Discussion
A close friend of mines business recieved a NIP yesterday for 33 in a 30 mph. (Usual place - wide road, little traffic at that time of the day etc.)
His business is a long established family run motor dealers and the car is registered to the garage.
Everyone uses the car, but because its a family garage, no log is ever kept.
He can't remember who was driving the car on that day, so is his only 'get out' the Hamilton defence?
His business is a long established family run motor dealers and the car is registered to the garage.
Everyone uses the car, but because its a family garage, no log is ever kept.
He can't remember who was driving the car on that day, so is his only 'get out' the Hamilton defence?
andygo said:
A close friend of mines business recieved a NIP yesterday for 33 in a 30 mph. (Usual place - wide road, little traffic at that time of the day etc.)
His business is a long established family run motor dealers and the car is registered to the garage.
Everyone uses the car, but because its a family garage, no log is ever kept.
He can't remember who was driving the car on that day, so is his only 'get out' the Hamilton defence?
He will have to reply to the Section 172 stating he cannot name the driver.
He will then be summonsed for failing to disclose the information.
He will have to attend court and convince the magistrates that he does not know who was using it.
He will have to hope they believe him
andygo said:
Sorry to be dim, but whats an 'incorporated body'?
If Joe Bloggs the garage man is sole trader and registers car in his personal name of Joe Bloggs - then he is RK and individual - like you and me!
If Joe Bloggs and family have made garage into legal entity in own right - registered it as firm and thus made "Joe Bloggs & Sons - Family Motoring Engineers" - it becomes separate entity from Joe Bloggs the person - and thus NIP goes to corporate body to name driver and not individual person.
Joe Bloggs pays PAYE in normal way - and the business pays corporation tax on profits it earns.
......and if 172 proceedings are taken against body corporate or unincorporated association then in addition to showing that he did not know and could not without reasonable diligence have ascertained who driver was then in addition show no records kept of persons who drove the vehicles and that the failure to keep such records was reasonable.
Stand to be corrected on this J.A. - but if IRC the Hamilton case was from a decision made at Mags Court only when their plea on due diligence was accepted and case thrown out. Whilst it may be cited it does not have the cast iron authority of a preceedent from a High Court, i.e. R v Hamilton ???? It is not therefore fireproof. Please put me right.
Re Joe Bloggs and Son (Partnership). In my day if we came across offences committed in relation to the use of their vehicles then not only was the driver reported but also ALL members of the Partnership. For Limited Co's then it was only the Company Sec. The former could get points the later no.
DVD
Stand to be corrected on this J.A. - but if IRC the Hamilton case was from a decision made at Mags Court only when their plea on due diligence was accepted and case thrown out. Whilst it may be cited it does not have the cast iron authority of a preceedent from a High Court, i.e. R v Hamilton ???? It is not therefore fireproof. Please put me right.
Re Joe Bloggs and Son (Partnership). In my day if we came across offences committed in relation to the use of their vehicles then not only was the driver reported but also ALL members of the Partnership. For Limited Co's then it was only the Company Sec. The former could get points the later no.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
Stand to be corrected on this J.A. - but if IRC the Hamilton case was from a decision made at Mags Court only when their plea on due diligence was accepted and case thrown out. Whilst it may be cited it does not have the cast iron authority of a preceedent from a High Court, i.e. R v Hamilton ???? It is not therefore fireproof. Please put me right.
You are most certainly correct, DVD.
Indeed, there was considerable comment in the press at the time from those associated with motoring law about the apparent ease with which they got off.
It is not possible to tell for sure from the press reports, however, it appears that they did not show any diligence at all. All they did was say that they didn't know who it was, and that neming the wrong person would be a more serious offence; also both were supposedly in the car at the time. This appears to be backed up by quotes attributed to the chief magistrate who said that he / she saw no reason to disbelieve them (that they didn't know). None of the quotes I saw made any reference to diligence.
The inescapable conclusion is that that verdict owed more to the political allegiance of the magistrates or their membership of the local political party.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff