Foreign driver speeding advice..
Discussion
Can anyone shed any light as to the validity of the letter I got from the Police….
Got an NIP off the back of a speed camera – the vehicle is registered to my company and I filled in the relevant driver details as best I could.
The driver was from an EU country.
Today I get the following letter.
“In reference to your recent….The onus is on the owner/keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alledged offence to indentify the driver. Our requirement is to identify the vehicle from the registration number. Although photographic evidence is available it is not always possible to indentify a driver.
As you have identified the driver as being a person from abroad we will require proof of travel documentation and proof that the person was insured to drive the vehicle whilst in this country. The penalty for allowing a person to drive a vehicle without 3rd party insurance is a maximum of £5000 an obligatory 6 to 8 points and a discretionary disqualification. Furthermore we require you to provide some verification by contacting the driver seeking their written confirmation and acceptence of liability. Failure to comply with this information may result in other offences.”
This is an outrage. I am a MD of a Ltd company – I gave them information to the best of my knowledge on the NIP. Surely I am not required to keep travel information on visitors to this country?
Then if by their own admission it is not always possible to indentify a driver why should anyone else either UK based or not give absolute written acceptance of liability?
Can anyone give any light to the legal position?
Got an NIP off the back of a speed camera – the vehicle is registered to my company and I filled in the relevant driver details as best I could.
The driver was from an EU country.
Today I get the following letter.
“In reference to your recent….The onus is on the owner/keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alledged offence to indentify the driver. Our requirement is to identify the vehicle from the registration number. Although photographic evidence is available it is not always possible to indentify a driver.
As you have identified the driver as being a person from abroad we will require proof of travel documentation and proof that the person was insured to drive the vehicle whilst in this country. The penalty for allowing a person to drive a vehicle without 3rd party insurance is a maximum of £5000 an obligatory 6 to 8 points and a discretionary disqualification. Furthermore we require you to provide some verification by contacting the driver seeking their written confirmation and acceptence of liability. Failure to comply with this information may result in other offences.”
This is an outrage. I am a MD of a Ltd company – I gave them information to the best of my knowledge on the NIP. Surely I am not required to keep travel information on visitors to this country?
Then if by their own admission it is not always possible to indentify a driver why should anyone else either UK based or not give absolute written acceptance of liability?
Can anyone give any light to the legal position?
You discharge your legal obligation by naming the driver and his address. It is their obligation to contact the driver - in my experience they never bother.
The threat about insurance is another speed-nazi frightener tactic - if you assured yourself that they had insurance to drive the car again you have discharged your obligation. If they seriously believe that an insurance offence has been committed then its their problem to gather the evidence starting by by them contacting the driver.
I would advise them that ( provided you have given them name and home address ) you have discharged your obligations under S172 ...end of story.
The threat about insurance is another speed-nazi frightener tactic - if you assured yourself that they had insurance to drive the car again you have discharged your obligation. If they seriously believe that an insurance offence has been committed then its their problem to gather the evidence starting by by them contacting the driver.
I would advise them that ( provided you have given them name and home address ) you have discharged your obligations under S172 ...end of story.
Hi Richard - Thanks for the advice.
I did phone the Warwickshire camera "team" who issued the letter and the PC I spoke to said that under S172 of Road traffic I was the one who had to provide evidence of all of this and that if I failed to then the matter would be taken to court and the magistrates - who lets face it are the Police under a different name - would decide.
Do you - or anyone else - know of any legal precidence over this kind of thing?
I mean re: insurance you just ask - do you have 3rd party insurance and take their word. I've never thought I was breaking the law by not seeing documentation.
I did phone the Warwickshire camera "team" who issued the letter and the PC I spoke to said that under S172 of Road traffic I was the one who had to provide evidence of all of this and that if I failed to then the matter would be taken to court and the magistrates - who lets face it are the Police under a different name - would decide.
Do you - or anyone else - know of any legal precidence over this kind of thing?
I mean re: insurance you just ask - do you have 3rd party insurance and take their word. I've never thought I was breaking the law by not seeing documentation.
I would write back (recorded delivery, keeping a copy) that you have supplied the driver information as required under s172. Then write something like - 'if I am required to provide further evidence please quote the relevant section from the RTA so that I can see exactly what I must provide'.
Your obligation is to name the driver, not prove it was that person, that is their job. As far as h insurance goes does the company car insurance cover any driver? if so you are home free.
Your obligation is to name the driver, not prove it was that person, that is their job. As far as h insurance goes does the company car insurance cover any driver? if so you are home free.
No the insurance thing is a sore point with me to be honest.
The car is provided to an employee of mine. On this particular day he was tasked with picking up a partner from the airport and coming to the office.
He tells me that he needed to make some calls and asked our foriegn partner to drive - which she did, etc, etc.
Now if I am honest I have no idea if they really had insurance or not but then in this situation I'm caught between a rock and a hard place.
All I am saying is that she might have been the driver and that to me means unless they can prove absolutely she was driving then the insurance is irrelvant (one would think) and then I would think that the non-insurance was her problem not mine???
The car is provided to an employee of mine. On this particular day he was tasked with picking up a partner from the airport and coming to the office.
He tells me that he needed to make some calls and asked our foriegn partner to drive - which she did, etc, etc.
Now if I am honest I have no idea if they really had insurance or not but then in this situation I'm caught between a rock and a hard place.
All I am saying is that she might have been the driver and that to me means unless they can prove absolutely she was driving then the insurance is irrelvant (one would think) and then I would think that the non-insurance was her problem not mine???
In this case we have a driver identified by owner/RC. BiB does have evidence of an offence committed by said driver i.e. speeding but not what the documentation of the driver is i.e. Insurance.
Turning to Section 165 RTA 88 this gives the power to BiB to ask:
a) the driver of a motor vehicle,or
b) Person reasonably believed to have been the driver at time of accident, or
c) Person who constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed AN OFFENCE ( so includes Insurance offence) in relation to the use of a vehicle on a road,
to produce Insurance for inspection. Failure to do so an offence.
AND
Section 171 RTA 88 goes on to state that for the purposes of determining whether a vehicle being driven with/without Insurance under circumstances of 165 above, THE OWNER of a vehicle must give such information as he may be required by or on behalf of COP. Failure to do so an offence attracting &5000 fine (no points/disq).
So if BiB can make a case out under S.165 (c)and convince the Magistrates that there is reasonable cause to believe no Insurance offence has been committed in relation to the incident. Allowing a friend of friend to drive in my book is a bit suss. It would seem they are entitled to send the letter asking for Insurance details only. The other pieces may well be a filler to stiffen the reasonable cause.
Now if no Insurance details are given then I submit it will be open for them to charge owner with using/permitting use without Insurance, and alternatively offence under S 171 in case the actual driver arrives at Court and produces cover for that incident.
Not entirely toothless in this as some would think.
As Mr Day states can all be brought to an end by advising them of Company Insurance covering all drivers. Why do I get the impression that this will not be the case where the friend of friend is involved?
DVD
Turning to Section 165 RTA 88 this gives the power to BiB to ask:
a) the driver of a motor vehicle,or
b) Person reasonably believed to have been the driver at time of accident, or
c) Person who constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed AN OFFENCE ( so includes Insurance offence) in relation to the use of a vehicle on a road,
to produce Insurance for inspection. Failure to do so an offence.
AND
Section 171 RTA 88 goes on to state that for the purposes of determining whether a vehicle being driven with/without Insurance under circumstances of 165 above, THE OWNER of a vehicle must give such information as he may be required by or on behalf of COP. Failure to do so an offence attracting &5000 fine (no points/disq).
So if BiB can make a case out under S.165 (c)and convince the Magistrates that there is reasonable cause to believe no Insurance offence has been committed in relation to the incident. Allowing a friend of friend to drive in my book is a bit suss. It would seem they are entitled to send the letter asking for Insurance details only. The other pieces may well be a filler to stiffen the reasonable cause.
Now if no Insurance details are given then I submit it will be open for them to charge owner with using/permitting use without Insurance, and alternatively offence under S 171 in case the actual driver arrives at Court and produces cover for that incident.
Not entirely toothless in this as some would think.
As Mr Day states can all be brought to an end by advising them of Company Insurance covering all drivers. Why do I get the impression that this will not be the case where the friend of friend is involved?
DVD
Yeah this is all well and good but back in the real world...
Firstly the company car has named drivers - the foreign driver is obviously not one of them.
But the documentation of the foreign drivers insurance is held by the foreign driver - not by me. Now if the Police want to make a case out of non-insurance then speak to the foreign driver - not with me.
This is totally rediculous - I mean how many times does a car or van get driven by a 3rd party and you keep documentation relating to their insurance details?
In the real world you just ask "Do you have insurance" they reply and thats the end of it.
Or is it just me?
Firstly the company car has named drivers - the foreign driver is obviously not one of them.
But the documentation of the foreign drivers insurance is held by the foreign driver - not by me. Now if the Police want to make a case out of non-insurance then speak to the foreign driver - not with me.
This is totally rediculous - I mean how many times does a car or van get driven by a 3rd party and you keep documentation relating to their insurance details?
In the real world you just ask "Do you have insurance" they reply and thats the end of it.
Or is it just me?
P290 KVP said:
Firstly the company car has named drivers - the foreign driver is obviously not one of them.
I take this to mean that the insurance policy has named drivers as opposed to the vehicle. Or do you really mean vehicle?
What does the insurance certificate provided to the allocated employee actually say in the section
"Persons or classes of People Entitled to Drive"?
To clarify the angle I'm coming from perhaps I should explain our situation, which may / may not be relevant.
Our company policy, the Certificates of Insurance supplied to all drivers states
"Persons or classes of People Entitled to Drive"
Any person on the order or with Permission of the Policyholder.
Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence"
In the past there were ... er ... situations about authorised drivers, with one management interpretation being, "well you, the employee the vehicle is allocated to, is interpreted as "the Company" if you give permission to 3rd party to drive"
It doesn't need me to explain the chaos this resulted in, so on top of what it says on the Insurance Cert, we apply a further Company policy.
(edited to add the following para for clarification)
The allocated employee can still give permission but is subject to an internal Company rule limiting to whom they may give permission, eg spouse, any other Company employee providing they check the licence is valid for class of vehicle.
(/edit)
If the thread author wants to know the details of that then he can mail me off site and can be discussed. Might help you to sort out the situation for the future.
Slight aside, Currently wondering and being totally brutal, why didn't you just name the allocated employee and then the ball is in his court?
Realise this is rather an uncaring attitude but.....
The main point I'm trying to make is that, taking the information provided so far on face value, both you, employee and the foreign individual need to slow down (no pun intended honest!
) take a good objective look at ALL the information available to you and act accordingly. There isn't enough information available yet to form an opinion in my view. FiF
PS DVD:- good post based on the available info though, but you knew that anyway didn't you.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 29th July 13:06
I believe that it is sufficient defence to state that one accepted a verbal assurance from the foreign driver at the time that her insurance covered her for driving the car.
That statement from yourself should be accepted in defence if CPS decide to bring a charge under S165. Somewhere on this forum is case law stated that supports this. If you show a copy of a letter to the foreign driver requesting that she send you a copy of such insurance that should be OK. Even better that she does so as CPS are unlikely to be competent to read an insurance cert in some foreign language. They can barely manage to do so in English.
That statement from yourself should be accepted in defence if CPS decide to bring a charge under S165. Somewhere on this forum is case law stated that supports this. If you show a copy of a letter to the foreign driver requesting that she send you a copy of such insurance that should be OK. Even better that she does so as CPS are unlikely to be competent to read an insurance cert in some foreign language. They can barely manage to do so in English.
leosayer said:
AFAIK It is up to the driver of the car to ensure they have insurance, otherwise they are breaking the law. Not you!
Bearing in mind Leo that No Insurance is an offence of strict liability then if I come to you, not being the holder of any Insurance and you kindly lend me your motor (your Insurance doesn't cover me) and I am stopped, if you think your not going to get the chop then sorry think again. The only way you can escape is by either ensuring you see Insurance held by the driver covering or that there is a strict undertaking from the driver that he will not use the vehicle until Insurance has been effected. Mere words "sokay might, hive hinsurance" will not suffice - quiet rightly so.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
AFAIK It is up to the driver of the car to ensure they have insurance, otherwise they are breaking the law. Not you!
Bearing in mind Leo that No Insurance is an offence of strict liability then if I come to you, not being the holder of any Insurance and you kindly lend me your motor (your Insurance doesn't cover me) and I am stopped, if you think your not going to get the chop then sorry think again. The only way you can escape is by either ensuring you see Insurance held by the driver covering or that there is a strict undertaking from the driver that he will not use the vehicle until Insurance has been effected. Mere words "sokay might, hive hinsurance" will not suffice - quiet rightly so.
DVD
DVD - I am thinking again now! So the onus is on the owner / keeper to ensure that anyone who drives the car is insured. Although this might be hard to do if a named driver on your policy lends your car to an uninsured third party without your knowledge.
This is a very important point wrt test drives when selling your car as well.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Insurance.
Turning to Section 165 RTA 88 this gives the power to BiB to ask:
Which if I read the posts right was not the poster as he was not the driver
Dwight VanDriver said:
AND
Section 171 RTA 88 goes on to state that for the purposes of determining whether a vehicle being driven with/without Insurance under circumstances of 165 above, THE OWNER of a vehicle must give such information as he may be required by or on behalf of COP. Failure to do so an offence attracting &5000 fine (no points/disq).
Was there not a recent case in which a difference was made between the RK and the owner. It would be the employee who was allocated the vehicle who would be deemed to be the owner.
Demanding money with menance - If they think they have a case let them take it to court. There doesn't appear to be a timelimit to S171 so if they do then you can decide how much effort is involved to determine the insurance.
P290 KVP said:
I am since spoken to my lawyer and this insurance point is a problem for me - however given I've given name & address of driver one wonders why they (the Police) are not very keen to pursue the one actually commiting the original offence.
Government policy generally (tax, fines for all sorts of "misdemeanour" etc) are based on ability to catch.
i.e. those easier to catch will be the ones pursued!
....this Insurance is a problem for me......
So I take it P290KVP that the Insurance for the vehicle does not cover the driving by "the partner". ?
Firstly let me make a comment. Like them or hate them then SC's have a job to do and like you will try and do it, within the law, to the best of their ability. Legislators in their wisdom, came up with law to cover the use of SC's . I am not going to comment on them being good or bad . The fact is they are there. In doing so they were aware of certain problems that would arise, i.e identifying driver etc. To cater for the innocent they included certain defences so that the innocent are not punished. Such is one at 172(4) RTA 88 - did not know or without reasonable diligence could not ascertain who the driver was. But like many aspects of life, enter the abuser who falsely enters the name of a driver who is unaccessible to the law i.e. Johnny Foreigner, in an attempt to defeat the system. In doing so they foul the right of the innocent and make the defence questionable.By doing so, some will argue that the law has been complied with. What this means is that every SC NOIP sent out can be returned with false details and the matter ends. Whilst I have no actual in house knowledge of the workings of a SC Department, life experiences in the same field, tells me that they will be inundated with attempts to defeat the system. Not surprising therefore, in an attempt to sort the wheat from the chaff, they enquire, prod etc i.e that letter, to try to get to the truth. My earlier post indicates the area within the law that it would appear they are looking ..Surely they are right to do so.
Many have criticised the SC"s because they do not unearth other offences like No Insurance/test Certificate as a pull from a mobile BiB would do. In this case it looks to me there is the possibility that in addition to the speeding offence an offence of No Insurance appears to have been committed. If so a bonus?
Again we know from the Forum the opinion of driving without Insurance. Been said many time if all drivers were insured them it would be much cheaper for us all.
Coming back to your case, the vehicle is out and about on your business driven by an employee. Whilst away from your immediate control the employee allows another to drive and as a result No Insurance offence is committed. As I have said, No Insurance is an offence of strict liability, and there is an argument that whilst being driven in connection with your business it is therefore being used by you and an offence of using without Insurance has been committed by the owner/business. The fact that driving responsibilities were handed over by your employee without your consent and knowledge should act in your favour and an argument for your lawyer to pursue. Questions of fact that will have to be decided by Magistrates if you were ever charged.
Not at all easy to make sense of from one side of the fence. As a BiB in this case I would be questioning what went with the employee, had he flouted firms instructions, what evidence is there to substantitate that JF does actual exist or a load of porkies.
Quite involved and most sensible for you, in this case, to have sort professional advice.
Problem is once one tries to "bend ' the system it has an awful habit of bouncing back.
DVD
So I take it P290KVP that the Insurance for the vehicle does not cover the driving by "the partner". ?
Firstly let me make a comment. Like them or hate them then SC's have a job to do and like you will try and do it, within the law, to the best of their ability. Legislators in their wisdom, came up with law to cover the use of SC's . I am not going to comment on them being good or bad . The fact is they are there. In doing so they were aware of certain problems that would arise, i.e identifying driver etc. To cater for the innocent they included certain defences so that the innocent are not punished. Such is one at 172(4) RTA 88 - did not know or without reasonable diligence could not ascertain who the driver was. But like many aspects of life, enter the abuser who falsely enters the name of a driver who is unaccessible to the law i.e. Johnny Foreigner, in an attempt to defeat the system. In doing so they foul the right of the innocent and make the defence questionable.By doing so, some will argue that the law has been complied with. What this means is that every SC NOIP sent out can be returned with false details and the matter ends. Whilst I have no actual in house knowledge of the workings of a SC Department, life experiences in the same field, tells me that they will be inundated with attempts to defeat the system. Not surprising therefore, in an attempt to sort the wheat from the chaff, they enquire, prod etc i.e that letter, to try to get to the truth. My earlier post indicates the area within the law that it would appear they are looking ..Surely they are right to do so.
Many have criticised the SC"s because they do not unearth other offences like No Insurance/test Certificate as a pull from a mobile BiB would do. In this case it looks to me there is the possibility that in addition to the speeding offence an offence of No Insurance appears to have been committed. If so a bonus?
Again we know from the Forum the opinion of driving without Insurance. Been said many time if all drivers were insured them it would be much cheaper for us all.
Coming back to your case, the vehicle is out and about on your business driven by an employee. Whilst away from your immediate control the employee allows another to drive and as a result No Insurance offence is committed. As I have said, No Insurance is an offence of strict liability, and there is an argument that whilst being driven in connection with your business it is therefore being used by you and an offence of using without Insurance has been committed by the owner/business. The fact that driving responsibilities were handed over by your employee without your consent and knowledge should act in your favour and an argument for your lawyer to pursue. Questions of fact that will have to be decided by Magistrates if you were ever charged.
Not at all easy to make sense of from one side of the fence. As a BiB in this case I would be questioning what went with the employee, had he flouted firms instructions, what evidence is there to substantitate that JF does actual exist or a load of porkies.
Quite involved and most sensible for you, in this case, to have sort professional advice.
Problem is once one tries to "bend ' the system it has an awful habit of bouncing back.
DVD
[quote=Dwight VanDriver
Like them or hate them then SC's have a job to do and like you will try and do it, within the law, to the best of their ability.
DVD[/quote]
That particular point is somewhat debateable - and will be in various courts across the land and in foreign ones as well....
Sean
Like them or hate them then SC's have a job to do and like you will try and do it, within the law, to the best of their ability.
DVD[/quote]
That particular point is somewhat debateable - and will be in various courts across the land and in foreign ones as well....
Sean
leosayer said:
DVD - I am thinking again now! So the onus is on the owner / keeper to ensure that anyone who drives the car is insured. Although this might be hard to do if a named driver on your policy lends your car to an uninsured third party without your knowledge.
This is a very important point wrt test drives when selling your car as well.
Hmmm. Does this mean that if you sell a car (privately), you should also insist to see the insurance of the buyer before they take the car away? Clearly the car is now theirs (they have a receipt etc), however according to the V5, which hasn't yet been sent to the DVLA, it's still the previous owners.
Reason I ask is my car is currently for sale, and if an uninsured buyer takes it away and gets snapped by a camera before the DVLA know of the changeover, will I be in the doodoo?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff