Someone got caught speeding, might have been me.

[agtlaw]

Alfa numeric said:

... if he really doesn't think it's him and the record keeping is as bad as he says it is, what makes you think that?

I'm not suggesting that he will be convicted. I simply expect that in the near future he should expect a SJPN with two offences charged.

[Alfa numeric]

Ah, understood.

[Durzel]

Single Justice Procedure Notification

(probably whoosh but meh)

[Durzel]

I would've thought that in the absence of a unambiguous nomination the CPS would go after the person the company nominates simply because it's less aggro for them than building a case against a company having insufficient records. Would that be right agtlaw?

[agtlaw]

That's usually what happens. It's not a CPS case. Police prosecution until the trial hearing.

[IJWS15]

I have experience of similar events where company drivers could not recall. In one instance fleet manager was charged with S172 (later dropped but that was 2005 and Scotland)

Where I expect this to go:
- SCP have a nomination from company that was contested
- Company confirm nomination
- SCP procsecute named driver (Why wouldn't they) - the keeper has said he was driving, SCP just don't have the driver's admission.
- Named driver pleads NG
- Magistrate asks named driver in court how he knows it wasn't him
- Named driver says he can't be sure
- Guilty verdict.

It is not that the SCP have no driver nomination at all, if not then there would be a S172 prosecution of the company.

[havoc]

IJWS15 said:

Where I expect this to go:
- SCP have a nomination from company that was contested
- Company confirm nomination
- SCP procsecute named driver (Why wouldn't they) - the keeper has said he was driving, SCP just don't have the driver's admission.
- Named driver pleads NG
- Magistrate asks named driver in court how he knows it wasn't him
- Named driver says he can't be sure
- Guilty verdict.

I agree until the last bullet point.

It isn't up to the OP to prove his innocence (not yet, anyway ), and his barrister will challenge the prosecution as to what evidence they actually have. A signed statement from OP's manager isn't enough, esp. as the next step will be for OP's barrister to produce the original "I'm not sure who it was" e-mail...

Equally likely is the CPS, pre-trial, go to the company and ask for copies of the evidence required. At that point, unless there has been a genuine dig-up of some convincing evidence (or some good fabrication), they may well drop the case against the OP.
A signed statement from a manager is reasonably good evidence, but on its' own probably not enough to convict...and that's before you consider that there's (apparently) an e-mail that sheds a barrel-load of doubt on his statement.

[Durzel]

It seems clear from their obstructive behaviour that the company doesn't actually have the evidence they claim to have, and are bluffing to attempt to make the OP cop to it and therefore let them off the hook of a possible prosecution for poor record keeping.

If they did have evidence - whilst they are not obliged to share it with the OP I can think of no benefit to them withholding it when sharing it would lead to the OP copping to the charge, which is their desired outcome anyway.

[vonhosen]

Durzel said:

It seems clear from their obstructive behaviour that the company doesn't actually have the evidence they claim to have, and are bluffing to attempt to make the OP cop to it and therefore let them off the hook of a possible prosecution for poor record keeping.

If they did have evidence - whilst they are not obliged to share it with the OP I can think of no benefit to them withholding it when sharing it would lead to the OP copping to the charge, which is their desired outcome anyway.

Or they've got the arse with him because of the work they've had to do to provide sufficient evidence & want to be as awkward as possible with him.

[a.lex]

mcg_ said:

agtlaw said:

OP, I’m predicting that you’ll be prosecuted for speeding and failing to identify the driver.

why would he be prosecuted for failing to identify the driver?

I think you'll be prosecuted for failing to read the thread.

If the OP is not the keeper, then he can only be prosecuted for speeding and for failing to "give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver", which is not the same thing. What information did the OP have and not give? Didn't he write a letter to the police, explaining the situation, which then resulted in the company being contacted a second time by the police? The police seemed to have accepted that the OP's information was useful, because they acted on it. And if he is not prosecuted for the s.172, in order to convict him of speeding the police would have to positively identify him as the driver using the company's somewhat impeachable information--which the police are already aware of, albeit possibly not in detail (e.g., the email).

Of course, if there's more to this than has been said, all bets are off.

[agtlaw]

There’s always more to it. Are you new here?

Looking again, I can’t see a basis on which he could be considered to be the keeper (cf. registered keeper) and accordingly the appropriate wording of that charge would be failing to give info, etc. When I say prosecuted, I don’t mean convicted and if the police prosector runs it then I’m anticipating two charges.

[havoc]

vonhosen said:

Or they've got the arse with him because of the work they've had to do to provide sufficient evidence & want to be as awkward as possible with him.

