Want to speed? Buy a Tesla

[Mammasaid]

Tesla has been convicted at least 18 times and ordered to pay more than £20,000 for repeatedly failing to co-operate with UK police forces.

In one incident, South Wales Police wrote to Tesla Financial Services in a bid to identify the driver of a Tesla which had been speeding at 80mph (128km/h) on the M4 near Llantrisant, Rhondda Cynon Taf, in July 2025.

Court papers show a Tesla company director, Becky Hodgson, pleaded guilty for the firm by email in late November, saying it had tried to enter the plea online but "encountered a technical issue on the Online Plea Service portal".

Although the company admitted the criminal charge, Hodgson suggested in her email that it had complied with the police request, adding that its internal processes were followed and the nomination was sent via post.

A conviction was handed out at Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates' Court on 6 January and ended in Tesla receiving a £1,000 fine, an order for £120 costs and a £400 victim surcharge.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r44zpprg7o

[RSTurboPaul]

Mammasaid said:

Tesla has been convicted at least 18 times and ordered to pay more than £20,000 for repeatedly failing to co-operate with UK police forces.

In one incident, South Wales Police wrote to Tesla Financial Services in a bid to identify the driver of a Tesla which had been speeding at 80mph (128km/h) on the M4 near Llantrisant, Rhondda Cynon Taf, in July 2025.

Court papers show a Tesla company director, Becky Hodgson, pleaded guilty for the firm by email in late November, saying it had tried to enter the plea online but "encountered a technical issue on the Online Plea Service portal".

Although the company admitted the criminal charge, Hodgson suggested in her email that it had complied with the police request, adding that its internal processes were followed and the nomination was sent via post.

A conviction was handed out at Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates' Court on 6 January and ended in Tesla receiving a £1,000 fine, an order for £120 costs and a £400 victim surcharge.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r44zpprg7o

Isn't the story saying Tesla as a company is not providing driver details when its company-registered vehicles trigger a camera, rather than Tesla buyers 'getting away with' speeding (because those vehicles will be registered to the purchasers)?


edit: Wait, I skipped the financial services reference... so the post below would be accurate.

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 23 January 15:25

[paradigital]

Title needs changing from “buy” to “rent”.

[Countdown]

There's no benefit to TFS from doing it so it suggests incompetence rather than a deliberate attempt to evade points..

[Evanivitch]

paradigital said:

Title needs changing from buy to rent .

Um lease, but yeah.

Still smacks of that guy who kept getting business fines for failing to identify that he was driving the company-owned car. But ultimately avoided collecting any points...

[paul_c123]

Evanivitch said:

Um lease, but yeah.

Still smacks of that guy who kept getting business fines for failing to identify that he was driving the company-owned car. But ultimately avoided collecting any points...

I thought "the company director" took the hit, including points on his/her licence, for FTF.

[Evanivitch]

paul_c123 said:

Evanivitch said:

Um lease, but yeah.

Still smacks of that guy who kept getting business fines for failing to identify that he was driving the company-owned car. But ultimately avoided collecting any points...

I thought "the company director" took the hit, including points on his/her licence, for FTF.

So why isn't director of Tesla UK Finance getting points?

[paul_c123]

Evanivitch said:

So why isn't director of Tesla UK Finance getting points?

I don't know, I guess its up to the courts to set the penalty.

[MDMA .]

paul_c123 said:

Evanivitch said:

So why isn't director of Tesla UK Finance getting points?

I don't know, I guess its up to the courts to set the penalty.

Maybe because the Directors address is 1 Tesla Rod, Austin, Texas, United States?

[Evanivitch]

MDMA . said:

paul_c123 said:

Evanivitch said:

So why isn't director of Tesla UK Finance getting points?

I don't know, I guess its up to the courts to set the penalty.

Maybe because the Directors address is 1 Tesla Rod, Austin, Texas, United States?

Rebecca Hodgson doesn't count because....?

[Wills2]

Evanivitch said:

paul_c123 said:

Evanivitch said:

Um lease, but yeah.

Still smacks of that guy who kept getting business fines for failing to identify that he was driving the company-owned car. But ultimately avoided collecting any points...

I thought "the company director" took the hit, including points on his/her licence, for FTF.

So why isn't director of Tesla UK Finance getting points?

Because she wasn't driving the car, Tesla are pleading guilty to not identifying the driver who will be the lessee via TFS.

[Evanivitch]

Wills2 said:

Because she wasn't driving the car, Tesla are pleading guilty to not identifying the driver who will be the lessee via TFS.

That's how I understood it. Nice scam if you can manage it.

[MDMA .]

Evanivitch said:

MDMA . said:

paul_c123 said:

Evanivitch said:

So why isn't director of Tesla UK Finance getting points?

I don't know, I guess its up to the courts to set the penalty.

Maybe because the Directors address is 1 Tesla Rod, Austin, Texas, United States?

Rebecca Hodgson doesn't count because....?

Token office girl. Probably just makes the brews. Dunno.

[2020vision]

Evanivitch said:

paul_c123 said:

Evanivitch said:

Um lease, but yeah.

Still smacks of that guy who kept getting business fines for failing to identify that he was driving the company-owned car. But ultimately avoided collecting any points...

I thought "the company director" took the hit, including points on his/her licence, for FTF.

So why isn't director of Tesla UK Finance getting points?

Because they didn t send a S172 requirement addressed to HODGSON, Rebecca Rachel at her address in Manchester.
Perhaps they should have done, then she would have been fined and given 6 points if she didn’t reply adequately or used a statutory defence to defend the charge.

[Aretnap]

paul_c123 said:

Evanivitch said:

Um lease, but yeah.

Still smacks of that guy who kept getting business fines for failing to identify that he was driving the company-owned car. But ultimately avoided collecting any points...

I thought "the company director" took the hit, including points on his/her licence, for FTF.

Nope. Where a company is guilty of a s172 offence it is in theory possible for a director etc to be convicted if it can be proved that the offence took place though their "consent, connivance or neglect" but (a) it is rarely done and (b) an offence committed by that mechanism doesn't carry points.

[Aretnap]

Of course the whole premise behind the story seems to be a bit silly. It's faulty inevitable that a large organisation managing tens of thousands of cars will have occasional instances of errors, oversights or (as apparently in this case) replies being posted but not delivered. So are Tesla particularly bad in this respect. The article says they've been convicted 18 times - that's out of how many s172 requirements, the breat of which were presumably responded to correctly? Is that a better or worse record than other comparable lease or car hire companies? The article doesn't tell us any of that. It just gives us a single factoid with no context and invites is to tut at it.

[2020vision]

Aretnap said:

Of course the whole premise behind the story seems to be a bit silly. It's faulty inevitable that a large organisation managing tens of thousands of cars will have occasional instances of errors, oversights or (as apparently in this case) replies being posted but not delivered. So are Tesla particularly bad in this respect. The article says they've been convicted 18 times - that's out of how many s172 requirements, the breat of which were presumably responded to correctly? Is that a better or worse record than other comparable lease or car hire companies? The article doesn't tell us any of that. It just gives us a single factoid with no context and invites is to tut at it.

All the company has to do is provide the information required of them. If they do that then there is no offence.
Simple.
If the company officers act the ar5e then they should be sent personal requirements so they become personally liable and in the frame for 6 points.
A limited company doesn’t limit criminal liability for the directors.

[ADJimbo]

MDMA . said:

Token office girl. Probably just makes the brews. Dunno.

Rebecca Hodgson.

Director of Tesla Financial Services and a Chartered Accountant of many years standing.

[martinbiz]

2020vision said:

All the company has to do is provide the information required of them. If they do that then there is no offence.
Simple.
If the company officers act the ar5e then they should be sent personal requirements so they become personally liable and in the frame for 6 points.
A limited company doesn t limit criminal liability for the directors.

Yes it’s in the legislation, but I don’t recall it ever happening

[Evanivitch]

MDMA . said:

Token office girl. Probably just makes the brews. Dunno.

Misogyny, nice.