Registration in company.......... fine/points
Discussion
So the car is registered in a company name, NIP arrives, company sec or director writes back,
" we have looked into this matter but are unable to establish who was driving, as the vehicle is available to say, 10/15 people. Should you be able to provide us with any photographic evidence to assist our efforts, this would be welcomed, as we are quite happy to re-investigste this matter in order to find the driver concerned. Baring the above, we fail to see what else we can do to assist."
Lets say they write back enclosing photo, which doesn't help, we again reply,
"seen the pic, not much help, still unable to identify driver, sorry etc,etc"
They then reply in one of two ways, " we intend to prosecute for failing to supply drivers name" or they let the matter drop. If the former applies, then you are taken to court and "tested" on your ability to provide the information required, and if they find that you have done your best, end of story. If they find that you have failed to provide, then you are found guilty and the company is liable to a fine of up to £1000 for the offence of not providing information, NOT speeding or whatever the original offence may have been, therefore NO POINTS.
Now this is purely a hypothetical scenario,
But can anyone see a problem with this approuch, for "points" no longer apply, as the company, by failing to identify the driver, changes the original "offence" to one of "failing to provide"
Discuss:
>>> Edited by Hawthorns ltd on Friday 14th May 12:23
" we have looked into this matter but are unable to establish who was driving, as the vehicle is available to say, 10/15 people. Should you be able to provide us with any photographic evidence to assist our efforts, this would be welcomed, as we are quite happy to re-investigste this matter in order to find the driver concerned. Baring the above, we fail to see what else we can do to assist."
Lets say they write back enclosing photo, which doesn't help, we again reply,
"seen the pic, not much help, still unable to identify driver, sorry etc,etc"
They then reply in one of two ways, " we intend to prosecute for failing to supply drivers name" or they let the matter drop. If the former applies, then you are taken to court and "tested" on your ability to provide the information required, and if they find that you have done your best, end of story. If they find that you have failed to provide, then you are found guilty and the company is liable to a fine of up to £1000 for the offence of not providing information, NOT speeding or whatever the original offence may have been, therefore NO POINTS.
Now this is purely a hypothetical scenario,
But can anyone see a problem with this approuch, for "points" no longer apply, as the company, by failing to identify the driver, changes the original "offence" to one of "failing to provide" Discuss:
>>> Edited by Hawthorns ltd on Friday 14th May 12:23
dazren said:
If the company secretary says 'I wasn't driving' they cant have any right to penalise them surely?
May not be morally right to stick the points on the company secretary's license, but that hasn't stopped government legislation to do exactly that AFAIK.
DAZ
Hence why many companies have 'non-driving' Company Secretaries.
The Company Secretary, or a Partner/Principal (if it's not a Limited Company) MAY BE LIABLE to receive points. But, in the case of Hampshire Police, who couldn't say who was driving, they got fined £500 but the CC did not get any points (no surprise there, then). However, they are reluctant to chase companies if the photo doesn't identify as a company is far more likely to just tell theis solicitors to deal with it and to go to court if necessary. the CPS will normally not bother, as all the scamera lot want is £60 and no hassles.
We are going to appoint a Co. Sec'y who doesn't have a licence.
We are going to appoint a Co. Sec'y who doesn't have a licence.
Alternative is to sub-contract the CoSec job/responsibilities to a third party company, who specialises in this.
For Hawthorn's I suggest a possible reason is that maybe the demonstrator car was being driven by a potential customer, and you do not have their details as it was a first visit.
For Hawthorn's I suggest a possible reason is that maybe the demonstrator car was being driven by a potential customer, and you do not have their details as it was a first visit.
Has anyone ever heard of a company secretary who has been endorsed in such circumstances?
In my fleet we only ever had one such occurance when a pool car picked up points. We provided the relevant police authority with 20-30 cases when we had provided the driver, and they were happy to let it lie, as we displayed that we normally did provide the information.
In a fleet with 1900 drivers, we picked up around 4-5 tickets per day. This was 1997-2000, I'd be interested to know how many they get now!!! Our most common points site was jc15 of the M1 in Northants, almost daily
In my fleet we only ever had one such occurance when a pool car picked up points. We provided the relevant police authority with 20-30 cases when we had provided the driver, and they were happy to let it lie, as we displayed that we normally did provide the information.
In a fleet with 1900 drivers, we picked up around 4-5 tickets per day. This was 1997-2000, I'd be interested to know how many they get now!!! Our most common points site was jc15 of the M1 in Northants, almost daily
Hawthorns ltd said:
<...> NOT speeding or whatever the original offence may have been, therefore NO POINTS.
Yes (no points), but not for that reason; because it is a corporate accused.
Hawthorns ltd said:
If the former applies, then you are taken to court and "tested" on your ability to provide the information required, and if they find that you have done your best, end of story.
No; the requirements of corporate keepers are more onerous than for individuals, as well as showing 'reasonable diligence', you have to be able to show that you do not keep records, and that that failure to do so was, itself, reasonable.
puggit said:
Has anyone ever heard of a company secretary who has been endorsed in such circumstances?
It is my understanding that, in normal circumstances[*], the company secretary does not get the points; although the fine will be higher than for an individual, ~£500.
[*]Where there has been 'connivance' individual directors (not neccessarily the company secretary), may be prosecuted and get the points, but this would not seem to be the case here.
puggit said:
We provided the relevant police authority with 20-30 cases when we had provided the driver, and they were happy to let it lie, as we displayed that we normally did provide the information.
IMO you were lucky, they did not know the law (see comment above about records). Either that, or they were rewarding you for keeping their revenue stream up.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 14th May 13:46
Ex29 Thanks for the views, and sorry not to have returned to the subject before now, but I've been at Silverstone
testing for a race tomorrow. Anyway, I still can't get my head round the points issue, for failing to provide information is a totally different offence from the original, ie speeding or whatever, and carries no points penalty, just a fine, or am I wrong. Got to go now, need to be up at 05:30
, will pick up on this later. P.S Thanks J.A for the detailed response, very interesting. now I must go, or I'll fall asleep at the wheel tomorrow.
>> Edited by TUSCAN 29 on Saturday 15th May 00:22
Please excuse the soapbox stance of a newbie, but are we missing the point here? Surely a company should know who is responsible for one of its assets at any given time. Consider the following scenarios;
1. The vehicle is reported involved in a hit & run.
2. The vehicle is involved in an accident with serious injuries to the driver and relatives need to be contacted.
3. Less serious, but a dent/scratch appears on the vehicle.
And finally, how soon would you be aware if the vehicle was stolen?
happy motoring!
1. The vehicle is reported involved in a hit & run.
2. The vehicle is involved in an accident with serious injuries to the driver and relatives need to be contacted.
3. Less serious, but a dent/scratch appears on the vehicle.
And finally, how soon would you be aware if the vehicle was stolen?
happy motoring!
TUSCAN 29 said:
<...> I still can't get my head round the points issue, for failing to provide information is a totally different offence from the original, ie speeding or whatever, and carries no points penalty, just a fine, or am I wrong.
In the case of a corporate accused, you are correct, but for the wrong reason.
S172 (failure to supply) does carry points (although only three). However, where the accused is a corporate one, the corporate body cannot be given the points (but see above comment about 'connivance').
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Saturday 15th May 00:35
jeffreyarcher said:
No; the requirements of corporate keepers are more onerous than for individuals, as well as showing 'reasonable diligence', you have to be able to show that you do not keep records, and that that failure to do so was, itself, reasonable
The fact is that there is no legal obligation for anyone corporate or otherwise to maintain any records of drivers. Despite the lies of the partnerships and the presure put on one by the PC that can turn up to interview you. I am a director and refuse to assist in this revenue raising nonsense. I have argued this successfully 3 times in the last few years.
Richard C said:
No; the requirements of corporate keepers are more onerous than for individuals, as well as showing 'reasonable diligence', you have to be able to show that you do not keep records, and that that failure to do so was, itself, reasonable
The fact is that there is no legal obligation for anyone corporate or otherwise to maintain any records of drivers.
I didn't say that there was. I was talking about what a corporate keeper has to show where he has failed to name a driver.
The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 172.
172.-(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.
towman said:
1. The vehicle is reported involved in a hit & run.
2. The vehicle is involved in an accident with serious injuries to the driver and relatives need to be contacted.
3. Less serious, but a dent/scratch appears on the vehicle.
These are all examples where you would need to know immediately who the driver was that same morning, so should be easy to ask other co-workers. However, it is more difficult to remember who was driving 2 weeks ago when they went through a camera and deceided not to 'fess up.
Tim
jeffreyarcher said:
<...> I still can't get my head round the points issue, for failing to provide information is a totally different offence from the original, ie speeding or whatever, and carries no points penalty, just a fine, or am I wrong.
In the case of a corporate accused, you are correct, but for the wrong reason.
S172 (failure to supply) does carry points (although only three). However, where the accused is a corporate one, the corporate body cannot be given the points (but see above comment about 'connivance').
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Saturday 15th May 00:35
Ex29 Ah!, I now see your point, many thanks. Seems something of a grey area though, kinda like they didn't give the the matter full consideration when drafting the original, or prehaps it was the intention to leave it to the judgement of the courts as to the rights or wrongs of keeping or not keeping records.
I am now quite confident that should something along these lines ever happen to us, we will be able to show that we would have no particular reason to keep records, and to have done so would be a costly and time consuming process, without any real benefit.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff