Somebody ran a red light and will not own up
Discussion
If the Company fails to provide the details of the driver at the time of the alleged offence, then the Company can expect to receive a summons in due course.
To avoid conviction, the Company would have to demonstrate that not keeping a driver log was reasonable - see below.
Upon conviction, I doubt that anyone within the Company would be given the points (unless it was proven that an employee connived or consented to the failure to name), but I would expect the Company to receive a hefty fine - probably >£400 - and its assurance that a vehicle log would be kept in the future.
(5) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(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.
To avoid conviction, the Company would have to demonstrate that not keeping a driver log was reasonable - see below.
Upon conviction, I doubt that anyone within the Company would be given the points (unless it was proven that an employee connived or consented to the failure to name), but I would expect the Company to receive a hefty fine - probably >£400 - and its assurance that a vehicle log would be kept in the future.
s172 RTA 1988 said:
(5) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(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.
Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 21st March 18:30
Marki said:
A Chief Constable in some force in the UK got the points because no one would own up to using an unmarked plodmobile a year or so back as i remember
From experience (and IANAL), its more the exception than the rule that an employee gets stung for the points..
I am aware though that the powers that be are tightening the noose on those convicted of failing to provide (proposed to be 6 points in Road Safety Bill, for instance)..
Our company has very poor rules on pool cars, and I guess any guilty party could avoid a fine by letting the Finance Twat take the points.
I believe a few years back 2 collegues had to go to a customer every day and it was jointly signed out in both thier names. Niether could remember who was driving that day apparently and a speeding fine was dropped.
I believe a few years back 2 collegues had to go to a customer every day and it was jointly signed out in both thier names. Niether could remember who was driving that day apparently and a speeding fine was dropped.
The last company i worked for had two pool cars and the use of about 5 managers cars for short trips we needed to make.
The secretary used to insist that we sign the record to say we took the keys as she was liable for points/ fine if we didn't sign. As such i never let the keys out of my sight when i'd signed the book! However, on collegue ran a speed camera and red light in the same day in a managers car (no records for these) and the manager himself got shafted in court. He got a short term ban actually! Needless to say the collegue left by mutual consent the week after!
The secretary used to insist that we sign the record to say we took the keys as she was liable for points/ fine if we didn't sign. As such i never let the keys out of my sight when i'd signed the book! However, on collegue ran a speed camera and red light in the same day in a managers car (no records for these) and the manager himself got shafted in court. He got a short term ban actually! Needless to say the collegue left by mutual consent the week after!
Marki said:
A Chief Constable in some force in the UK got the points because no one would own up to using an unmarked plodmobile a year or so back as i remember
IIRC he didn't get points but the Force got a £400 fine. Down to a CID drtiver who they couldn't trace......
Teesside Crown Court some time ago Judge commented where there are multi drivers then firm shluld keep records.....
dvd
SS2. said:
Marki said:
A Chief Constable in some force in the UK got the points because no one would own up to using an unmarked plodmobile a year or so back as i remember
From experience (and IANAL), its more the exception than the rule that an employee gets stung for the points..
I am aware though that the powers that be are tightening the noose on those convicted of failing to provide (proposed to be 6 points in Road Safety Bill, for instance)..
It was Merry Hughes
I should not have feeling of Schadenfreude.. but I do ..sorry CC Hughes if you are a-lurkin' which I am sure you do ... "sort of" 
But ja.. part of responsible stewardship or keeping of car ist to ensure all who drive have licence to do so.. und are insured to do so too.
I have to admit that I like to know where any of our cars are - und even as family we do keep track of who drove what und where to.
Work ist rather draconian as keys to pool cars are signed for und signed back into records of chap in charge of the company vehicles - along with mileage records. After all rep's cars can be part of pool if not in use und rep ist at his desk.
Cars are part of a depreciable asset on companies balance sheet und thus of value to firm. Driving records will affect firm's insurance liability as well.. und ultimately the economy as result.
I have to admit that I like to know where any of our cars are - und even as family we do keep track of who drove what und where to.
Work ist rather draconian as keys to pool cars are signed for und signed back into records of chap in charge of the company vehicles - along with mileage records. After all rep's cars can be part of pool if not in use und rep ist at his desk.
Cars are part of a depreciable asset on companies balance sheet und thus of value to firm. Driving records will affect firm's insurance liability as well.. und ultimately the economy as result.
Ericthelobster said:
Recieved letter today from Police about car jumping red lights, car owned by firm (Limited Company) offence 07/03/07 but as about 10 different people use car..we cannot actually pin it on any one person, what happens now?
It would be 'interesting' if you were able to name a driver, but the driver denied it.
In such circumstances it would seem that both parties have served their obligations, yet insufficient evidence exists to convict either.
Just hypothetically...
Let's say you have 'interviewed' each of the ten possible drivers, made appropriate record of that 'interview' and that each driver has denied the offence. You may during this process genuinely be able to eliminate some, o maybe this ten is the ones from a longer list that you cannot eliminate?
You then return the S172 request complete with a list of the possible drivers details and say you have taken it as far as you can having used reasonable diligence. Best to quote the wording of the act, reasonable diligence. Keep the interview record back at this stage. Tell plod that they are welcome to come and interview the ten drivers, at a place and time to be arranged.
It might get dropped, it might not, but with your record of your 'interviews' you ought to have a viable defence of reasonable diligence vs a S172 prosecution.
all imo.
You then return the S172 request complete with a list of the possible drivers details and say you have taken it as far as you can having used reasonable diligence. Best to quote the wording of the act, reasonable diligence. Keep the interview record back at this stage. Tell plod that they are welcome to come and interview the ten drivers, at a place and time to be arranged.
It might get dropped, it might not, but with your record of your 'interviews' you ought to have a viable defence of reasonable diligence vs a S172 prosecution.
all imo.
Marki said:
A Chief Constable in some force in the UK got the points because no one would own up to using an unmarked plodmobile a year or so back as i remember
Hants have been there. Our DCC had to appear in Court. Still, at least we did the right thing by turning up and taking the fine, unlike another force I could mention.
:Cough! It's grim up north:
Flat in Fifth said:
It might get dropped, it might not, but with your record of your 'interviews' you ought to have a viable defence of reasonable diligence vs a S172 prosecution.
I don't think that reasonable diligence is relevant where the alleged offender is a company.
'Reasonable diligence' is referred to in S172 Paragraph 4 which is concerned with a driver / individual.
Paragraphs 5 & 6 (which deal with body corporates) make no mention of this being a viable defence to a S172 charge where companies are concerned.
SS2. said:
Flat in Fifth said:
It might get dropped, it might not, but with your record of your 'interviews' you ought to have a viable defence of reasonable diligence vs a S172 prosecution.
I don't think that reasonable diligence is relevant where the alleged offender is a company.
'Reasonable diligence' is referred to in S172 Paragraph 4 which is concerned with a driver / individual.
Paragraphs 5 & 6 (which deal with body corporates) make no mention of this being a viable defence to a S172 charge where companies are concerned.
True but then is it an offence where "and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect..."
Really we don't have enough information to answer those questions. For example it could be that employees have been told to keep a vehicle log, one is provided but no-one has filled it in. Hence the OP is in the position he is.
I would argue that if the vehicle logs are habitually not filled in or there is no provision / instructions in place and the Company knows this then that could be construed neglect. If it's an unusual situation ie logs normally kept then arguably the Company has a potential defence. Depends on the day and mags mood.
Reading through all your replies, I'm struck by how much trouble everyone has to go through to prove they were/weren't driving at the time of the offence. Surely one of the arguments against speed cameras is that you are convicted on the flash of the camera, with just the car being traceable. If you can't see who's driving, then is it not the prosecutors job to find out who was?
Flat in Fifth said:
True but then is it an offence where "and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect..."
Really we don't have enough information to answer those questions. For example it could be that employees have been told to keep a vehicle log, one is provided but no-one has filled it in. Hence the OP is in the position he is.
Really we don't have enough information to answer those questions. For example it could be that employees have been told to keep a vehicle log, one is provided but no-one has filled it in. Hence the OP is in the position he is.
You are quite correct. It is very difficult with the scant information provided to surmise the likely outcome. That said, if a log was provided but not filled in on the day, who would be guilty of neglect ? The driver of the vehicle (who remains unknown) or the person assigned to be responsible for the vehicle log ? What if that person was not in the office that day or when the vehicle was taken out ? Would their 'deputy' then become liable ?
And so it can become increasingly complicated.. This may be amongst the reasons that individuals do not often fall foul of prosecution when companies are summonsed.
Flat in Fifth said:
Depends on the day and mags mood.
Oh yes... And from experience, this can be both variable and impossible to predict..
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff