Got NIP and I was not driving!

[rjben]

Help!

Unfortunately I know who was driving my car but I can't get in touch with him. It all sounds a bit dodgy but it was a friend of a work mate from South Africa who was visiting and we decided to go to Wales (long story) for a night out. I have an S.A. address for the individual but it is out of date, my work mate found this out when he tried to get some money he was owed back!

What do I do?

a) Take it on the chin and say I was driving OR
b) Knowingly give the police the false address and say I can’t get in touch!

I have a bad feeling about this and almost think it will be easier to settle for the points and fine……

Cheers,

Rob

[plotloss]

Give the drivers name and address as far as you know it. As long as this South African fella was insured to drive your car then you have done exactly what the NIP has asked 'Supplied the driver details'. Its up to them to find the geezer if they are going to bother at all, remember that a lot of speed fines are speculative and any resistance means a lot of times they will give up.

HTH

Matt.

[rjben]

Hmmmm - Insurance.

Me and the girlfriend and the only people who are insured to drive. If he said he was insured can this come back on me?

[plotloss]

DISCLAIMER - I am no lawyer, I dont even like 'em!

Insurance is usually the sticking point, however, if he did tell you (by deception or otherwise) that he was insured then I am not sure of the comeback. Logical thought dictates that you caused no offence here, you werent driving and to the best of your knowledge you assumed he had insurance. The only comeback I can see is that you perhaps should have taken all reasonable steps to prove his insurance/suitability for driving before allowing him to drive.

Not sure on the whole, but there are a few of the boys in blue who frequent this forum so maybe they will shed some light regarding the law in this sort of case.

Matt.

[john robson]

To be honest the number of drivers using this type of 'excuse' has shot up recently. No that I am sugesting that your 'excuse' is false, but if you cannot prove that this person is insured the fine/points for 'permit- no insurance' are far greater than the ones for speeding. The thing is if he is insured in SA it is very unlikely that this will cover his use of a car in the UK.

[rjben]

Thanks John,

As I said, it all sounds a bit dodgy and it will be easier to take the points than to go through all the hassle!

Do you mean that it is the registered keeper's responsibility to ensure that a driver is insured before they drive? If so, then I think it's a case of lesson learnt and say no more! But surley if a driver tells you he is insured, it becomes his reponsibility?

Thanks for your help,

Rob

[outlaw]

quote:
To be honest the number of drivers using this type of 'excuse' has shot up recently. No that I am sugesting that your 'excuse' is false, but if you cannot prove that this person is insured the fine/points for 'permit- no insurance' are far greater than the ones for speeding. The thing is if he is insured in SA it is very unlikely that this will cover his use of a car in the UK.

you would have to prov that he did not have any prity hard if you cant prove the speeding charge

me do think they going to fly him in for the trail
for that silly crap do you :-)
and no he wont have to prove his m8 had insharance the cout will have to prove he did not
and thats nort very likey now is

so why did you not tell the poster of this thred that ??

tip for anyone shit will often get droped if it cost em to much

[outlaw]

quote:
Thanks John,

As I said, it all sounds a bit dodgy and it will be easier to take the points than to go through all the hassle!

Do you mean that it is the registered keeper's responsibility to ensure that a driver is insured before they drive? If so, then I think it's a case of lesson learnt and say no more! But surley if a driver tells you he is insured, it becomes his reponsibility?

Thanks for your help,

Rob

i would not pay it m8 i would givem the guys addres
and they will ushally drop it.

as there not a lot they can do
get you m8 to write a letter saying he was driving and send that two.

and not tell them wweather he was inshawed or not
it there problem to prove if he was or not

ushally when they know the aint got a chace in court the will then send a fpn to see i you pay it
even if they know they will lose in court.

hapens all the time m8

[nonegreen]

I would go with outlaw on this one. There is no such offense as being a passenger in an uninsured car. If you and your girlfriend know for sure the other guy was driving then supply the details as best you can and leave it to plod to sort it all out. The fact that you are the registered keeper is irrelavent. No one can prosecute you for no insurance as you can prove you are insured. Sometimes you have to just do it.

[rjben]

Thanks Gents,

I think I'm going to take some legal advice on this to make sure that I'm not responsible for insurance when somebody else is driving.

I've got some extra time now as I've requested a copy of the photos to see if they help identify the driver.

