50 in 40, unknown driver
Discussion
Hi,
Sorry, I know similar stuff is continuously posted, but it always seems a little more personal
Anyway, I have borrowed my mums car to do some work on it whilst she was on holiday.
I have been sharing the use of the car with my girlfriend for this period.
Whilst my mum (registered keeper) has been out of the country, she has (much to my dismay) recieved an NIP!!
After the ear bashing, obviously she wasn't driving, and I genuinely have no idea at this stage who was driving.
She's fillling in the NIP saying that she wasn't the driver etc etc, and is sticking down my address as a contact (but not as the named driver)... at least I sincerely hope thats what she is doing!! lol
Anyway, is it now for me to argue with the scamera partnership (surrey) to ascertain who was driving? or is this one my mum is going to have to argue out??
I have had a look at pepipoo and I couldn't find anything where the registered keeper is KNOWN not to be the driver, but it *could* then be one of 2 other drivers??
Cheers for any help guys
Sorry, I know similar stuff is continuously posted, but it always seems a little more personal
Anyway, I have borrowed my mums car to do some work on it whilst she was on holiday.
I have been sharing the use of the car with my girlfriend for this period.
Whilst my mum (registered keeper) has been out of the country, she has (much to my dismay) recieved an NIP!!
After the ear bashing, obviously she wasn't driving, and I genuinely have no idea at this stage who was driving.
She's fillling in the NIP saying that she wasn't the driver etc etc, and is sticking down my address as a contact (but not as the named driver)... at least I sincerely hope thats what she is doing!! lol
Anyway, is it now for me to argue with the scamera partnership (surrey) to ascertain who was driving? or is this one my mum is going to have to argue out??
I have had a look at pepipoo and I couldn't find anything where the registered keeper is KNOWN not to be the driver, but it *could* then be one of 2 other drivers??
Cheers for any help guys
Possible scenario.
SCP send out to Mum form under Section 172 RTA 88 to name driver.
She returns saying it is not her.
Option by SCP
(1) Issue summons for offence of failing to name and them Mum will have to try and convince the Mags of the defence under Section
A person who fails to comply with the requirement to name driver is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle , or
(2) If Mum has given SCP information that she was out of Country they may accept and leave her alone.
BUT
It is stated that Mum has given information to SCP that vehicle at time in care of you which gives them the lever to invoke further part of Section 172
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(b) any other person shall if required give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
Possible therefore as I type that request is winging its way via mail.
You are then in the same position Mum was on first receipt.
So it sounds like yourself or GF.
Still unknown?.
Whilst they are not obliged to you can point out your difficulty and request SCP photo of driver which may help or condemn but at least it may be beans in your bag if they issue summons.
dvd
SCP send out to Mum form under Section 172 RTA 88 to name driver.
She returns saying it is not her.
Option by SCP
(1) Issue summons for offence of failing to name and them Mum will have to try and convince the Mags of the defence under Section
A person who fails to comply with the requirement to name driver is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle , or
(2) If Mum has given SCP information that she was out of Country they may accept and leave her alone.
BUT
It is stated that Mum has given information to SCP that vehicle at time in care of you which gives them the lever to invoke further part of Section 172
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(b) any other person shall if required give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
Possible therefore as I type that request is winging its way via mail.
You are then in the same position Mum was on first receipt.
So it sounds like yourself or GF.
Still unknown?.
Whilst they are not obliged to you can point out your difficulty and request SCP photo of driver which may help or condemn but at least it may be beans in your bag if they issue summons.
dvd
andy_vtec said:
Are you both insured to drive your mums car? If not, it could drive your decision on who fesses up to take the NIP.
Friend of mine drove through the world's most obvious speed camera in my car while uninsured, I named him on the S172 and they never noticed he was uninsured.imbecile said:
andy_vtec said:
Are you both insured to drive your mums car? If not, it could drive your decision on who fesses up to take the NIP.
Friend of mine drove through the world's most obvious speed camera in my car while uninsured, I named him on the S172 and they never noticed he was uninsured.Cheers for the replies guys.
Yes, we're both insured under our 'other car' clauses in our own insurance and my mum was aware we'd both be driving it.
My mum already has 6 points so judging by the tone in her voice when she got back from holiday, I sincerely doubt she'd have taken the rap herself hahaha
This may compound matters further, but the NIP was sent the 9th, and since my mum has just got back from hols, she has only just sent it back, is that giong to be a problem?
I most definately will ask for the photo, but if it's not clear, and we're talking a month ago now, then I'll write a letter out to surrey police asking what I can do to prove that I have tried satisfactory dilligence in trying to identify the driver, perhaps taking the stance of one of the posts on pepipoo where there is not enough proof that it was either my GF or myself driving, and could we have a map of the location to identify it's exact position to try to retrace our steps.(?)
I'll keep you all informed as to what heppens next.
Thanks again
Gav
Yes, we're both insured under our 'other car' clauses in our own insurance and my mum was aware we'd both be driving it.
My mum already has 6 points so judging by the tone in her voice when she got back from holiday, I sincerely doubt she'd have taken the rap herself hahaha
This may compound matters further, but the NIP was sent the 9th, and since my mum has just got back from hols, she has only just sent it back, is that giong to be a problem?
I most definately will ask for the photo, but if it's not clear, and we're talking a month ago now, then I'll write a letter out to surrey police asking what I can do to prove that I have tried satisfactory dilligence in trying to identify the driver, perhaps taking the stance of one of the posts on pepipoo where there is not enough proof that it was either my GF or myself driving, and could we have a map of the location to identify it's exact position to try to retrace our steps.(?)
I'll keep you all informed as to what heppens next.
Thanks again
Gav
Edited by TigerS6 on Saturday 26th May 13:19
Edited by TigerS6 on Saturday 26th May 13:20
Dwight VanDriver said:
Possible therefore as I type that request is winging its way via mail.
You are then in the same position Mum was on first receipt.
Maybe, but with different levels of responsibilty..You are then in the same position Mum was on first receipt.
If a person fails to nominate a driver contrary to s.172 RTA 1988, then they have committed an offence.
In court, the vehicle's keeper would be subject to the reasonable diligence (s.172 (4)) test and would have to demonstrate that all reasonable efforts were expended in attempting to identify the driver. If they failed to do this, they would be convicted.
However, the statutory requirements placed upon a person other than keeper by s.172 are far less onerous than for the person keeping the vehicle (PKV). AIUI, TigerS6 is not the PKV.
S172 2(b), as quoted above and which applies to TS6, states that a non PKV is required only to provide information which is in their power to give ie the reasonable diligence test does not apply.
Mohindra v DPP provides the authority that in cases such as these, a non PKV defendant must raise as a trial issue the fact that he is not the person keeping the vehicle. Once that has been established, the prosection must prove that the defendant had information which was in his power to give and that he failed to give that information. Difficult, if not impossible for the prosecution to do.
Adopting a silent stance in response to the s.172 request is not a good idea. It could be argued that a response of simply 'I do not know who was driving' is information which was in the non PKV's power to give. Failure to give even this minimal amount of information could see a s.172 2(b) conviction stick.
A simple letter from TS6 to the SCP stating briefly his relationship to the vehicle, the fact that he is not the PKV and that it could have been himself or his girlfriend driving would probably suffice.
TigerS6 - The guys on pepipoo will probably advise in more detail
Edited by SS2. on Saturday 26th May 14:51
Yep been here, your mum has to make enquiries TigerS6. You do not. So if she asked you and you said both me and my girlfriend have driven it she needs to be reasonably diligent in her enquiries. What that means is of course up to the courts to decide!
Here then, it's you or your gf. I suggest that you Mum needs to ask you and ask your gf if you were driving at the time. If you both say don't know she could ask you both if you have any way to work it out like diaries, work committments, meetings, mobil phone records etc. Once she is satisfied that she has been diligent, she needs to respond to the NIP with the results and any documents she feels support what she says - especially supporting where she was. If she has been diligent enough she has a defence against S172.
The potential drivers mentioned in her response will most likely get NIPS. They will have to respond with what they know, but not make any enquiries.
Assuming all the answers given do not include an "it was me", then one of two things happen. The case it dropped or one or more of the people get a summons under S172.
When a similar thing happened to me, the case was dropped and I got a "you've been let off letter" telling me incorrectly that I have a responsibility (as RK) to know who is driving and I needed to keep records.
Bert
Here then, it's you or your gf. I suggest that you Mum needs to ask you and ask your gf if you were driving at the time. If you both say don't know she could ask you both if you have any way to work it out like diaries, work committments, meetings, mobil phone records etc. Once she is satisfied that she has been diligent, she needs to respond to the NIP with the results and any documents she feels support what she says - especially supporting where she was. If she has been diligent enough she has a defence against S172.
The potential drivers mentioned in her response will most likely get NIPS. They will have to respond with what they know, but not make any enquiries.
Assuming all the answers given do not include an "it was me", then one of two things happen. The case it dropped or one or more of the people get a summons under S172.
When a similar thing happened to me, the case was dropped and I got a "you've been let off letter" telling me incorrectly that I have a responsibility (as RK) to know who is driving and I needed to keep records.
Bert
If your mum was on holiday, was it out of the country? if so there could be an alibi that she wasn't driving i'e credit card bill/receipt, flight stub etc, could be worth looking into,
Don't know how i'll ever get round this if it ever happens to me, because me and the wife or the odd pals are forever, swapping driver's/cars etc
Don't know how i'll ever get round this if it ever happens to me, because me and the wife or the odd pals are forever, swapping driver's/cars etc
speedyguy said:
Don't know how i'll ever get round this if it ever happens to me, because me and the wife or the odd pals are forever, swapping driver's/cars etc
Depends on your perspective really. If you want to be extra safe under S172, you could keep some kind of written record and as RK insist on it being filled in by every driver. Then it's easy, NIP comes, you check the records and name the driver. They get the points, you don't get done under S172.But of course that's not what the law says that a private RK has to do. So why should you? Because if you don't you run a higher risk of prosecution.
Not great legislation.
Bert
herewego said:
imbecile said:
andy_vtec said:
Are you both insured to drive your mums car? If not, it could drive your decision on who fesses up to take the NIP.
Friend of mine drove through the world's most obvious speed camera in my car while uninsured, I named him on the S172 and they never noticed he was uninsured.
aaaaaarrrgggghhhh, god damnit!!
My mum has just called me again, she said that the police sent her a 'very snotty letter' (her words), which said that they were going to take her to court and fine her £1000 if she doesn't name the driver.
... So she effing well put my name down and sent it back!!!!!!
I guess, I'll now recieve what is in effect the same NIP that she had? I have also said to my mum that I want to see a copy of this letter she recieved.
am really annoyed now!! better go for a coffee
TigerS6 said:
aaaaaarrrgggghhhh, god damnit!!
My mum has just called me again, she said that the police sent her a 'very snotty letter' (her words), which said that they were going to take her to court and fine her £1000 if she doesn't name the driver.
... So she effing well put my name down and sent it back!!!!!!
I guess, I'll now recieve what is in effect the same NIP that she had? I have also said to my mum that I want to see a copy of this letter she recieved.
am really annoyed now!! better go for a coffee
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff