Implicating Another Driver - Legal Standpoint

[GregE240]

All,

Seeking the legal types who lurk on here, and possibly others for their opinion on this subject...many thanks in advance.

A friend is borrowing a car from a mate of mine at the moment, and has spent an enjoyable week driving it. Unfortunately, his pleasure was ruined yesterday when a friendly person in a scamera van caught him - well, possibly, the NIP hasn't arrived - yet.

He really has no idea how fast he was going - it was an NSL on a single carriageway, and he had just overtaken a car - looking down at the speedometer was the last thing on his mind.

Clearly the NIP will go to the registered owner of the vehicle - what is the legal position on him implicating my mate, should the NIP arise?

Thanks again,
Greg

[justinp1]

Basically, the short answer is, he is breaking the law if he does not name the driver if it is in his power to do so.

[7db]

It's slightly stronger than that, even. He has to take all reasonable efforts to find out who it is. "Within power" is for people who aren't the registered keeper.

The effect is the same. He has to shop your friend if asked.

[bertbert]

I think neither of the above are quite correct(!), the reg keeper has to give the info they are required to give- in the normal NIP, that's...say who was driving.

Anyone else (such as the people the reg keeper may name) has give the info that is in their power to give. "Power to give" would seem to have no implication to find out, it would seem to mean what one knows.

The poor old reg keeper is not guilty of an offence if he or she can show they didn't know or could not with reasonable diligence ascertain. Hard to show that you don't know something!

Bert

[vonhosen]

bertbert said:

I think neither of the above are quite correct(!), the reg keeper has to give the info they are required to give- in the normal NIP, that's...say who was driving.

Anyone else (such as the people the reg keeper may name) has give the info that is in their power to give. "Power to give" would seem to have no implication to find out, it would seem to mean what one knows.

The poor old reg keeper is not guilty of an offence if he or she can show they didn't know or could not with reasonable diligence ascertain. Hard to show that you don't know something!

Bert

The NIP & the requirement to furnish details are seperate things.

Section 1 of The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 deals with the requirements of NIPs.

Section 172 of The Road Traffic Act 1988 deals with the requirement to furnish details.

172(2)(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

172(2)(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.



There is a defence to 172(2)(a) only under 172(4).

172(4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

That defence is not available to a company or body corporate unless the 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 the OP's case, the registered keeper knows who he gave his vehicle to and is required by law to furnish the Police with those details.

[jacko lah]

justinp1 said:

Basically, the short answer is, he is breaking the law if he does not name the driver if it is in his power to do so.

That person will then get the NIP and it's up to him to decide if he was driving it or whether someone else was driving it.

Last Saturday my wife got a NIP and has filled it in to say that I was driving her car. I'm assuming I'll get a NIP and have the chance to say whether it was me or someone I happened to let use her car.

All I can say is : You lend your car out on the understanding that you will put their name and address on any NIPs and return it, so they can sort it out. If they chose to lie or defend it or ignore it then that's not your problem.