If it's not you, but your accountant or a 3rd party, get them to write on a company letterhead stating that the company records show that on such-and-such a date the car was in the keeping of Mr. xxxxx and Ms. xxxxx. State that further than that there are no records, as either of them could have been legally driving. In such situations it seems better if the Co. Sec'y is another Limited Company acting as Company Secretary i.e. a management services company. This is quite legal and is a real 'stopper' for the scammers unless they are prepared to spend a lot of police time and effort on it. If you did get a summons, there is nothing to stop the company going into liquidation with the trade and assetts being transferred to a new limited company on payment of a nominal sum. That's all quite legal as well. This happened with a friend of mine who had a loan car from a garage. In the meantime his company had been acquired by another company and he had resigned. The acquiring company had no vehicle records, especially in respect of a loan car and so the entire thing went away.
I know that if faced with 6 or 9 accrued points I would register my cars to a newly formed limited company with another ltd. co. as the co. sec'y/management company. I would register the company at a P.O. Box number, which is the address the management company would have. Of course, the director's addresses would be listed at Companies House, but to get that information involves payment of a fee and it's doubtful if the scammers would bother. If they did, the directors could legally just refer them back to the Company Secretary.
If desparate, one could register a Ltd. Co. in Dublin and have a UK trading office to which the vehicles are registered, that address being the office of a UK accountant. Any queries about who was driving would be referred to the Dublin office, but that's surely only a last resort for someone with 9 points and 35 months to run before the first set comes off.
Just a thought really.
I know that if faced with 6 or 9 accrued points I would register my cars to a newly formed limited company with another ltd. co. as the co. sec'y/management company. I would register the company at a P.O. Box number, which is the address the management company would have. Of course, the director's addresses would be listed at Companies House, but to get that information involves payment of a fee and it's doubtful if the scammers would bother. If they did, the directors could legally just refer them back to the Company Secretary.
If desparate, one could register a Ltd. Co. in Dublin and have a UK trading office to which the vehicles are registered, that address being the office of a UK accountant. Any queries about who was driving would be referred to the Dublin office, but that's surely only a last resort for someone with 9 points and 35 months to run before the first set comes off.
Just a thought really.
supermono said:
tvrgit said:
supermono said:
Dwight Vandriver said:
Presume you are the Company?
Nope. He said it's a limited company. Nobody is the company. Interesting situation I'd have thought if the registered keeper fails to notify.
SM
I thought in that situation, Company Secretary is liable?
Our company secrerary doesn't have a driving licence. Next?
SM
Big fine for the Company, unless it's foreign-registered (maybe Ireland)
From memory, a local (quite large LTD) company that runs this scam quite often only gets fines in the region of £600 a time.
Effectively, vans with 4+ workers in them pass a camera, any one of the workers may have been driving, company keeps records of gangs but not individuals driving at any one time of day, can't prove it who it was.
Effectively, vans with 4+ workers in them pass a camera, any one of the workers may have been driving, company keeps records of gangs but not individuals driving at any one time of day, can't prove it who it was.
supermono said:
tvrgit said:
supermono said:
Dwight Vandriver said:
Presume you are the Company?
Nope. He said it's a limited company. Nobody is the company. Interesting situation I'd have thought if the registered keeper fails to notify.
SM
I thought in that situation, Company Secretary is liable?
Our company secrerary doesn't have a driving licence. Next?
SM
I think you are able to get points even without a licence. This is what happens to 15 year old scrotes who steal cars and drive them round.
Re the corporate issue. The information on the V5 doesn't show ownership merely registered keeper. However avoiding motoring offences isn't the reason this car is registered with my company.
Back to my point. The Ltd company is my company and as this car is only able to be driven my either me or my girlfriend recording who was in the car when isn't such a big deal...
The point here however is that we were BOTH in the car - and it is clear from the rear picture that we are both in the car (from the outlines of the tops of our heads!) but you can't tell who is who. So it isn't a case that the company haven't kept good records of who was in the car during the day!!
Back to my point. The Ltd company is my company and as this car is only able to be driven my either me or my girlfriend recording who was in the car when isn't such a big deal...
The point here however is that we were BOTH in the car - and it is clear from the rear picture that we are both in the car (from the outlines of the tops of our heads!) but you can't tell who is who. So it isn't a case that the company haven't kept good records of who was in the car during the day!!
10 Pence Short said:
7db said:
Perhap you and your girlfriend whould both write a note to the Company both claiming it was yourself. The Company forwards these to the SCP.
Very tricky to prosecute double confessions...
Very tricky to prosecute double confessions...
If it was felt that this was done to avoid prosecution, could it not come under PCoJ?
Quite possible.
Better to go the other route suggested.
If you go to court and state perfectly reasonably that it could have been either of you driving, then surely that's the end of the matter in terms of naming the driver, as infact it is the most accurate and honest information you can supply.
The question is will they then issue the fine and points for speeding on the toss of a coin? I would imagine yes, but don't know.
I can't see how they can add another fine and points for not naming the driver as is usual, because you have made every honest effort that could be reasonably expected (short of a diary entry each time you swap the driving for christ sake). What a farce for 81 anyway!
The question is will they then issue the fine and points for speeding on the toss of a coin? I would imagine yes, but don't know.
I can't see how they can add another fine and points for not naming the driver as is usual, because you have made every honest effort that could be reasonably expected (short of a diary entry each time you swap the driving for christ sake). What a farce for 81 anyway!
Exactly - I mean what is a mickey take is that of course from a corporate viewpoint it can be shown that the company recorded that both of us were in the car.
Then as you say 81 is to most normal people an everyday speed - so when there is no flash, no camera signs and those vans are massively hidden and look to like most other construction vans (plus as I can tell from the picture it was on a bridge on the opposing side so it is obsured from vision on approach) what would have brought this "offence" to our attention?
Its times like this you wish you'd been flat out - at least then there would be a reasonable crime to answer for.
Then as you say 81 is to most normal people an everyday speed - so when there is no flash, no camera signs and those vans are massively hidden and look to like most other construction vans (plus as I can tell from the picture it was on a bridge on the opposing side so it is obsured from vision on approach) what would have brought this "offence" to our attention?
Its times like this you wish you'd been flat out - at least then there would be a reasonable crime to answer for.
p490kvp said:
Exactly - I mean what is a mickey take is that of course from a corporate viewpoint it can be shown that the company recorded that both of us were in the car.
Then as you say 81 is to most normal people an everyday speed - so when there is no flash, no camera signs and those vans are massively hidden and look to like most other construction vans (plus as I can tell from the picture it was on a bridge on the opposing side so it is obsured from vision on approach) what would have brought this "offence" to our attention?
Its times like this you wish you'd been flat out - at least then there would be a reasonable crime to answer for.
Then as you say 81 is to most normal people an everyday speed - so when there is no flash, no camera signs and those vans are massively hidden and look to like most other construction vans (plus as I can tell from the picture it was on a bridge on the opposing side so it is obsured from vision on approach) what would have brought this "offence" to our attention?
Its times like this you wish you'd been flat out - at least then there would be a reasonable crime to answer for.
Bigger fine & punishment for that though.
vonhosen said:
p490kvp said:
Exactly - I mean what is a mickey take is that of course from a corporate viewpoint it can be shown that the company recorded that both of us were in the car.
Then as you say 81 is to most normal people an everyday speed - so when there is no flash, no camera signs and those vans are massively hidden and look to like most other construction vans (plus as I can tell from the picture it was on a bridge on the opposing side so it is obsured from vision on approach) what would have brought this "offence" to our attention?
Its times like this you wish you'd been flat out - at least then there would be a reasonable crime to answer for.
Then as you say 81 is to most normal people an everyday speed - so when there is no flash, no camera signs and those vans are massively hidden and look to like most other construction vans (plus as I can tell from the picture it was on a bridge on the opposing side so it is obsured from vision on approach) what would have brought this "offence" to our attention?
Its times like this you wish you'd been flat out - at least then there would be a reasonable crime to answer for.
Bigger fine & punishment for that though.
But they still need to determine who was driving first.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff