Keeping records of who was driving...???

[lali]

Ok, while I was working down south, my was flashed speeding oop north.

Now, there are several family members who are all fully insured and had access to the car so I have no idea who was driving. I responded to the NOIP with teh same information and they have replied with a letter that states that the "onus" is on me to ensure I know who's driving and if I dont provide the information then they'll prosecute me!!...

My questions are:

1) Do I really have to keep a record of who's driving? ( where on my licence/highway code does it say so??

2) What exactly are they going to prosecute me for?

So why am I now the one who has to do the detective work to find out who was breaking the law... Isnt that what the Police are for?

apologise if this has been answered elsewhere before

[rich 36]

you may find some answers via the back door

let us know your outcome

[Dwight VanDriver]

They could be looking to prosecuting you for failing to name the driver under Section 172 RTA 88 (max £1000 fine, discretionary disqualification and 3 points if found guilty).

Nowhere at law (yet) does it say that you have to keep records of who was driving.

Under Section 172 (4) RTA 88 a person shall not be Guilty of an offence if he shows that he did not know and could not without reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was.

Unfortunately this defence has been abused so much that when a genuine case crops up then the Bench are sceptical to say the least and it appears only believe when the person summoned comes up with additional evidence to support the verbal.

Start with a request for the photo which may or may not help you start on this quest.

dvd

>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 1st December 21:02

[lali]

DVD..

Cheers.. when I sent them the letter I did ask for any assistence that they could provide to help me identify the driver. The response was that the picture was taken from the rear and therefore wont help me in identifying the driver...

..great, cheers!

So.. it looks like Im going to have to get myself a solicitor and prepare for my day in court!

[justinp1]

lali said:

DVD.. Cheers.. when I sent them the letter I did ask for any assistence that they could provide to help me identify the driver. The response was that the picture was taken from the rear and therefore wont help me in identifying the driver... ..great, cheers! So.. it looks like Im going to have to get myself a solicitor and prepare for my day in court!

If you get yourself a solicitor I believe your chances of losing this case is pretty much zero. Furthermore you have every right to apply to the court for your legal costs.

I cannot see a possible way that the CPS can prove it was you or anyone else was driving the car unless you are willing to provide evidence to show otherwise. I have also heard that these and other similar cases can be fought by your solicitor without you presence needed in court.

That said however, I for one have been on the receiving end of strange and bizarre magistrates decisions. Many are not legally trained and rely on the guidance of the clerk of the court to advise on legal definitions and similar matters.

A good solicitor who specialises is driving cases is essential. Your local solicitor may have a basic knowledge however to give you a good chance a specialist is essential as there is a huge amount of information and knowledge needed about the area. Usually the CPS solicitor on the day is not a specialist, so you will already be at an advantage.

[lali]

Any suggestions on a good solicitor in the midlands area?

and I can absolutly prove it wasnt me driving, so what else do I need to worry about?

[justinp1]

lali said:

Any suggestions on a good solicitor in the midlands area? and I can absolutly prove it wasnt me driving, so what else do I need to worry about?

You shouldnt have to really. If you are not guilty of an offence you are in no way obliged to present a guilty party to prove your innocence.

Your solicitor should advise of the best way forward with regard to showing your diligence to find the driver whilst proving you were not.

I used Oliver Gardner of www.motoringlaw.co.uk

When he is not in court he is contactable by mobile phone and gives great advice at length when needed. If you explain your case to him he will advise of the chances of winning then explain the way forward. I think he charges £150 to look at your case should you get a summons and lodge the relevant paperwork and handle you case pre-trial and a pretty reasonable rate for hadling the case to completion.

He is based just south of Manchester but I would have thought he would cover the Midlands area too.

Hope this helps.

[purpleheadedcerb]

Accept that it was definitely someone in your car and that you aren't disputing that fact and offer to donate the fine to a charity of their choice that deals with Victims of speeding.

If you say that you have tried your hardest and can't be 100% sure who the driver was, I doubt it will even get to court. If it does, get a solicitor at that point.

Best of luck

[lali]

purpleheadedcerb said:

Accept that it was definitely someone in your car and that you aren't disputing that fact and offer to donate the fine to a charity of their choice that deals with Victims of speeding. If you say that you have tried your hardest and can't be 100% sure who the driver was, I doubt it will even get to court. If it does, get a solicitor at that point. Best of luck

I'll give that a go in the first instance. Then get in touch with motoringlaw if needs be.

Thanks for your help guys.

[miniandy]

Keep us all updated though if you wouldn't mind

[james_j]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Unfortunately this defence has been abused so much that when a genuine case crops up then the Bench are sceptical to say the least and it appears only believe when the person summoned comes up with additional evidence to support the verbal. >> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 1st December 21:02

It would be a shame (and dangerous) if Benches were disbelieving of this defence just because they see it used a lot. Perhaps they should consider that because of the sheer number of vehicle keepers being brought to the courtroom, they are bound to hear this more often, for one good reason. Because it's the truth!

[timtonal]

Surely it's up to the Camera partnership to come up with irrefutable evidence i.e. a photo clearly showing the driver of the vehicle. Normally the evidence falls far short of this.

[Flat in Fifth]

lali said:

Now, there are several family members who are all fully insured and had access to the car so I have no idea who was driving.

Given the absence of a useful photo, I think the next starting point is to speak with each of the possible drivers to ascertain if it was them.

I would suggest that you make a formal record of the "interviews" and it would be handy if there is a second party to witness the discussion. Someone who is not in the frame, so to speak. Of course if you get a cough you will have to name and shame, but if everyone flatly denies or is able to produce their own evidence that it could not have been them then I would argue that you have applied due diligence.

Coupled with your evidence that the driver could not have been you, and that you have tried to determine then the only flaw is appearing before a magistrate who believes that "we must support our police at all costs."

Just my thoughts.

[Einion Yrth]

Flat in Fifth said:

lali said: Now, there are several family members who are all fully insured and had access to the car so I have no idea who was driving. Given the absence of a useful photo, I think the next starting point is to speak with each of the possible drivers to ascertain if it was them. I would suggest that you make a formal record of the "interviews" and it would be handy if there is a second party to witness the discussion. Someone who is not in the frame, so to speak. Of course if you get a cough you will have to name and shame, but if everyone flatly denies or is able to produce their own evidence that it could not have been them then I would argue that you have applied due diligence. Coupled with your evidence that the driver could not have been you, and that you have tried to determine then the only flaw is appearing before a magistrate who believes that "we must support our police at all costs." Just my thoughts.

And how long is he allowed to hold his family members without charge on suspicion of this most heinous crime?

[Flat in Fifth]

Einion Yrth said:

And how long is he allowed to hold his family members without charge on suspicion of this most heinous crime?

Sorry if you think this is wrong, without any smileys I assume that is a serious question.

Presented correctly to the various parties why should it be a problem? If relations are sufficiently cordial that the permission to drive exists then what is the problem in having the discussion?

I would argue if he goes to court without having had the discussion then he runs the risk of being judged not to have applied due diligence. If on the other hand he has had the discussion with the permitted drivers, and he has a record of such conversation then in the clear.

I mean it's a sad state of affairs that we have to act this way, but if it is what it takes to beat the bar-stewards at ther own game then do it. Enough anecdotal evidence that CPS couldn't organise a drinkypoos in a brewery at the best of times, surely if faced with someone organised they will throw in the towel .....

>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 2nd December 14:58

[Einion Yrth]

Flat in Fifth said:

I mean it's a sad state of affairs that we have to act this way, but if it is what it takes to beat the bar-stewards at ther own game then do it. Enough anecdotal evidence that CPS couldn't organise a drinkypoos in a brewery at the best of times, surely if faced with someone organised they will throw in the towel ..... >> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 2nd December 14:58

That's pretty much what I was attempting to imply. In retrospect I guess judicious use of smilies might have helped make that clearer.

[Richard C]

FiF said:

Given the absence of a useful photo, I think the next starting point is to speak with each of the possible drivers to ascertain if it was them. I would suggest that you make a formal record of the "interviews" and it would be handy if there is a second party to witness the discussion. Someone who is not in the frame, so to speak. Of course if you get a cough you will have to name and shame, but if everyone flatly denies or is able to produce their own evidence that it could not have been them then I would argue that you have applied due diligence. Coupled with your evidence that the driver could not have been you, and that you have tried to determine then the only flaw is appearing before a magistrate who believes that "we must support our police at all costs." Just my thoughts.

FiF you are being far far too helpful. the RK's liability under S172 is discharged if he provides the NIP issuer with a list of names and addresses of those who had access to the car. The interviews of all or any of those on the list to determin if they'll 'fess are then down to the police ( and the interviewee ).

[$lowpoke]

lali, you're looking for a Para 4 defence. Head over to www.pepipoo.com and have a good read. You'll find there all you need to defend yourself against this charge (S.172, failing to provide) without the expense of a solicitor.

Any questions, join up (free) and ask. They're a helpful, knowledgable bunch.

[Flat in Fifth]

Richard C said:

FiF you are being far far too helpful. the RK's liability under S172 is discharged if he provides the NIP issuer with a list of names and addresses of those who had access to the car. The interviews of all or any of those on the list to determine if they'll 'fess are then down to the police ( and the interviewee ).

Funnily enough I entirely agree with you there.

However by nature I'm of the type which "likes to bang the nail in the coffin." So you've found one problem, why stop there? Carry on and bang the last nail in....

I have the opinion that simply supplying a list of names without futher effort could leave one open to an accusation of not applying reasonable diligence if one were confronted with an unreasonable magistrate.

Let us not forget conviction of ACC Hampshire in such circumstances even though extensive enquiries had been made.

Let us face it, if it were that easy, we'd all have our vehicles insured for anyone to drive, have an endless list of approved users, and just supply the list when confronted with a S172 request. System would have fallen down by now.

Yes faced with a list most scamps are simply going to file in round bin and go for easier prey. Personally I'd still like to ensure I was Persil. That's just me being me.

[towman]

my story here