Who do I give the points to then?

[maxpaul]

I am a car dealer selling 50+ cars a month in Feb this year o of my cars was caught speeding by a mobile Camera. It took over two months for the police to send the ticket by which time the car had been to the service dept, MOT, and cleaning. After that period of time we have no idea who was driving the car, it was with us as it was sold a week after the offence so we know it was not the new owner. I have told all this to the police and have seen the picture and have no idea who was driving. I am the Company sectary and director of the company and guess i am ultimatly responsibile but it was not me driving the dam thing!
Police say it will now have to go to court. What is the answer will i get the points? This could be a miss carrage of justice, I have offered for the company to pay the fine. Has anyone got any ideas?

[carrotchomper]

I suppose s172 will come up, for failing to notify the driver. But I'm fairly sure the defence of having used "Due diligence" would apply, provided you have shown all reasonable steps have been taken to ID driver.

[davido140]

isnt there a time limit on serving a NIP ?

[Cooperman]

maxpaul said:

I am a car dealer selling 50+ cars a month in Feb this year o of my cars was caught speeding by a mobile Camera. It took over two months for the police to send the ticket by which time the car had been to the service dept, MOT, and cleaning. After that period of time we have no idea who was driving the car, it was with us as it was sold a week after the offence so we know it was not the new owner. I have told all this to the police and have seen the picture and have no idea who was driving. I am the Company sectary and director of the company and guess i am ultimatly responsibile but it was not me driving the dam thing!
Police say it will now have to go to court. What is the answer will i get the points? This could be a miss carrage of justice, I have offered for the company to pay the fine. Has anyone got any ideas?

Surely it's the CPS who have to decide if it's got to go to court.
The CPS are often unwilling to proced against a limited company as a company almost always fights back with good legal representation and the issue of the points can be difficult. Suggestion: resign as Company Secretary and appoint a new one who could not have known who was driving. Better still make the co.sec'y another company, e.g. an accountancy firm. The get the new co,sec'y to contact the Police informing them that all future correspondence about this should be sent directly to them.
Once the files get to the CPS they will probably lose all interest. If not, then fight it all the way. If you could prove that you did not know and, despite trying, could not find out who was driving, then the company is innocent.

[The Hitman]

davido140 said:

isnt there a time limit on serving a NIP ?

Yes, I believe it is 4 weeks.

[jacko lah]

The issue is that other companies can and do take reasonable steps to record the driver of a car.

If I borrow a pool car, I need to fill in a form which says who is travelling in the car, and who will be driving. If this changes we need to phone the pool car person who records it, if she's not there we must leave a timed message on her phone and she will record it.

Then in the car there is a book that you fill in the time and date, mileage and person driving. If you swap drivers you must fill it in. This is a discilinary matter.

Thus, I went to Melton Mowbray on the 6th July 2004 and planned to take, X, Y and Z. Z was named as the back up driver. But Never came. So I had to leave a message saying z would not be travelling and X and Y could not drive as their licence had not been scanned in by pool car lady.

Why can't you do the same ?

[s2art]

jacko lah said:

The issue is that other companies can and do take reasonable steps to record the driver of a car.

If I borrow a pool car, I need to fill in a form which says who is travelling in the car, and who will be driving. If this changes we need to phone the pool car person who records it, if she's not there we must leave a timed message on her phone and she will record it.

Then in the car there is a book that you fill in the time and date, mileage and person driving. If you swap drivers you must fill it in. This is a discilinary matter.

Thus, I went to Melton Mowbray on the 6th July 2004 and planned to take, X, Y and Z. Z was named as the back up driver. But Never came. So I had to leave a message saying z would not be travelling and X and Y could not drive as their licence had not been scanned in by pool car lady.

Why can't you do the same ?

And if a salesman takes the car out without filling in a book, what then? Its all very well in the public sector with lots of employees to monitor everything. Not so easy in a small business.

[jezzaaa]

jacko lah said:

The issue is that other companies can and do take reasonable steps to record the driver of a car.

If I borrow a pool car, I need to fill in a form which says who is travelling in the car, and who will be driving. If this changes we need to phone the pool car person who records it, if she's not there we must leave a timed message on her phone and she will record it.

Then in the car there is a book that you fill in the time and date, mileage and person driving. If you swap drivers you must fill it in. This is a discilinary matter.

Thus, I went to Melton Mowbray on the 6th July 2004 and planned to take, X, Y and Z. Z was named as the back up driver. But Never came. So I had to leave a message saying z would not be travelling and X and Y could not drive as their licence had not been scanned in by pool car lady.

Why can't you do the same ?

Good god, what a pain in the arse...just to keep the CPS happy?? Bugger that...

[pdV6]

jacko lah said:

The issue is that other companies can and do take reasonable steps to record the driver of a car.

If I borrow a pool car, I need to fill in a form which says who is travelling in the car, and who will be driving. If this changes we need to phone the pool car person who records it, if she's not there we must leave a timed message on her phone and she will record it.

Then in the car there is a book that you fill in the time and date, mileage and person driving. If you swap drivers you must fill it in. This is a discilinary matter.

Thus, I went to Melton Mowbray on the 6th July 2004 and planned to take, X, Y and Z. Z was named as the back up driver. But Never came. So I had to leave a message saying z would not be travelling and X and Y could not drive as their licence had not been scanned in by pool car lady.

Why can't you do the same ?

Great idea. Now just need to invent a time machine to be able to make it of any use for the OP...

[JustinP1]

s2art said:

jacko lah said:

The issue is that other companies can and do take reasonable steps to record the driver of a car.

If I borrow a pool car, I need to fill in a form which says who is travelling in the car, and who will be driving. If this changes we need to phone the pool car person who records it, if she's not there we must leave a timed message on her phone and she will record it.

Then in the car there is a book that you fill in the time and date, mileage and person driving. If you swap drivers you must fill it in. This is a discilinary matter.

Thus, I went to Melton Mowbray on the 6th July 2004 and planned to take, X, Y and Z. Z was named as the back up driver. But Never came. So I had to leave a message saying z would not be travelling and X and Y could not drive as their licence had not been scanned in by pool car lady.

Why can't you do the same ?

And if a salesman takes the car out without filling in a book, what then? Its all very well in the public sector with lots of employees to monitor everything. Not so easy in a small business.

I agree.

If you can show that you make adequate provisions and enforce a method of recording that on *this occasion* was not used by a rogue employee then this might help your case.

[Chrisgr31]

jacko lah said:

The issue is that other companies can and do take reasonable steps to record the driver of a car.

If I borrow a pool car, I need to fill in a form which says who is travelling in the car, and who will be driving. If this changes we need to phone the pool car person who records it, if she's not there we must leave a timed message on her phone and she will record it.

Then in the car there is a book that you fill in the time and date, mileage and person driving. If you swap drivers you must fill it in. This is a discilinary matter.

Thus, I went to Melton Mowbray on the 6th July 2004 and planned to take, X, Y and Z. Z was named as the back up driver. But Never came. So I had to leave a message saying z would not be travelling and X and Y could not drive as their licence had not been scanned in by pool car lady.

Why can't you do the same ?

As a matter of interest who do you work for? Most companies attempt to keep a log of pool cars but are not so anal about it.

Anyway this case is different as it is a vahicles sales operation where many different people (potential purchasers, salesmen, mechanics, valeters etc) could be driving the car on the same day;



As an aside the 2 week time period for serving a NIP presumably doesn't apply in this case as the details held at the DVLA were incorrect. The NIP presumably wnet to the registered keeper first who was probably the previous owner.

[F348]

FishFace said:

The Hitman said:

davido140 said:

isnt there a time limit on serving a NIP ?

Yes, I believe it is 4 weeks.

14 days not including the day of the offence.

THat is true, however, it is unlikely that the car dealer is registered as the owner therefore the 14 days is irrelevant. The original NIP needs to be within the 14 days, any subsequent follow up NIP can be longer.

[maxpaul]

Keeping a log is all well and good with a car fleet and pool cars but I am a car dealer none of the cars are in our name and we sell up to sixty cars a month the workshops we use have 12 staff the valeters have 3 the MOT station have 4 and after 3 months we will have no idea who was driving the car!If it had been within 2 weeks would have been much easier
I did try to use the excuse that we should have been advised within 14 days quoting section 172 Road Traffic act but they advised that was only the case with contacting the owner listed with the DVLA if it has been sold then no time limmit. I think we will be at the mercy of the court or as has been said the CPA

[Dwight VanDriver]

The relevant law is at Section 172 RTA 1988 as amended by Sect 21 RTA 1991 Paul and may be of interest to you.

(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, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.


(3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

(5) Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(6) Where the alleged offender is a body corporate, or in Scotland a partnership or an unincorporated association, or the proceedings are brought against him by virtue of subsection (5) above or subsection (11) below, subsection (4) above shall not apply unless, in addition to the matters there mentioned, the alleged offender shows that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable.

Your defence will rest on the fact that because of the turn over it is not possible for your to keep an accurate record of drivers/vehicle use. Whether the Magistrates will acept is another matter.....

dvd

[djohnson]

I have previously been advised that there would be a fine (much more than £60 was discussed at the time) but no points in the circumstance that a Company Secretary has failed to keep adequate records which would enable him / her to identify the driver of an offending vehicle. This advice is now a few years old so may be out of date.

Edited by djohnson on Tuesday 3rd July 16:07

Edited by djohnson on Tuesday 3rd July 16:07

[Chrisgr31]

djohnson said:

I have previously been advised that there would be a fine (much more than £60 was discussed at the time) but no points in the circumstance that a Company Secretary has failed to keep adequate records which would enable him / her to identify the driver of an offending vehicle. This advice is now a few years old so may be out of date.

At least one Chief Constable has taken the fine, whilst at least one Chief Constable has used the "I don't know who was driving" defence. Both were discussed on here and might provide useful ammo.

What you really want is a diary and everytime an employee takes a car out they write it in the diary along with times. Then when you get a NIP you either say to the Police x was driving or you say "Staff are instructed to complete the diary, on this occasion they have not. You are welcome to check the diary, to see out official procedures"

[Cooperman]

I don't know how relevent this is, but if the company has several different departments, e.g bodyshop, workshop, sales dep't, etc, a director may know that the car was in the sales dep't on the day in question. Thus the Sales Manager would have control of the vehicle and the Managing Director could not and would not have control of who drove it. Indeed, he/she couldn't have knowledge of that fact. Thus, the Sales manager would, technically, be the keeper for thetime being. So, name the sales manager as he may know. The sales manager would then receive an NiP requesting the name of the driver, and so the game goes on. remember also, that if a summons is not issued within 6 months of the offence, it 'times-out'. Failure to name a driver cannot be used in a prosecution, as there has been no failure to do so, just uncertainty as to who has the information to hand. In fact, this is now a common problem for companies selling large volumes of cars. I recently took some test drives in several cars at different dealers. Of 3 dealers, only one asked my name and address and made a note of it. The other 2 just let me drive and didn't even ask to see my licence nor any ID.

[Richard C]

Chrisgr31 said:

jacko lah said:

The issue is that other companies can and do take reasonable steps to record the driver of a car.

If I borrow a pool car, I need to fill in a form which says who is travelling in the car, and who will be driving. If this changes we need to phone the pool car person who records it, if she's not there we must leave a timed message on her phone and she will record it.

Then in the car there is a book that you fill in the time and date, mileage and person driving. If you swap drivers you must fill it in. This is a discilinary matter.

Thus, I went to Melton Mowbray on the 6th July 2004 and planned to take, X, Y and Z. Z was named as the back up driver. But Never came. So I had to leave a message saying z would not be travelling and X and Y could not drive as their licence had not been scanned in by pool car lady.

Why can't you do the same ?

As a matter of interest who do you work for? Most companies attempt to keep a log of pool cars but are not so anal about it.

Anyway this case is different as it is a vahicles sales operation where many different people (potential purchasers, salesmen, mechanics, valeters etc) could be driving the car on the same day;

This is anal in the extreme. Only a public body would be able to dream this up. We have a pool vehicle record, each perons who is entitled to drive fills in the journey log. Sometimes X, Y and Z initial this. We can't expect people to have to ring in and say who's driving. If a NIP comes in admin person asks who was driving; if no-one will admit with certainty admin lady sends X, Y and Z's addresses in with unsigned NIP and explanatory letter and inviting the police to pursue their own enquiries and stating that as far as pool car RK company is concerned S172 has been complied with - Works.

Edited by Richard C on Tuesday 3rd July 18:11

[Richard C]

Chrisgr31 said:

jacko lah said:

The issue is that other companies can and do take reasonable steps to record the driver of a car.

If I borrow a pool car, I need to fill in a form which says who is travelling in the car, and who will be driving. If this changes we need to phone the pool car person who records it, if she's not there we must leave a timed message on her phone and she will record it.

Then in the car there is a book that you fill in the time and date, mileage and person driving. If you swap drivers you must fill it in. This is a discilinary matter.

Thus, I went to Melton Mowbray on the 6th July 2004 and planned to take, X, Y and Z. Z was named as the back up driver. But Never came. So I had to leave a message saying z would not be travelling and X and Y could not drive as their licence had not been scanned in by pool car lady.

Why can't you do the same ?

As a matter of interest who do you work for? Most companies attempt to keep a log of pool cars but are not so anal about it.

Anyway this case is different as it is a vahicles sales operation where many different people (potential purchasers, salesmen, mechanics, valeters etc) could be driving the car on the same day;

This is anal in the extreme. Only a public body would be able to dream this up. We have a pool vehicle record, each person who is entitled to drive fills in the journey log. Sometimes as many as X, Y and Z initial this. We can't expect people to have to ring in and say who's driving. If a NIP comes in admin person asks who was driving; if no-one will admit with certainty admin lady sends X, Y and Z's addresses in with unsigned NIP and explanatory letter and inviting the police to pursue their own enquiries and stating that as far as pool car RK company is concerned S172 has been complied with - Works.

Edited by Richard C on Tuesday 3rd July 18:13

[RayVonn]

First letter that you should have sent upon receipt of the NIP (and from what you've said, I guess you sent something along similar lines):-

Date

Address of Camera Office

Dear Sir/Madam

NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION NO : ********

With reference to the above notice number, we would be grateful if you could supply us with any photographic evidence of the alleged offence so that we may identify the driver.

On the day specified, there was more than one driver of the vehicle and unfortunately we are unable to come to any definitive conclusions as to who the driver was.

We look forward to receiving the photographs at your earliest convenience and should there be any problem with this we would appreciate your prompt response.

Yours sincerely...................


Then once photo is received, second letter should read:-

Re: Notice of Intended Prosecution - *******

Dear

We have done everything in our power to help identify who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence but to no avail. That said, we can confirm that the people who drove the vehicle on or about that time were the following:

· Name and address of driver number 1; and
· Name and address of driver number 2; and
. Name and address of driver number 3; and
. Name and address of driver number 4, etc, etc

Each of the drivers listed above have seen the photographic evidence but none of them are able to be clear as to who it actually is. We acknowledge our responsibilities under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but as is required by subsection 172(4) we believe that we have done as much as we possibly can to identify the driver, but that we have not been able, having exercised at the very least “reasonable diligence”, to ascertain who it was.

So other than reiterate what we have said in our previous letter, and having provided the details of the individuals above, there is nothing else we can do. We very much hope that this matter can be avoided from going to court.

Yours sincerely.................


In the unfortunate event that the CPS then decide to proceed and take it to court, get yourself a half-decent lawyer and don't worry about it