Using root-cause analysis (5Y's, for example), that would still point back at them, and their failure to operate adequate record-keeping processes.

They're only human though, so will be blaming the OP vicariously - for forcing them to acknowledge such a failure and potentially getting them in some bother over it. A version of 'shoot the messenger' (it's far easier than acknowledging you cocked-up)

[vonhosen]

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

Or they've got the arse with him because of the work they've had to do to provide sufficient evidence & want to be as awkward as possible with him.

Using root-cause analysis (5Y's, for example), that would still point back at them, and their failure to operate adequate record-keeping processes.

They're only human though, so will be blaming the OP vicariously - for forcing them to acknowledge such a failure and potentially getting them in some bother over it. A version of 'shoot the messenger' (it's far easier than acknowledging you cocked-up)

Yes their record keeping may have been poor, that may have resulted in them having to do far more work than would have been necessary to identify the driver if their record keeping had been better. Equally the OP's own record keeping could have been better.

The record keeping may have still have been sufficient to satisfy their obligations under 172 (all be it that it would have been a lot easier if their record keeping had been better) & them then taking it out on the OP for making them go jumping all through the hoops to confirm what they had initially suspected all along.

It's all conjecture either way, we'll only know the answers to all this when we see who (if any) are prosecuted & the result of any such prosecutions.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 22 December 18:55

[agtlaw]

Also worth noting that the s.172 requirement is a continuing one.

If OP is prosecuted for a s.172 offence and the prosecuting authority is unable to establish that he is “the person keeping the vehicle” then the burden of proof is on P to establish that the defendant had the power to give more information than was given, or alternatively prove that his asserted lack of knowledge is untrue.

[NickM450]

Right then, what an eventful end to my last shift before the Christmas break up, unfortunately I feel this may be somewhat of an anticlimax, sorry folks.

I finished my route today and without my asking the depot manager called me in to his office along with the HR chap for an informal chat.

I will start this by saying I WAS THE DRIVER, that way if you don't fancy reading the rest the main question has been answered

He started of by being rather apologetic for catching me unaware and was aware that I had a succinct timeline of events and had requested a proper meeting earlier in the week. I won't bore you with the whole conversation but my impression is that the manager that's been dealing with this from the start has had a rather stern dressing down.

Several times during the conversation the DM admitted that the manager in question had dealt with this wrong and not used the correct procedure. He also mentioned two or three times that it was daft for the manager and the company not to show me the evidence in order for this to go away.

Anyway, the evidence is all there, it was down to me and 3 other drivers and I was the I my one who wasn't in a tachograph vehicle or had already finished. How on earth that took several hours to find out I don't know, but I did also get told that a very senior manager, one below the directors was involved and had spoken to the officer who was dealing with the case.

The threat of OTT disciplinary has now gone, all the DM said was that in some circumstances it could be a disciplinary offence but not this time as I'm "a very straight guy"

My personal opinion is that the U-turn is down to them not wanting it to go to court because although it would prove I was the driver it would also expose their poor record keeping, doing it this way has saved them some hassle.

As chance would have it, on my return home there was a letter, another NIP, no option of attending a SAC this time though

Edited by NickM450 on Friday 22 December 21:56

Edited by NickM450 on Friday 22 December 21:57

[agtlaw]

Complete the form. Send it Signed For delivery.

Edit: How long have you been given to reply?

Edited by agtlaw on Friday 22 December 19:33

[Marcellus]

Nick, whilst it might not have been the result you wanted at least now you know it was you driving and can take the points on the chin and move on.

I think you did the right thing, you had every right to question if it were you driving and the Ops Mgr should have shared everything with you, hopefully he did get a dressing down from the DM and HR.

[Gavia]

In a nutshell

You were driving, they did have evidence and you’ve lost the option of the lesser punishment (SAC).

On the positive side there’s no employment issue for you. Whether the other guy has had a kicking or not is yet to be seen and that may or may not make life easier / more difficult for you in time.

[mjb1]

What was the date of the offence?

Does the '6 month rule' apply in this kind of situation?

[havoc]

Thanks for the update.

Unfortunate that you've lost the SAC option due to your boss' approach (did this point get raised with HR / DM? Arguably they 'owe you one' for them not being transparent), but sounds like the rest of the company has been professional, and if this is on record (i.e. your e-mail to HR and their meeting notes from today), then you've a degree of protection if he does suddenly start gunning for you.

Take it on the chin, cough up, move on...maybe get Waze on your phone or something, if you're now on 6pts.