Cheers,

Rob

[outlaw]

quote:
I would go with outlaw on this one. There is no such offense as being a passenger in an uninsured car. If you and your girlfriend know for sure the other guy was driving then supply the details as best you can and leave it to plod to sort it all out. The fact that you are the registered keeper is irrelavent. No one can prosecute you for no insurance as you can prove you are insured. Sometimes you have to just do it.

hi m8,there is a charge of permiting some one to drive with out it m8

but its not used very often as it dam hard to prov you did not know they had none.

like aiding and abeting charges and reciving stolen good s

its bloody hard for em to prove you knew.

they get away with more on motoring charges as most peeps who get charged with some thing have never had much dealing with the law or ever been in a court and don know when to keep there mouth shut

and are intimidated by the police when inteviewed.

and some still belive the police ary there to serv them
till they relise that there are there to keep the public in line and in fear

mush as the church did befor there come up with the idea of the law.

just because something is a law it dont make it right
or just

[john robson]

Insurance is an absolute offence, ie it's up to you to prove it not us to dis-prove it, hence no need to 'fly' the witness in. Only today we were discussing an new answer phone system along the lines of Press 1 if your mate from spain was driving, 2 if your mother (usually over 70) was driving, 3 if you have never been to the area 4 if your plares were nicked etc. Sorry for being a bit cynical but it is getting a bit daft at the moment for the GATSO lads in our unit

[hertsbiker]

Too bad John. They shouldn't put the things in stupid places, eh? your lot have a job to do, and if that job involves discussing legal points with irrate flashee's, then so be it. The Police get a lot of respect from us all, but traffic law sucks right now.

rgds.

[john robson]

Quite agree there are too many Gatso's even they agree with that, worse still some forces are setting them at quite low limits ie 36mph, but that bit is out of our hands

[rjben]

John,

The following site:

www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm

quote:
In 2001, Head of Middlesbrough CID, Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts, appealed against a fixed penalty notice that he had received for allegdedly doing 35 in a 30 zone. Detective Superintendent Roberts, 36, was filmed driving at 35mph in a 30mph zone and a fixed penalty notice was sent to his home. He took the notice to the head of the force's administration of justice department and told him he couldn't remember if he'd been driving at the time. Superintendent Graham Cummings decided to scrap the ticket after ruling the photographic evidence was inconclusive, The Times reports. As the Police are not above the law - you should be treated in the same manner. So if you cant recall who was driving and the photographs dont show the driver then a letter should get it dropped as above. If it does not then another letter detailing the case of Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts and requesting why his was dropped and yours was not, should bring about a result.

quote:
RE the quote : I'm not even sure if it's accurate, maybe you can throw some light on it?

If I were to say that I could not remmember who was driving, would I get treated in the same way? I'm not being sarcarstic here (honestly), I would be very interested to know what the circumstances where and why they would be different for me?

Would this set a president for the general treatment of other individuals? What would a court think of this?

Regards,

Rob


>> Edited by rjben on Tuesday 14th May 20:40

[rjben]

John,

Another question. The method of detection in question was a bloody big white van with DVLA sign painted on the side. I assume they had some kind of laser and associated video equipment.

Are you aware of this method? Would it have to have valid calibration certificates etc? Can I request these before filling out the the various related NIP forms?

Thanks and Regards,

Rob

[outlaw]

quote:
Insurance is an absolute offence, ie it's up to you to prove it not us to dis-prove it, hence no need to 'fly' the witness in. Only today we were discussing an new answer phone system along the lines of Press 1 if your mate from spain was driving, 2 if your mother (usually over 70) was driving, 3 if you have never been to the area 4 if your plares were nicked etc. Sorry for being a bit cynical but it is getting a bit daft at the moment for the GATSO lads in our unit

your quite right about not having Insurance being an absolute offence for the driver.

allowing some one to drive without Insurance
is not.

[john robson]

Re the DVLA van, I am not aware of it but the DVLA and customs & excise do have devices for other purposes ie tax disc recognition, we also have a van which does No plate recognition and is linked to the PNC this can be set to flag up stolen/wanted vehicles. As for requesting calibration certs before filling in the NIP, the correct way is to fill in the NIP then either ask or go 'not guilty' they are not sent out as a matter of course. Certainly in our office they are always up to date, I am sure you will hear of stories telling you otherwise butif it were me I would forget going down that route, it is only putting of the inevitable.

[rjben]

Thanks John,

Does this mean that I have no right to the certs unless I plead not guilty? In other words I cannot get them before I sign my life away?

Regards,

Rob

[john robson]

Basically yes the NIP and rest of the procedure is there to find out who was driving and committing the offence, it was either you or it wasn't, you can't really say I'll admitt it if you prove all the stuff is working first. If you want to challenge the acuracy and validity of the equipment and certificates then you plead 'not guilty'. We will then go to court and have to prove it is correct.