Speed Camera Ticket issued in my name.......however
Discussion
Despite what you may think, this actually is the situation................
As the reg owner of a Mini One, a 39mph Speed Camera Ticket has been sent to me. I can prove that I was at a different location at the time of the offence and therefore can reasonably prove I was not driving.
My estranged wife and two sons are also insured to drive the Mini. This is a perfectly legal arrangement. Clearly it was one of them driving. However,I cannot force them to tell me which, so if they refuse, how can I put just one name on the form?
There is only space for one name and it says if I fail to name the driver, I will be the one prosecuted.
Clearly I am being asked for information that I may not be able to reasonably provide. I can provide three names but there is no provision for this.
I have several cars. Surely it is unreasonable to assume that I always have knowledge of which of the three named drivers are driving any car, at any time of the day or night.
Equally why should I receive the speeding offence when I am totally innocent?
As the reg owner of a Mini One, a 39mph Speed Camera Ticket has been sent to me. I can prove that I was at a different location at the time of the offence and therefore can reasonably prove I was not driving.
My estranged wife and two sons are also insured to drive the Mini. This is a perfectly legal arrangement. Clearly it was one of them driving. However,I cannot force them to tell me which, so if they refuse, how can I put just one name on the form?
There is only space for one name and it says if I fail to name the driver, I will be the one prosecuted.
Clearly I am being asked for information that I may not be able to reasonably provide. I can provide three names but there is no provision for this.
I have several cars. Surely it is unreasonable to assume that I always have knowledge of which of the three named drivers are driving any car, at any time of the day or night.
Equally why should I receive the speeding offence when I am totally innocent?
Edited by crbox on Monday 12th February 00:12
crbox said:
Despite what you may think, this actually is the situation................
As the reg owner of a Mini One, a 39mph Speed Camera Ticket has been sent to me. I can prove that I was at a different location at the time of the offence and therefore can reasonably prove I was not driving.
My estranged wife and two sons are also insured to drive the Mini. This is a perfectly legal arrangement. Clearly it was one of them driving. However,I cannot force them to tell me which, so if they refuse, how can I put just one name on the form?
There is only space for one name and it says if I fail to name the driver, I will be the one prosecuted.
Clearly I am being asked for information that I may not be able to reasonably provide. I can provide three names but there is no provision for this.
I have several cars. Surely it is unreasonable to assume that I always have knowledge of which of the three named drivers are driving any car, at any time of the day or night.
Equally why should I receive the speeding offence when I am totally innocent?
As the reg owner of a Mini One, a 39mph Speed Camera Ticket has been sent to me. I can prove that I was at a different location at the time of the offence and therefore can reasonably prove I was not driving.
My estranged wife and two sons are also insured to drive the Mini. This is a perfectly legal arrangement. Clearly it was one of them driving. However,I cannot force them to tell me which, so if they refuse, how can I put just one name on the form?
There is only space for one name and it says if I fail to name the driver, I will be the one prosecuted.
Clearly I am being asked for information that I may not be able to reasonably provide. I can provide three names but there is no provision for this.
I have several cars. Surely it is unreasonable to assume that I always have knowledge of which of the three named drivers are driving any car, at any time of the day or night.
Equally why should I receive the speeding offence when I am totally innocent?
Edited by crbox on Monday 12th February 00:12
Nip over to the pepipoo site ...
Ask for the photos too.
Provide the evidence you were elsewhere.
Make it plain you are trying to find out which of the three eligible to drive were behind wheel at the time.
I think you have to prove you have taken all reasonable und logical steps to provide this information.. but pepipoo will be able to explain better
fluffnik said:
crbox said:
Equally why should I receive the speeding offence when I am totally innocent?
Because S172 is a nasty fascist law.
Write to your MP to say how much it disgusts you.
Ridiculous - does anyone remember the woman who was convicted of speeding even though she lived nowhere near the location of the camera and could prove she was on holiday abroad at the time? Seemed to make no difference to the courts.
crbox said:
However,I cannot force them to tell me which, so if they refuse, how can I put just one name on the form?
Have you thought of maybe including a covering letter explaining the situation and naming the possible drivers?
crbox said:
Equally why should I receive the speeding offence when I am totally innocent?
Er... perhaps it's because you are the resgistered keeper of the vehicle!
Hugh
hugerr said:
crbox said:
However,I cannot force them to tell me which, so if they refuse, how can I put just one name on the form?
Have you thought of maybe including a covering letter explaining the situation and naming the possible drivers?
crbox said:
Equally why should I receive the speeding offence when I am totally innocent?
Er... perhaps it's because you are the resgistered keeper of the vehicle!
Hugh
So he should go down for life because a knife from his kitchen is used to kill someone at the same thime he's testifying in court about a bogus speeding offence?
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, you are required to provide the names of the other 3 drivers of the vehicle, so I would do that, and leave them to fend for themselves. I am sure that if they also were not driving, they can also say so. That's up to them though, not for you to worry about!
richburley said:
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, you are required to provide the names of the other 3 drivers of the vehicle, so I would do that, and leave them to fend for themselves. I am sure that if they also were not driving, they can also say so. That's up to them though, not for you to worry about!
I think as reg keeper you are actually required to provide such information as you know and can with reasonable diligence find out.
I have been on this merry-go-round recently and can let you know my experiences offline if you like.
Graham
172(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies -
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police.
172(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
In other words you are expected to name the diver. If you can't do that then you'll have to show that you couldn't in spite of you showing reasonable diligence. The judge of whether you have shown reasonable diligence will be the court.
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police.
172(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
In other words you are expected to name the diver. If you can't do that then you'll have to show that you couldn't in spite of you showing reasonable diligence. The judge of whether you have shown reasonable diligence will be the court.
gridgway said:
vonhosen said:
In other words you are expected to name the diver. If you can't do that then you'll have to show that you couldn't in spite of you showing reasonable diligence. The judge of whether you have shown reasonable diligence will be the court.
If it gets to court.
Graham
Indeed. I think "crbox" should still visit the pepipoo site.. und also look for solicitor .. plenty who give "consultation advice" as half hour freeby still around too.
But I think so long as he show he try to supply the information .. und explain that family car und all eligible to use . will use und this ist family car und not works car..
... ist up to authorities or court to decide which of the three was actually driving this car. Basically .. it show up just why the automation cannot deliver true und purely decent justice
gridgway said:
vonhosen said:
In other words you are expected to name the diver. If you can't do that then you'll have to show that you couldn't in spite of you showing reasonable diligence. The judge of whether you have shown reasonable diligence will be the court.
If it gets to court.
Graham
why would it not get to court?
I have written to the Chief Constable and communicated the situation.
I have gone from passive to angry about this.
There is no space on the notice in which to express an inability to identify the driver. However there is an automated helpline no, which if you hang on long enough, tells you to write in. It is the very last message and it takes 10 minutes to come through. Too bad if you have no phone.
I do not believe that this Notice of intended Prosecution can be a legal document as far as human rights are concerned. I have been threatened with taking the rap for an offence that I have not committed, if I do not provide information that I cannot neccessarily provide. This must be against my human rights, as the originator of the offence, leaves me no room for me to defend my position.
To cap it all the Police refer to it as an alleged speedng offence.
So they cover themselves from any action, if it can be proven that they have acted in error, but threaten me with action that, on the face of it, I can only escape from by providing false information.
If the police feel that to provide such advice in the Notification, would provoke everyone to falsley site my situation, they will simply have to abandon speed camera, speed checking as unworkable.
If I am prosecuted, I will try hard to bring this before the European Court of Human Rights.
This threat in this notice is a bigger abuse than the speed cameras themselves.
I have gone from passive to angry about this.
There is no space on the notice in which to express an inability to identify the driver. However there is an automated helpline no, which if you hang on long enough, tells you to write in. It is the very last message and it takes 10 minutes to come through. Too bad if you have no phone.
I do not believe that this Notice of intended Prosecution can be a legal document as far as human rights are concerned. I have been threatened with taking the rap for an offence that I have not committed, if I do not provide information that I cannot neccessarily provide. This must be against my human rights, as the originator of the offence, leaves me no room for me to defend my position.
To cap it all the Police refer to it as an alleged speedng offence.
So they cover themselves from any action, if it can be proven that they have acted in error, but threaten me with action that, on the face of it, I can only escape from by providing false information.
If the police feel that to provide such advice in the Notification, would provoke everyone to falsley site my situation, they will simply have to abandon speed camera, speed checking as unworkable.
If I am prosecuted, I will try hard to bring this before the European Court of Human Rights.
This threat in this notice is a bigger abuse than the speed cameras themselves.
Edited by crbox on Tuesday 13th February 21:52
crbox said:
I have written to the Chief Constable and communicated the situation.
I have gone from passive to angry about this.
There is no space on the notice in which to express an inability to identify the driver. However there is an automated helpline no, which if you hang on long enough, tells you to write in. It is the very last message and it takes 10 minutes to come through. Too bad if you have no phone.
I do not believe that this Notice of intended Prosecution can be a legal document as far as human rights are concerned. I have been threatened with taking the rap for an offence that I have not committed, if I do not provide information that I cannot neccessarily provide. This must be against my human rights, as the originator of the offence, leaves me no room for me to defend my position.
To cap it all the Police refer to it as an alleged speedng offence.
So they cover themselves from any action if it can be proven, that they have acted in errot, but threaten me with action that on the face of it, I can only escape from by providining false information.
If the police feel that to provide such advice in the Notification, would provoke veryone to site my situation, they will simply have to abandon speed camera, speed checking as unworkable.
If I am prosecuted, I will try hard to bring this before the European Court of Human Rights.
This threat in this notice is a bigger scandal than the speed cameras themselves.
I have gone from passive to angry about this.
There is no space on the notice in which to express an inability to identify the driver. However there is an automated helpline no, which if you hang on long enough, tells you to write in. It is the very last message and it takes 10 minutes to come through. Too bad if you have no phone.
I do not believe that this Notice of intended Prosecution can be a legal document as far as human rights are concerned. I have been threatened with taking the rap for an offence that I have not committed, if I do not provide information that I cannot neccessarily provide. This must be against my human rights, as the originator of the offence, leaves me no room for me to defend my position.
To cap it all the Police refer to it as an alleged speedng offence.
So they cover themselves from any action if it can be proven, that they have acted in errot, but threaten me with action that on the face of it, I can only escape from by providining false information.
If the police feel that to provide such advice in the Notification, would provoke veryone to site my situation, they will simply have to abandon speed camera, speed checking as unworkable.
If I am prosecuted, I will try hard to bring this before the European Court of Human Rights.
This threat in this notice is a bigger scandal than the speed cameras themselves.
There isn't the option for you to name 3 possible people on the form, because you are expected to know who has the car that you are the registered keeper of.
If you can't do that then you will have to show to the court that you are unable to do so despite showing reasonable diligence.
The requirement under Sec 172 has been challenged through the UK courts & the challenge has been dismissed.
It has been challenged through the ECHR & the ruling is due this year.
In the meantime if you fail to give the information required, then there is a good chance you will have to explain to a court while you can't.
crbox said:
I have written to the Chief Constable and communicated the situation.
I have gone from passive to angry about this.
There is no space on the notice in which to express an inability to identify the driver. However there is an automated helpline no, which if you hang on long enough, tells you to write in. It is the very last message and it takes 10 minutes to come through. Too bad if you have no phone.
I do not believe that this Notice of intended Prosecution can be a legal document as far as human rights are concerned. I have been threatened with taking the rap for an offence that I have not committed, if I do not provide information that I cannot neccessarily provide. This must be against my human rights, as the originator of the offence, leaves me no room for me to defend my position.
To cap it all the Police refer to it as an alleged speedng offence.
So they cover themselves from any action, if it can be proven that they have acted in error, but threaten me with action that, on the face of it, I can only escape from by providing false information.
If the police feel that to provide such advice in the Notification, would provoke everyone to falsley site my situation, they will simply have to abandon speed camera, speed checking as unworkable.
If I am prosecuted, I will try hard to bring this before the European Court of Human Rights.
This threat in this notice is a bigger abuse than the speed cameras themselves.
I have gone from passive to angry about this.
There is no space on the notice in which to express an inability to identify the driver. However there is an automated helpline no, which if you hang on long enough, tells you to write in. It is the very last message and it takes 10 minutes to come through. Too bad if you have no phone.
I do not believe that this Notice of intended Prosecution can be a legal document as far as human rights are concerned. I have been threatened with taking the rap for an offence that I have not committed, if I do not provide information that I cannot neccessarily provide. This must be against my human rights, as the originator of the offence, leaves me no room for me to defend my position.
To cap it all the Police refer to it as an alleged speedng offence.
So they cover themselves from any action, if it can be proven that they have acted in error, but threaten me with action that, on the face of it, I can only escape from by providing false information.
If the police feel that to provide such advice in the Notification, would provoke everyone to falsley site my situation, they will simply have to abandon speed camera, speed checking as unworkable.
If I am prosecuted, I will try hard to bring this before the European Court of Human Rights.
This threat in this notice is a bigger abuse than the speed cameras themselves.
Edited by crbox on Tuesday 13th February 21:52
Sorry to be pedantic but have you asked them who was driving. It is your car after all. What is so complicated. Write in stating they all have access and during period of incident they had the vehicle between them at some point. There are certain responsibilities that go along with car ownership. If you don't like them then give up the car ownership.
Its not un-reasonable to expect you to make some reasonable efforts to see who was driving. If you show that then any court action would be highly unlikley. It does appear someone was speeding in your car.
I have reported the names of the possible drivers in the communication. As none of them admit to knowing who was driving at the exact time, I have requested that the police provide a photograph so I can identify them.
The car is shared by everybody and it's not that unreasonable that if they were all using it around that time, nobody recalls, or chooses not to recall, who was driving.
I have left it to the police to proceed. I cannot help them further unless they supply a conclusive photograph.
I cannot force anybody to supply information that they refrain from supplying me with. It is not reasonable for me to have known who was driving a familly 'pool' car, when I am remote from the situation. We have six cars on the driveway and family members use the car that is easiest to get out for short trips. Also the road that the speed camera was on is between us and the local shops. Two family members used the car at around this time. Why is this so difficult to believe?
You might all feel that this is a scam - but apparently it is what happened on that day.
The car is shared by everybody and it's not that unreasonable that if they were all using it around that time, nobody recalls, or chooses not to recall, who was driving.
I have left it to the police to proceed. I cannot help them further unless they supply a conclusive photograph.
I cannot force anybody to supply information that they refrain from supplying me with. It is not reasonable for me to have known who was driving a familly 'pool' car, when I am remote from the situation. We have six cars on the driveway and family members use the car that is easiest to get out for short trips. Also the road that the speed camera was on is between us and the local shops. Two family members used the car at around this time. Why is this so difficult to believe?
You might all feel that this is a scam - but apparently it is what happened on that day.
streaky said:
Well, you cannot be forced to testify against your wife, but your children have no such protection - Streaky
You cannot testify to something that you do not know. If the answer from all the other three is no comment, then I can't see how he can reasonable find out. What is he supposed to do, put them in the rack until they confess?
mr_annie_vxr said:
Its not un-reasonable to expect you to make some reasonable efforts to see who was driving. If you show that then any court action would be highly unlikley. It does appear someone was speeding in your car.
Or for the police to do the same... Why should he be forced to do the work of the police for them? If the police want to know why can't they investigate once he's provided the names of the three possible drivers? Oh, I forgot, it's not about justice, it's all about the fines.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff