NIP No proof of driver
Discussion
I own a Ltd company and recieved a NIP for one of the company vans. I have no proof of who was driving out of several people on my payroll. I have asked for photographic evidence which they are sending me, although they said that the photo was not very clear and at an awkward angle. What happens if i can not identify the driver???????
The buck normally stops at the company secretary or equivalent. They will receive the failure to identify points/fine.
When I ran a fleet (1900 vehicles) the process was to prove to the constabulary all the previous NIPs that we had responded to, but unfortunately we didn't have a record for this specific time (only happened twice)... It worked BUT it was pre money-grabbing Scameraships.
When I ran a fleet (1900 vehicles) the process was to prove to the constabulary all the previous NIPs that we had responded to, but unfortunately we didn't have a record for this specific time (only happened twice)... It worked BUT it was pre money-grabbing Scameraships.
I guess that you may have to go to court to demonstrate that you have taken all reasonable steps to find out who was driving (showing due diligence), proving that you could not succeed. Within this, you may have to show employee diary records and timesheets, as well as getting statements from all potential drivers. Only then will a court take your claim seriously.
This could work.
After you get the photos, write to them and ask where the photos are as you have not received them as yet and could they please send them recorded delivery.
Then, after you get the photos, leave it as long as you can and then write saying that you are not sure, but you are naming a co-director who may have been driving, but can't really remember. If he gets an NIP, he ignores it and waits for the follow up one to arrive. Then he asks for the photos, again asking where they are after about 6 weeks.
Then he names himself, but by that time it's over 6 months from the offence and too late to proceed, so the offence has 'timed itself out'.
After you get the photos, write to them and ask where the photos are as you have not received them as yet and could they please send them recorded delivery.
Then, after you get the photos, leave it as long as you can and then write saying that you are not sure, but you are naming a co-director who may have been driving, but can't really remember. If he gets an NIP, he ignores it and waits for the follow up one to arrive. Then he asks for the photos, again asking where they are after about 6 weeks.
Then he names himself, but by that time it's over 6 months from the offence and too late to proceed, so the offence has 'timed itself out'.
.....makes note: Cooperman very active grey matter....
Request to RC to name driver sent by post.
Considered to have been served if made by or on behalf of C.o P.
Such a written request shall have the requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning from the day on which the notice is served.
(S172 (7) (a) RTA 88).
Failure to do so - OFFENCE.
The defence of not knowing who the driver was and could not be ascertain etc. is one that will have to be pleaded at Court, not on paper.
Be aware C that a SCP will be well aware of limitation on proceedings and will strike well in advance of the need to lay an information.
DVD
Request to RC to name driver sent by post.
Considered to have been served if made by or on behalf of C.o P.
Such a written request shall have the requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning from the day on which the notice is served.
(S172 (7) (a) RTA 88).
Failure to do so - OFFENCE.
The defence of not knowing who the driver was and could not be ascertain etc. is one that will have to be pleaded at Court, not on paper.
Be aware C that a SCP will be well aware of limitation on proceedings and will strike well in advance of the need to lay an information.
DVD
Dwight VanDriver said:
.....makes note: Cooperman very active grey matter....
Request to RC to name driver sent by post.
Considered to have been served if made by or on behalf of C.o P.
Such a written request shall have the requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning from the day on which the notice is served.
(S172 (7) (a) RTA 88).
Failure to do so - OFFENCE.
The defence of not knowing who the driver was and could not be ascertain etc. is one that will have to be pleaded at Court, not on paper.
Be aware C that a SCP will be well aware of limitation on proceedings and will strike well in advance of the need to lay an information.
DVD
However, in the case of a company it is not quite so simple in practice.
First of all, many companies are getting very p****d-off with this constant 'scamming for cash' and will do their best to frustrate the scammers.
Then, although the 28 days is, in theory, mandatory, it would be rather stupid of the CPS to go for a company where a written dialogue was still taking place in which it could be seen that the company was actually trying to respond to the S172 requirement.
Thirdly, and I'll speak for my company here, we would use a barrister to defend us and our company insurance police covers us for all such expenses in respect of legal action concerning our motor vehicles.
Fourthly, he NiP's are sent 1st class, not recorded delivery, and with a company there can be no PROOF that the correct person received the NiP, the photos, or anything else from the scammers.
They are only after an easy £60, so why would they bother.
I can tell you from experience: they don't.
Anyway, as I understand it, the information as to the identity of the driver has to be laid before the court with 6 months of the offence. If the driver has not been identified, then it's 'game over'.
By the way, our Company secretary is a non-driver, so can't get points on a non-existent licence.
The other good idea is to use a Post Box address for company vehicles. It's quite legal, but it makes it very hard to trace specific individuals.
Incidentally, I have just completed an application for a lost V5 for one of our vehicles and I note a sly little note on the application form where it states that when being completed for a company vehicle the name of the person responsibe 'should' be given. Not, you note, MUST be given, just should be given. So we didn't give a name, but still got the V5.
Cooperman said:
By the way, our Company secretary is a non-driver, so can't get points on a non-existent licence.
They can actually - the DVLA set up a dummy licence record. Bit irrelevant if they don't ever want a licence but if they applied for one, it would come ready endorsed!
On a wider point - I've seen a comment of here previously about the fleet manager of a large fleet just sending the NIP's round and round in circles (whatever that means?) so harldy any of them ever reach a conclusion.
:Hercule Poirot mode:
In the question of Cooperman's litt;e grey cells....
:/Hercule Poirot:
C raises a good point that his Company would maintain a vigorous and professional legal defence.
Now this is what the scammers rely upon, that Joe Soap hasn't got the time, financial resource and thus the will to maintain a proper defence. Cheaper to take the hit and quietly fume.
Have the insurance sharks missed a market opportunity here? Protection against legal costs vs scammers? The "risk" must be capable of being assessed.
Thoughts?
In the question of Cooperman's litt;e grey cells....
:/Hercule Poirot:
C raises a good point that his Company would maintain a vigorous and professional legal defence.
Now this is what the scammers rely upon, that Joe Soap hasn't got the time, financial resource and thus the will to maintain a proper defence. Cheaper to take the hit and quietly fume.
Have the insurance sharks missed a market opportunity here? Protection against legal costs vs scammers? The "risk" must be capable of being assessed.
Thoughts?
I am aware that a number of companies don't have a "Co. Secretary" as an individual, but contract out the responsibilities to another, specialist company.
If the co. owning the vehicle can genuinely not ID the driver, and the points SHOULD go to the Co. Sec, but the Co. Sec is another company...WHAT happens to them?!?
If the co. owning the vehicle can genuinely not ID the driver, and the points SHOULD go to the Co. Sec, but the Co. Sec is another company...WHAT happens to them?!?
I have a clien which is a large American owned company with factories and offices in the UK, Ireland and Germany.
They often send out teams of personnel to various locations and it is not unknown for NiP's to result.
The H.R. Director takes these and always writes aletter on company letterhead, with all the offices listed, naming the members of the team involved as possible drivers and giving their addresses. He also invites the scammers to visit the company to interview both him and the possible drivers and to bring their photo evidence with them, but by prior appointment so that the possible drivers may have a legal representative present paid for by the employer (with PACE coming into play?). He copies the letters to the company solicitors and asks the scammers to address any further correspondence to the solicitors at either their London or New York offices. He never seems to hear any more.
Since all they want is the £60 they seem to lose interest.
I don't know of any instances where a company director or manager has received points in such a case, but of course there could be. However, an appeal against conviction or sentance could have human rights implications and for the scammers/CPS to lose such an appeal would be very serious for them and reduce their cash-collection abilities, besides putting their jobs at risk.
They often send out teams of personnel to various locations and it is not unknown for NiP's to result.
The H.R. Director takes these and always writes aletter on company letterhead, with all the offices listed, naming the members of the team involved as possible drivers and giving their addresses. He also invites the scammers to visit the company to interview both him and the possible drivers and to bring their photo evidence with them, but by prior appointment so that the possible drivers may have a legal representative present paid for by the employer (with PACE coming into play?). He copies the letters to the company solicitors and asks the scammers to address any further correspondence to the solicitors at either their London or New York offices. He never seems to hear any more.
Since all they want is the £60 they seem to lose interest.
I don't know of any instances where a company director or manager has received points in such a case, but of course there could be. However, an appeal against conviction or sentance could have human rights implications and for the scammers/CPS to lose such an appeal would be very serious for them and reduce their cash-collection abilities, besides putting their jobs at risk.
In North Wales, Arrive Alive Scumeraship the procedure is to send an NIP to the Company Secretary. If the letter does not reach the company within 14 days, they resend an NIP. If the Company argues that the NIP is out of time and no further respensoe is necessary they seem to accept that but proceed with a S172 charge of failing to identify the driver claiming that this offence is not time limited and the offence is committed 28 days from service of the 2nd NIP.
Needless to say the Mags are totally out of their depth with this but simply follow the party-line dictates of the Clerk of the Course who is part of this 'rotten edifice'.
However it seems to be policy not to pursue the Company Secretary for points but to hit the company for money, £ 350 in our case. But with zero points considered good value by most of our drivers.
The CPS wench trotted out a little speech stating that most reasonable companies have a little clipboard hanging next to the car keys so the Co has a record of who was driving at the time. I responded by arguing that most Companies have a very specific and onerous duty to record a large number of things in a specific way with sever penalties for non-compliance. Had Parliament really intended to ensure that Companies were required to record the identity of the driver of a Company car then they would have required it in this way with prescribed penalties for non-compliance.fail lead to non compliance because of the existing and continually increasing administrative burden of the other statutory compliances. Miss CPS just said 'oh' and sat down.
Once our Co Sec realised that she could be hit for points for things she has no practical control over she quite reasonably resigned and no-one was interested in taking her place. So Our CoSec is now a legal entity ( another company )which is not an identifiable individual.
Needless to say the Mags are totally out of their depth with this but simply follow the party-line dictates of the Clerk of the Course who is part of this 'rotten edifice'.
However it seems to be policy not to pursue the Company Secretary for points but to hit the company for money, £ 350 in our case. But with zero points considered good value by most of our drivers.
The CPS wench trotted out a little speech stating that most reasonable companies have a little clipboard hanging next to the car keys so the Co has a record of who was driving at the time. I responded by arguing that most Companies have a very specific and onerous duty to record a large number of things in a specific way with sever penalties for non-compliance. Had Parliament really intended to ensure that Companies were required to record the identity of the driver of a Company car then they would have required it in this way with prescribed penalties for non-compliance.fail lead to non compliance because of the existing and continually increasing administrative burden of the other statutory compliances. Miss CPS just said 'oh' and sat down.
Once our Co Sec realised that she could be hit for points for things she has no practical control over she quite reasonably resigned and no-one was interested in taking her place. So Our CoSec is now a legal entity ( another company )which is not an identifiable individual.
G Man said:
I would send a letter to all the drivers asking to identify who was driving when they don't quote the chief constable who could not identify the speeding copper to the scamera partnership ..He got off
G Man
Was there not a case some eighteen months ago when CC Hamps(?) could not ID the driver of a speeding police car. The Force was taken to Court and fined 400 quid for failing to name.
DVD
Maybe, just maybe, the best thing a limited company can do is to just ignore the NiP's and see what happens. If a summons results the company could claim they were never asked to do anything - "produce the evidence that we were asked". A Police Officer may need to visit and then PACE would apply to any questioning.
Now, although first class post is thought to be sufficient, there can be no evidence that the responsible person, or any person, within the company actually received anything. With so much 'junk mail' arriving every day it would not be surprising after all.
Then, if the CPS actually decided to proceed with a prosecution they could be on very shaky ground.
Interestingly, with EU legislation, there is no reason why an EU based and registered company with a UK office would have a company secretary in the UK. For example, a Dublin registered limited companyu may just have a UK accommodation address at which its cars are registered in order to comply with DVLA requirements that the vehicles must be registered to a UK 'keeper'. The vehicles could well be owned by a foreign company. Like the opposite of Eddie Stobart's Belgian registered, but UK owned trucks.
If the 'keeper' has no UK employees or officers, only a firm of accountants for clearing of UK documentation, e.g. car insurance, employee insurance and NI payments, how would the scammers handle this?
As soon as it becomes difficult and a poor proposition in terms of cash-collection, they do seem to give up.
Now, although first class post is thought to be sufficient, there can be no evidence that the responsible person, or any person, within the company actually received anything. With so much 'junk mail' arriving every day it would not be surprising after all.
Then, if the CPS actually decided to proceed with a prosecution they could be on very shaky ground.
Interestingly, with EU legislation, there is no reason why an EU based and registered company with a UK office would have a company secretary in the UK. For example, a Dublin registered limited companyu may just have a UK accommodation address at which its cars are registered in order to comply with DVLA requirements that the vehicles must be registered to a UK 'keeper'. The vehicles could well be owned by a foreign company. Like the opposite of Eddie Stobart's Belgian registered, but UK owned trucks.
If the 'keeper' has no UK employees or officers, only a firm of accountants for clearing of UK documentation, e.g. car insurance, employee insurance and NI payments, how would the scammers handle this?
As soon as it becomes difficult and a poor proposition in terms of cash-collection, they do seem to give up.
havoc said:I asked this about a year ago in a similar thread ... didn't get a reply (IIRC).
I am aware that a number of companies don't have a "Co. Secretary" as an individual, but contract out the responsibilities to another, specialist company.
If the co. owning the vehicle can genuinely not ID the driver, and the points SHOULD go to the Co. Sec, but the Co. Sec is another company...WHAT happens to them?!?
Interesting concept, isn't it ... penalising someone who is totally innocent! Human Rights isse? Cherie, Cherie!
Streaky
streaky said:
I am aware that a number of companies don't have a "Co. Secretary" as an individual, but contract out the responsibilities to another, specialist company.
If the co. owning the vehicle can genuinely not ID the driver, and the points SHOULD go to the Co. Sec, but the Co. Sec is another company...WHAT happens to them?!?
I asked this about a year ago in a similar thread ... didn't get a reply (IIRC).
Interesting concept, isn't it ... penalising someone who is totally innocent! Human Rights isse? Cherie, Cherie!
Streaky
That's when they will just drop the entire thing and look for more profitable targets. Maybe if the speed was very high, say over 120 mph, they might have a dig around a bit more, but in the case of 'a bit of minor speeding' they won't be bothered.
The thing is, it's so easy to register your cars to a limited company and, although you'll have to pay the 3rd party 'Company secretary', it'll be cheaper than getting a ban.
Of course, if you own a small and non-trading limited company (cost to acquire £150 approx, all inc), when an NiP arrives which might put your points tally up a bit too high for comfort, you could ignore it, put the company into liquidation, and then send the second NiP back marked 'Ceased Trading - refer to Companies House'. It would take ages for a summons to arrive, by which time the company would cease to exist as a legal entity. The former directors and company secretary would not necessarily have access to the paperwork and no liability to examine it. In fact, it could just be handed over to the old bill or the scammers for them to investigate who might have been driving. The question is, would they bother?
Cooperman said:
Of course, if you own a small and non-trading limited company (cost to acquire £150 approx, all inc), when an NiP arrives which might put your points tally up a bit too high for comfort, you could ignore it, put the company into liquidation, and then send the second NiP back marked 'Ceased Trading - refer to Companies House'.
Isn't there a danger that the Official Receiver (or whoever) would sieze the car as an asset of the business?
deva link said:
Of course, if you own a small and non-trading limited company (cost to acquire £150 approx, all inc), when an NiP arrives which might put your points tally up a bit too high for comfort, you could ignore it, put the company into liquidation, and then send the second NiP back marked 'Ceased Trading - refer to Companies House'.
Isn't there a danger that the Official Receiver (or whoever) would sieze the car as an asset of the business?
Not if the company had never traded and was voluntarily wound up. It would not have any liabilities so an official receiver wouldn't get involved. I was listed as a director of a non-trading limited company that was set up solely to give a UK based identity for a much larger European based company.
As Cooperman rightly points out, a non-trading company would have no assets or liabilities and would only cost £150 to set up. The V5 only shows the recorded keeper and not the actual owner. It is quite legitimate to record a company as the keeper even though they are not the owner (long term lease being a prime example).
deva link said:
Isn't there a danger that the Official Receiver (or whoever) would sieze the car as an asset of the business?
But if the company is 'non-trading' as CM suggests, it would have no debts so no need to have assets siezed.
edited to add; beaten to it, and more eloquently, by GilbertD
>> Edited by catso on Wednesday 10th August 10:59
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff