Caught speeding a hire vehicle with 2 drivers

[Hugo a Gogo]

daveinhampshire said:

In a case like this you'll both get points for failing to name the driver, the courts aren't going to have a full trial to find out.

but both can argue they have named the driver

the only choice is to prove one was driving and get perverting the course of justice for the other

[daveinhampshire]

The Mad Monk said:

Haven't you been paying attention. He has coughed.

The Casually Dressed geezer wrote at 19.19 on Thursday (yesterday), and I quote:-

"So. After going through my text messages there is a very distinct 3hr gap (6hr journey) between 10am and 1pm, which would imply that I was indeed the driver for the first leg. I have held my hands up and told the other guy and he's chuffed.

End of that then!"

There you go. It's the bloke in the jeans and T shirt.

Another job jobbed.

The question is not relevant to him, it's a general answer.

[bad company]

Hugo a Gogo said:

daveinhampshire said:

In a case like this you'll both get points for failing to name the driver, the courts aren't going to have a full trial to find out.

but both can argue they have named the driver

the only choice is to prove one was driving and get perverting the course of justice for the other

Precisely, if they both claim to have been / not been driving how can the Court tell who is / isn't telling the truth. Also if they really can't recall who was driving ???

Has anything changed since this case:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-202833/Chr...

[agtlaw]

BertBert said:

It's interesting, but as he is not the RK, there is no requirement to do any DD. The requirement is to say what you know.
The question is how do you prove you don't know. More importantly, how does the prosecution prove that you do know?
Bert

Boosted LS1 said:

It's building up a evidence of due diligence and hopefully a file as big as the prosecution's. You have to show that you've done everything possible to establish the identity of the driver. You could even record that you asked your Nan and your mates Nan if you like.

Academic now, but you've confused the RK with "the person keeping the vehicle." Due diligence applies to "the person keeping the vehicle."

[jshell]

Unless you had 2 rear view mirrors, the one that noticed the flash from the rear was likely driving...

[Hammy98]

cmaguire said:

To plead guilty to an offence that you may not have committed in order solely to expedite the process of the Law makes an absolute mockery of the concept of Justice.
Although strangely the Law and Justice appear to have become very uneasy bedfellows where traffic law is concerned, whereas the process appears all consuming.

[Cliftonite]

The OP has not made it clear as to his own situation here, but whilst I believe it may be possible to be flashed by a speed camera and not notice it, I refuse to believe that a flash that IS seen is not remembered by the driver!

[HJMS123]

CasuallyDressed said:

So I've just been told that a vehicle that I was in got caught speeding (73 in a 60). Problems being that it was a hired vehicle (which I didn't hire) and there was 2 of us in it, of which we don't know who was driving.

We split the journey, half each both ways. We got flashed on the first half on the return journey, but it was 3 weeks ago and we can't remember who was driving.

There is no photo of the driver, only the rear plate.

How do we proceed? Obviously I don't wanna just throw my hands up and take the heat, and I would assume the other guy doesn't either. It was (in my opinion) a long time ago and an inane detail to just remember.

Surely you both know who collected who from their house or who arrived driving at the destination?!

[speedking31]

agtlaw said:

Academic now, but you've confused the RK with "the person keeping the vehicle." Due diligence applies to "the person keeping the vehicle."

In this example, is that the hirer or the rental company?

[BertBert]

I thought the definition of the RK was the person keeping the vehicle. Can it be different?
Bert

[agtlaw]

You thought wrong.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/490...

Please note paragraph 11.

Previously discussed on this forum:


"You've confused "the person keeping the vehicle" with "the Registered Keeper." Not necessarily the same person and very common, for example, that a lease company is "the Registered Keeper" and a company employee is "the person keeping the vehicle."

The important distinction is between "the person keeping the vehicle" and "any other person". Not "the Registered Keeper" and "any other person." This is obvious if you properly read the statute and see, for example, Mohindra v DPP [2004] at paragraph 8 et seq."

Edited by agtlaw on Friday 28th April 16:22

[BertBert]

Thanks, very interesting. Hope you don't mind the inane questions...how can a lease company be a Registered Keeper as they neither keep nor use the car?

I'm not sure I understand the legal definition of keeper and Registered Keeper having read further. In fact I'm sure I don't!
Bert

Edited by BertBert on Friday 28th April 19:21

[cmaguire]

BertBert said:

Thanks, very interesting. Hope you don't mind the inane questions...how can a lease company be a Registered Keeper as they neither keep nor use the car?

I'm not sure I understand the legal definition of keeper and Registered Keeper having read further. In fact I'm sure I don't!
Bert

Edited by BertBert on Friday 28th April 19:21

I would suggest the registered keeper is the person or company that administers said vehicle.
Whereas the keeper is the individual currently using and responsible for the vehicle.
They can be one and the same.

[SS2.]

BertBert said:

Thanks, very interesting. Hope you don't mind the inane questions...how can a lease company be a Registered Keeper as they neither keep nor use the car?

I'm not sure I understand the legal definition of keeper and Registered Keeper having read further.

For the purposes of s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988, the 'registered keeper' is the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (ie the name & address on the log book).

There is a distinction between this and the 'person keeping the vehicle', this being the person who has normal custody of the vehicle ie holds the keys, has day-to-day care of it, etc.

In terms of providing driver details, s.172 does indeed place different obligations upon each.

Example, from Mohindra - 'one who keeps the vehicle is presumed to know the information required unless he proves otherwise (section 172(4)). One who is merely a registered keeper is not presumed to have such information and the prosecution must prove that the information is in his power to give'.

[BertBert]

As far as I can see S172 doesn't refer to registered keeper other than giving a definition. Have I missed it?

[jjohnson23]

You really need to find out who this guy was.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39706...
Job done.

[Plug Life]

CasuallyDressed said:

So. After going through my text messages there is a very distinct 3hr gap (6hr journey) between 10am and 1pm, which would imply that I was indeed the driver for the first leg. I have held my hands up and told the other guy and he's chuffed.

End of that then!

Wait a minute, that gap would imply that you were sleeping while the other guy driving then you took the wheel and started texting, no?

[SS2.]

BertBert said:

As far as I can see S172 doesn't refer to registered keeper other than giving a definition. Have I missed it?

Are you perhaps confusing the requirement of s.1 RTOA 1988 to serve a NIP (on the Registered Keeper) with the requirements of s.172 RTA 1988 ?

[Fun Bus]

CasuallyDressed said:

I'm normally good as gold in hire vehicles for this very reason.

I find I'm normally good as gold at keeping a record of when I was driving a shared vehicle for the very reasons you raise.

[nct001]

Had similar thing at work several years ago.

Posted details of driver dvla said too late in providing details so invite me to court for six points fail disclose thingy, I must bring my licence with me and a thousand pound fine... in Bristol Court - that's 100 miles from me.

I thought sod it... I (as co secretary) have no contract with you, I've not entered into any agreement with you.

I didn't go to court ignored everything and a bailiff turned up a month later with a fine of a thousand pounds. Which I thought was jolly good service - no points, no conviction, didn't have to go Bristol or waste day of my time and the bailiff even came to me with a chip and pin card reader. Plus a solicitor would have been more.

Good value.

I think with certain civil matters failure to appear really reduces the powers of magistrate - any solicitors on here please educate me it's interesting stuff.