Tesco fined for not naming driver
Discussion
I guess it's true that there is no legal requirement to keep a log of who is driving a vehicle at all times, though it may be sensible.
Tesco were fined £700 Nov 21st for failing to identify a driver clocked at 40 in a 30 zone. ( In N. Wales).
Delay by owners of vehicle hired to Tesco in telling them of alleged offence meant Tesco had deleted the information from files.
Magistrates said they, Tesco, had "woefully failed"
Really?
Tesco were fined £700 Nov 21st for failing to identify a driver clocked at 40 in a 30 zone. ( In N. Wales).
Delay by owners of vehicle hired to Tesco in telling them of alleged offence meant Tesco had deleted the information from files.
Magistrates said they, Tesco, had "woefully failed"
Really?
Hi Tafia
More fascism from North Wales mags. See this thread about grooming of Mags in S172 cases
The CPS trot out a standard "the law requires you to keep a log" speech in corporate cases.
the wording of the act is
(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.
In this case I would have thought Tesco could have proved that the failure to keep a record was reasonable since
There is no specific requirement to keep records in the act, simply an implication as above.
There is a certainly no mention of kepping records for a specific time.
I would hope Tesco would do us all a favour and appeal and set a precedent for these mean minded busybodies that willingly do the bidding of the real fascists above them.
More fascism from North Wales mags. See this thread about grooming of Mags in S172 cases
The CPS trot out a standard "the law requires you to keep a log" speech in corporate cases.
the wording of the act is
(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.
In this case I would have thought Tesco could have proved that the failure to keep a record was reasonable since
There is no specific requirement to keep records in the act, simply an implication as above.
There is a certainly no mention of kepping records for a specific time.
I would hope Tesco would do us all a favour and appeal and set a precedent for these mean minded busybodies that willingly do the bidding of the real fascists above them.
Tafia said:
I guess it's true that there is no legal requirement to keep a log of who is driving a vehicle at all times, though it may be sensible.
Tesco were fined £700 Nov 21st for failing to identify a driver clocked at 40 in a 30 zone. ( In N. Wales).
Delay by owners of vehicle hired to Tesco in telling them of alleged offence meant Tesco had deleted the information from files.
Magistrates said they, Tesco, had "woefully failed"
Really?
Tesco were fined £700 Nov 21st for failing to identify a driver clocked at 40 in a 30 zone. ( In N. Wales).
Delay by owners of vehicle hired to Tesco in telling them of alleged offence meant Tesco had deleted the information from files.
Magistrates said they, Tesco, had "woefully failed"
Really?
Wow 700 whole pounds? I suppose this has crippled one of the largest companies in the UK.
herewego said:
If it had been a more serious offence such as hit and run, I think Tesco would wish they had kept a record.
The point is, they did keep a record... However, in law there is no mentioning of how long these records should be kept. I would have thought that due tot he speed that a hit and run investigation starts that they would have had records.
On the one hand they must keep records. On the other hand for how long must they be able to track back for for a fleet of perhaps 10,000 vehicles? Once they got the summons, the offence may have been committed 6 months ago.
jasandjules said:
But of course.
Now, they can delete the records of members of staff who rape, murder, assault etc.. but woe betide them should they not notice who is driving in excess of a speed limit at any given time.
Now, they can delete the records of members of staff who rape, murder, assault etc.. but woe betide them should they not notice who is driving in excess of a speed limit at any given time.
I take it that is a reference to Humberside Police who din't keep records of sex offenders (see Soham murder case)
kenp said:
jasandjules said:
But of course.
Now, they can delete the records of members of staff who rape, murder, assault etc.. but woe betide them should they not notice who is driving in excess of a speed limit at any given time.
Now, they can delete the records of members of staff who rape, murder, assault etc.. but woe betide them should they not notice who is driving in excess of a speed limit at any given time.
I take it that is a reference to Humberside Police who din't keep records of sex offenders (see Soham murder case)
Possibly to do with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?
Crown Court appeal at Teesside earlier last year on this on similar 172 unnamed job and Judge specifically mentioned that where multi drivers involved then records should be kept.
This case known to Fif who I believe will corroborate.
Meant to make a written record and forgot - oh the joys of old age.
dvd
This case known to Fif who I believe will corroborate.
Meant to make a written record and forgot - oh the joys of old age.
dvd
justinp1 said:
kenp said:
jasandjules said:
But of course.
Now, they can delete the records of members of staff who rape, murder, assault etc.. but woe betide them should they not notice who is driving in excess of a speed limit at any given time.
Now, they can delete the records of members of staff who rape, murder, assault etc.. but woe betide them should they not notice who is driving in excess of a speed limit at any given time.
I take it that is a reference to Humberside Police who din't keep records of sex offenders (see Soham murder case)
Possibly to do with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?
No. These were Police Intelligence records.
Richard C said:
Hi Tafia
More fascism from North Wales mags. See this thread about grooming of Mags in S172 cases
The CPS trot out a standard "the law requires you to keep a log" speech in corporate cases.
the wording of the act is
(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.
In this case I would have thought Tesco could have proved that the failure to keep a record was reasonable since
There is no specific requirement to keep records in the act, simply an implication as above.
There is a certainly no mention of kepping records for a specific time.
I would hope Tesco would do us all a favour and appeal and set a precedent for these mean minded busybodies that willingly do the bidding of the real fascists above them.
More fascism from North Wales mags. See this thread about grooming of Mags in S172 cases
The CPS trot out a standard "the law requires you to keep a log" speech in corporate cases.
the wording of the act is
(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.
In this case I would have thought Tesco could have proved that the failure to keep a record was reasonable since
There is no specific requirement to keep records in the act, simply an implication as above.
There is a certainly no mention of kepping records for a specific time.
I would hope Tesco would do us all a favour and appeal and set a precedent for these mean minded busybodies that willingly do the bidding of the real fascists above them.
Hi Richard
Case was reported by Daily Post on November 22nd Page 9. Mags also decided penalty points were not appropriate for a business.
SN said:
Tafia said:
I guess it's true that there is no legal requirement to keep a log of who is driving a vehicle at all times, though it may be sensible.
Tesco were fined £700 Nov 21st for failing to identify a driver clocked at 40 in a 30 zone. ( In N. Wales).
Delay by owners of vehicle hired to Tesco in telling them of alleged offence meant Tesco had deleted the information from files.
Magistrates said they, Tesco, had "woefully failed"
Really?
Tesco were fined £700 Nov 21st for failing to identify a driver clocked at 40 in a 30 zone. ( In N. Wales).
Delay by owners of vehicle hired to Tesco in telling them of alleged offence meant Tesco had deleted the information from files.
Magistrates said they, Tesco, had "woefully failed"
Really?
Wow 700 whole pounds? I suppose this has crippled one of the largest companies in the UK.
Are you missing the point?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff