Summons for a company re speeding.
Discussion
Sorry guys but this one is a little light on the facts at the moment and I could do with a couple of heads up as to the best places to go for info here and on Pepipoo (sp I think!)
G/f has just started a new job. One of the first things she has been given to deal with is a summons to attend the local mags. which, on the sounds of her telephone conversation with me, seems to have the following history.
1. Speeding offence committed in May.
2. s172
3. reply from company saying that they are not sure who was driving at the time of the offence but it could have been A, B, or C. A and B have since left the company.
4. Summons to attend court.
Now there may well be a few gaps in this, if required I’ll fill you in on any, but what would be great is if you can point to the specific part of Pepippoo she needs to have a look at and if there are any threads on here that might help.
Of course if anyone can give the answer on the basis of this post, feel free
G/f has just started a new job. One of the first things she has been given to deal with is a summons to attend the local mags. which, on the sounds of her telephone conversation with me, seems to have the following history.
1. Speeding offence committed in May.
2. s172
3. reply from company saying that they are not sure who was driving at the time of the offence but it could have been A, B, or C. A and B have since left the company.
4. Summons to attend court.
Now there may well be a few gaps in this, if required I’ll fill you in on any, but what would be great is if you can point to the specific part of Pepippoo she needs to have a look at and if there are any threads on here that might help.
Of course if anyone can give the answer on the basis of this post, feel free
vincenz said:
Whats it to do with her if she didnt work there in may?
Its the CPS's reponsibility to do the detective work, not hers.
She's just been asked to deal with it on behalf of the company as part of her job. It's not a case of doing the CPS's job, but her's on behalf of the company and needs to know what to do to protect the company's best interests.Its the CPS's reponsibility to do the detective work, not hers.
esselte said:
What's her post in the company?
Details, details Err, actual title escapes me for the moment, but she's basicly going to be running the business day to day.
Big head boss man will drop buy every so often but the buck will stop with her for dealing with this sort of stuff.
rude-boy said:
esselte said:
What's her post in the company?
Details, details Err, actual title escapes me for the moment, but she's basicly going to be running the business day to day.
Big head boss man will drop buy every so often but the buck will stop with her for dealing with this sort of stuff.
Deva Link said:
rude-boy said:
4. Summons to attend court.
Has the company been summonsed, or a named individual?To the Company Secretary Blah, Blah Ltd
Any other bits of information you might need let me know and I’ll see if I can get the answers tonight and post up as I have asked her to bring the file home with her.
rude-boy said:
vincenz said:
Whats it to do with her if she didnt work there in may?
Its the CPS's reponsibility to do the detective work, not hers.
She's just been asked to deal with it on behalf of the company as part of her job. It's not a case of doing the CPS's job, but her's on behalf of the company and needs to know what to do to protect the company's best interests.Its the CPS's reponsibility to do the detective work, not hers.
The NIP was sent to the head office who passed it down to the manager of the branch who in turn looked at the rota of all drivers in on that day. After looking at who was in she then nominated a driver who was delivering in the area of the speed camera (only one driver per area).
This driver has also left the company so I do not know the outcome, however for him its the same as recieving and NIP for your own vehicle.
If he had any sense he would of known that there was nothing concrete to say he was in the van at that time (as no records were kept) and denied it.
It was mentioned at the time that if you cannot name the driver then a £1000 fine can be issued to the company.
As i do not know the particular setup of your girlfirends organisation i'd get her to look at any logs kept on that day and go from there.
rude-boy said:
esselte said:
What's her post in the company?
Details, details Err, actual title escapes me for the moment, but she's basicly going to be running the business day to day.
Big head boss man will drop buy every so often but the buck will stop with her for dealing with this sort of stuff.
esselte said:
Unless she is actually a director or the company sec. why would she have to go to court?
I see where you are coming from and would agree, however it is her who has been asked to do the leg work and given she knows all about this place thought it might be a good starting point to get a few heads up as to where to start her research Deva Link said:
rude-boy said:
esselte said:
What's her post in the company?
Details, details Err, actual title escapes me for the moment, but she's basicly going to be running the business day to day.
Big head boss man will drop buy every so often but the buck will stop with her for dealing with this sort of stuff.
One question asked was about looking back at the logs to see who was driving at the time. It would appear that there wasn't anything in place before this afternoon when she started one.
(She's not that green
)rude-boy said:
Deva Link said:
rude-boy said:
esselte said:
What's her post in the company?
Details, details Err, actual title escapes me for the moment, but she's basicly going to be running the business day to day.
Big head boss man will drop buy every so often but the buck will stop with her for dealing with this sort of stuff.
One question asked was about looking back at the logs to see who was driving at the time. It would appear that there wasn't anything in place before this afternoon when she started one.
(She's not that green
)I guess if she says she's new, there wasn't a proceedure but there is now, then hopefully they'll look kindly upon her? These things seem to be the luck of the draw.
If you plead guilty for S172 as a company, unless you are seen to be gross misconduct - you will get a £350 fine and a slap on the wrist for not keeping proper records. That will be the end of it.
Why do you think some people are registering their car in Ltd companies as the company can not receive points ... (unless blatent abuse of process of course then it is a different matter)
Why do you think some people are registering their car in Ltd companies as the company can not receive points ... (unless blatent abuse of process of course then it is a different matter)
Deva Link said:
rude-boy said:
Deva Link said:
rude-boy said:
esselte said:
What's her post in the company?
Details, details Err, actual title escapes me for the moment, but she's basicly going to be running the business day to day.
Big head boss man will drop buy every so often but the buck will stop with her for dealing with this sort of stuff.
One question asked was about looking back at the logs to see who was driving at the time. It would appear that there wasn't anything in place before this afternoon when she started one.
(She's not that green
)I guess if she says she's new, there wasn't a proceedure but there is now, then hopefully they'll look kindly upon her? These things seem to be the luck of the draw.
Presumably 'Boss' has landed her the role of Co Secretary?
Summons under the firms name as a Ltd. Co. or a named person (Partnership)? Presume it is Ltd Co?
Past history one of the firms vehicles flashed and they have responded when served with S172 name and smahe driver they do not know who the driver was.
SCP don't accept this defence:
Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 involved:
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies (i.e. exceeding the spedd limit)—
(2)(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,
(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.
So whoever the 'Boss' had in the chair when this first kicked off
looks as if replied 'don't know'.
Summons one presumed is for exceeding the speed limit. This is naughty of CPS as they will not have evidence who was the driver (because they don't have a signed 172 by a driver) but I gather they include it just in case certain admissions are made at Court.
The second offence will be failing to name driver under S 172.
To use the defence then one should present some evidence of the enquiries made to trace the driver (request for photo)and presumably the best person to give this would be whoever was in the chair when the request came in. Can he be traced to help?
As GF was not in chair why cannot the'Boss' take up the cudgel?
Do the firm engage a Solicitor for matters - if so over to him to sort out.
dvd
Summons under the firms name as a Ltd. Co. or a named person (Partnership)? Presume it is Ltd Co?
Past history one of the firms vehicles flashed and they have responded when served with S172 name and smahe driver they do not know who the driver was.
SCP don't accept this defence:
Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 involved:
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies (i.e. exceeding the spedd limit)—
(2)(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,
(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.
So whoever the 'Boss' had in the chair when this first kicked off
looks as if replied 'don't know'.
Summons one presumed is for exceeding the speed limit. This is naughty of CPS as they will not have evidence who was the driver (because they don't have a signed 172 by a driver) but I gather they include it just in case certain admissions are made at Court.
The second offence will be failing to name driver under S 172.
To use the defence then one should present some evidence of the enquiries made to trace the driver (request for photo)and presumably the best person to give this would be whoever was in the chair when the request came in. Can he be traced to help?
As GF was not in chair why cannot the'Boss' take up the cudgel?
Do the firm engage a Solicitor for matters - if so over to him to sort out.
dvd
In the absence of any admissible evidence of driver identity, then they are unlikely to have issued a summons for the alleged speeding offence. I suspect they have commenced proceedings for failing to provide driver details only..
The relevant legislation is Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988.
To avoid a conviction for failing to provide driver details, the Company would be required to demonstrate that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable.
rude-boy said:
One question asked was about looking back at the logs to see who was driving at the time. It would appear that there wasn't anything in place before this afternoon when she started one.
And therein may lie the problem for the Company.The relevant legislation is Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988.
To avoid a conviction for failing to provide driver details, the Company would be required to demonstrate that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable.
SS2. said:
To avoid a conviction for failing to provide driver details, the Company would be required to demonstrate that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable.
Why should the company have to show that failure to keep a record was reasonable? Where in law does it state that a record must be kept of who drives company vehicles? In my case I have 3 vans plus my workhorse car, my partners workhorse car and 3 other cars all fully insured for full business use any driver over 21. Seeing as we don't employ anyone under 21 that means anyone in the company of 18 employees can drive any vehicle. Now while all the car keys are generally kept by the driver who uses each vehicle for the majority of the time, the vans stay overnight at the business premises and as such the keys are kept in a draw which everyone one knows and has access to, if something needs to be taken somewhere or picked up then anyone could drive the vans and they help themselves to the keys and go. The reality is that it would generally be one of 6 people but we never know especially after a fortnight who or when. We keep no records because we don't legally have to and view it as just another paperwork burden if we did, the vans each have a bearer fuel card and pretty much manage themselves. Luckily to date we haven't had any Gatso incidents but if/when we do I will simply tell the truth that we have no idea who was driving, I will go to court if I have to and say exactly what I have here, there is no way that anyone can be forced (unless by an act of parliament and a specific law) that they should keep records under threat of a personal fine and points.mel said:
SS2. said:
To avoid a conviction for failing to provide driver details, the Company would be required to demonstrate that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable.
Why should the company have to show that failure to keep a record was reasonable? Where in law does it state that a record must be kept of who drives company vehicles? S.172 Road Traffic Act 1988 said:
(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.
edit to add: Even the police are not 'exempt'Edited by SS2. on Monday 12th November 17:10
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff