Someone got caught speeding, might have been me.

[NickM450]

I've slept on it again and really have no idea how to handle this situation.

If I was 100% double sure I was NOT the driver then I'd be sending the letter BUT I could have been the driver and that's the crux of the matter.

I honestly do not remember if it was me, the circumstantial evidence from my managers point of view points to me, my own circumstantial evidence says it wasn't. This and any lack of paperwork and the fact that anybody could have been driving makes me also doubt it was me.

However, I do not want to get myself sacked in the process, a bit of bother I can handle but loosing my job would be the end of me.

[havoc]

Solocle said:

So, is the SAC worth the hassle with your boss? If you go through with it, you’ve got a big one over him...

No he hasn't - that'll have been and gone, and if the OP tries to raise it at any point in future he'll just be seen as a troublemaker internally. In fact, I've seen bosses who have resented 'owing one' to their staff and have found ways to get rid of them so the obligation isn't staring them in the face...

AND if he tries to raise it with the authorities he'll be guilty of PTCOJ as he knowingly took the punishment for an offence that someone else committed.

So in pretty much every regard, taking the fall here is a dumb move. Standing up for himself may also cause him problems too (depends on whether the boss is acting here with full corporate consent..), but I suspect the boss is counting on him being a good little sheep and not wanting to stand up...

[SantaBarbara]

NickM450 said:

I've slept on it again and really have no idea how to handle this situation.

If I was 100% double sure I was NOT the driver then I'd be sending the letter BUT I could have been the driver and that's the crux of the matter.

I honestly do not remember if it was me, the circumstantial evidence from my managers point of view points to me, my own circumstantial evidence says it wasn't. This and any lack of paperwork and the fact that anybody could have been driving makes me also doubt it was me.

However, I do not want to get myself sacked in the process, a bit of bother I can handle but loosing my job would be the end of me.

Your company delayed returning the section 173 form for quite a while after they received it, and probably got at least one reminder.

Someone at your company has Signed the form to say you were the driver even though their records are not accurate. The person signing lays themselves open to a substantial fine, one thousand pounds I think it is

[havoc]

NickM450 said:

However, I do not want to get myself sacked in the process, a bit of bother I can handle but loosing my job would be the end of me.

That won't happen.

Please take my advice, raise it with HR, and even (if you're really worried) whistleblow* to Internal Audit** about (a) the lack of any sign-out procedures; and (b) that you're being pressured to take the blame without any documentary evidence.

If you want a non-confrontational first step, go and see your manager again, say you've thought long and hard about it and you're pretty sure it wasn't you, don't see why you should take the blame for it, and will be returning the NIP accordingly. See what he says.
- If he's an ahole about it, then go directly to HR and IA.
- If he's not, then maybe still go to HR discreetly just to put a note on file in case. But leave the IA thing for someone else to raise...you could even offer to help with setting up a sign-out system if that's not a silly thing to say...



* There is clear protection for whistleblowers under law - worth checking further.

** If your firm is too small to have Internal Audit, then let me know whether it's a listed company or private company or not.

[mjb1]

gazza285 said:

mjb1 said:

...but how do you now prove a negative.

He doesn't need to prove the negative, there is no evidence it was the OP was the driver, just dispute the charge and leave it to the registered keeper to prove who was driving.

His employer has made a legal declaration on the S172 form, naming the OP as the driver. They are a witness and that is effectively their testimony.

The OP can't really respond to his by saying "I don't think I was the driver - it could have been me, but it could also have been someone else". The camera partnership will just say "well your employer believes it's you, so we'll take their word over yours". Who's going to believe the potential culprit, over a medium/large company who has no stake in the matter (other than being negligent with their record keeping). OP's only option is to pretty much grass his employer up by stating that they weren't keeping any records, and he doesn't know why they've nominated him over anyone else. Or take it on the chin.

Worst case, OP denies it was him, it goes to court and his employer gets called as a witness. They'd either have to backup their S172 declaration by insisting that OP was the driver (and then have to admit under cross examination that they've no records, and it's just a hunch, maybe they'll say it couldn't realistically have been anyone else), or they'll need to retract their S172 and say they made a mistake, and they don't know for sure who the driver is.

Nick, you drive for a living. Presume you have a clean licence at present, but you don't know what might happen next week (and it really is you driving). Do you want to waste one of your 'lives' by taking the rap for something that could well have not been you? On the other hand, we don't know what the employer's circumstantial evidence is, they are saying they're 99% sure it was the OP, and if they're really that sure then naming him is probably the right thing to do (doesn't excuse their lack of record keeping though). OP seems to think there is at the very least reasonable doubt, so the interpretation of the circumstantial evidence presumably leaves a fair amount of wiggle room.

[drdel]

Unfortunately, IF your manager is in the business of being fast and loose with record keeping there's every chance that if you go to Court and they are called as witnesses he may suddenly discover/invent the information necessary to cover his own back - it could then cause you a big issue if the court thinks you lied.

Its a nasty and tricky situation when management stick the knife in because of their own incompetence and because you are not certain that you were not driving, its even worse.

If you want to keep your job it might be best to take the rap if it does not risk your driving record internally or I'd be asking HR, in confidence, what you should do in order to get it on record before any court activities take place.

[mmm-five]

How about speaking to your boss, and say...whilst not accepting it was you driving...that you are willing to take the SAC on the company's behalf if they pay for the SAC and give you the (paid) time off to attend?

Does your company have any negative 'rules' about attending an SAC affecting their ability to continue to drive for the company?

[Chester draws]

Sadly, much as I'd like to see the company wear this one... I don't think that's a guaranteed outcome.

You can't say with any certainty that it wasn't you, you don't have the 'required' records to say it conclusively wasn't you. Added to that the fact that you seem to want a quiet life and to not jeopardise your employment there, (understandable), the SAC seems the obvious route out.

As above, if they will pay for it, and for you to go on it, as an acknowledgement that they should have the records to 100% pin on the guilty driver, that would seem the best result to me.

In order to get that agreed to could need some delicate negotiation though, as you might need to press your "alternative options" if they sit back and say.. nope, it was you and you're paying and taking a days holiday too.

I don't think that would be the right outcome, but it could well be the "best".

[NickM450]

Spoken to the resident union chap at work, no help. He says I can't come to the union with a problem, should have joined before hand.

Company isn't bothered if I have an SAC or points for that matter, I already have 3.

Union guy did say though that if it was him he'd be denying it and as there is no proof it's up to them to show evidence, he also doesn't think they would make something up.

Letter is typed and in an envelope, I hate being indecisive

[spikyone]

NickM450 said:

The vehicle is in the middle lane of a motorway with no traffic on the inside lane, I do not drive in this manor, ever.
I know this section of road very well and am very aware of the changing speed limits and always adhere to them.

I wouldn't bother with these two points. They don't help you - they're not factual, unless "manor" is not a typo , so they are not really evidence. For all you know, there could have been two slower-moving cars in the lane to the left just out of shot ahead and behind the van, which would make it reasonable to be in that lane. Or maybe the Ford had only just moved into the left-most lane. And we've all made mistakes and not noticed a change in speed limit, however careful we might normally be.

It is definitely worth pointing out that it would be very difficult to get from the location, back to your office, and clock out within the 30 minute time frame, as that would cast some doubt on it being you. Providing a time-line and evidence of the distance to your depot will support this, perhaps with a screenshot of the travel time according to Google maps (you can do this form a non-postcode location).

[ashleyman]

Do you have either in writing or recorded the company saying it's most likely you.

If not, they could change their story to it was definitely you and they make up evidence.

[NickM450]

I have a development, after the above comment I decided to email my manager so that I would have something in writing. I simply asked if any further evidence has come to light and what the delay in receiving the NoIP was, this is the reply:

"The delay was not down to us, we just received it a few days before I spoke to you. The evidence that I have is that after looking at what everyone else did that day there is nobody else that had the "other work" to match the timing and location of the speeding fine. You are the only person that it could have been through a process of elimination. I had a further search after I spoke to you just to satisfy myself it couldn't have been anyone else and am now of the opinion it was definitely you. I had already excluded the agency and warehouse possibilities so then tracked evry driver through Smartanalysis and nearly every driver bar a handful could be eliminated either through their finish time for the day or the fact they were driving a tacho vehicle.

Without a tacho on this type of vehicle or with the lack of any cctv footage it's never 100% but I think if you are honest with yourself you will accept it was you and won't try to wriggle out on a technicality!! I'm happy it's beyond any reasonable doubt."


So there we have it, I'm simply trying to wriggle out of it and it is definitely me, even though he says that there were a handful of drivers that it could have been.

Edited by NickM450 on Tuesday 3rd October 13:58

[TooMany2cvs]

NickM450 said:

"Without a tacho on this type of vehicle or with the lack of any cctv footage it's never 100%"

It could be a lot closer if only they had half-way decent basic internal procedures...

[Olivergt]

if, as your manager says, there are a handful of drivers that it could be, and you honestly don't know, then I think that is what you have to say.

My understanding of the law (as a layperson) is that they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was you, and in this case it can't be done. You are not trying to wriggle out of anything, you simply don't know if it was you and there are a handful of other people that it could be.

I would send the letter and let the dice fall where they fall. You are already on 3 points on your licence, this will push you up to 6?, this may have an impact on your own personal insurance (I know in Ireland it would).

I know that this is not in the same league, but it highlights what happens if it's not clear who did it:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/two-freed-mur...

[Jonno02]

Manager sounds like a typical middle management wker.

It doesn't matter if that satisfies his own definition of beyond a reasonable doubt, the law doesn't care what your manager thinks. Contest this.

[havoc]

NickM450 said:

The evidence that I have is that after looking at what everyone else did that day there is nobody else that had the "other work" to match the timing and location of the speeding fine. You are the only person that it could have been through a process of elimination. I had a further search after I spoke to you just to satisfy myself it couldn't have been anyone else and am now of the opinion it was definitely you. I had already excluded the agency and warehouse possibilities so then tracked evry driver through Smartanalysis and nearly every driver bar a handful could be eliminated either through their finish time for the day or the fact they were driving a tacho vehicle.

Without a tacho on this type of vehicle or with the lack of any cctv footage it's never 100% but I think if you are honest with yourself you will accept it was you and won't try to wriggle out on a technicality!! I'm happy it's beyond any reasonable doubt."

Your problem, if it goes to court, is that the statement above MAY be taken by the court as reasonable evidence / diligence.

You'll possibly need to provide evidence to the contrary.

SO - given your manager is asking you to confess to a crime, you're quite within your rights to ask for a copy* of that evidence, and then to scrutinise it yourself (but don't tell him that)...it is entirely possible that the above statement is hogwash, but you could do with KNOWING it's hogwash before you make your decision.


I'd also remind you of two points:-
1) "Beyond reasonable doubt" applies to Magistrates Courts...your manager can't convict you.
2) You were convinced when you saw the photo that it wasn't you...I'm surprised you're still considering rolling over.


* Keep it, provide it to the court, ideally after his testimony so he can't change/twist anything...

[xxxyyyzzz]

There will be a space on the s172 request for information about who was driving to say “I was not the driver on this occasion”. Then you need to provide the information you have that may lead to the identification of the driver, write what that is.
Job done.

[martinbiz]

havoc said:

Your problem, if it goes to court, is that the statement above MAY be taken by the court as reasonable evidence / diligence.

You'll possibly need to provide evidence to the contrary.

SO - given your manager is asking you to confess to a crime, you're quite within your rights to ask for a copy* of that evidence, and then to scrutinise it yourself (but don't tell him that)...it is entirely possible that the above statement is hogwash, but you could do with KNOWING it's hogwash before you make your decision.


I'd also remind you of two points:-
1) "Beyond reasonable doubt" applies to Magistrates Courts...your manager can't convict you.
2) You were convinced when you saw the photo that it wasn't you...I'm surprised you're still considering rolling over.


* Keep it, provide it to the court, ideally after his testimony so he can't change/twist anything...

The requirements to show reasonable diligence differ quite condiderably when concerning a company and not a private individual.

A court will expect a company to keep records at all times to show who was driving a 'pool' vehicle at a particular time on a particular date, if they cannot do this they lay themselves open to prosecution for failing to identify the driver, their best guess by eliminating the majority by a process of deduction is not sufficent to abrogate their responsibility.

The penalty is a large fine for the company (usually around £1000 but obviously no points as a corporate body does not have a driving licence. Company officers or directors would not be held to account personally unless it could be proved, which is highly unlikely, that they deliberately conspired or conived to give false information.

In the OP's case I would write as suggested in an earlier post and plant this firmly back in his employers lap.

[xxxyyyzzz]

martinbiz said:

The requirements to show reasonable diligence differ quite condiderably when concerning a company and not a private individual.

A court will expect a company to keep records at all times to show who was driving a 'pool' vehicle at a particular time on a particular date, if they cannot do this they lay themselves open to prosecution for failing to identify the driver, their best guess by eliminating the majority by a process of deduction is not sufficent to abrogate their responsibility.

The penalty is a large fine for the company (usually around £1000 but obviously no points as a corporate body does not have a driving licence. Company officers or directors would not be held to account personally unless it could be proved, which is highly unlikely, that they deliberately conspired or conived to give false information.

In the OP's case I would write as suggested in an earlier post and plant this firmly back in his employers lap.

The police can of course send an S172 request directly to the officers of the company...6 points all round I fear.

[martinbiz]

xxxyyyzzz said:

The police can of course send an S172 request directly to the officers of the company...6 points all round I fear.

No they can't, read my post, as a corporate entity only the company as a body can be prosecuted, the directors are employees just like anyone else who works there.