speeding whilst test driving
Discussion
I decided to sell my TVR after 3.5 years of point-free ownership. I was out in it recently giving someone a test drive, and needless to say, we were caught doing 51 in a 40 zone by a mobile camera. I was not driving, the guy who answered the ad was driving. I do not have any of his details. I have since sold the car to another person. What is my position?? I get the feeling I have no option but to suffer the £60 fine and 3 poiints on my previously clean license....
If you get the NOIP and rest of the bumph as you were not the driver at the time of the offence you will be asked to name and shame driver. You say you cannot do so, so you can write to the issuing authority pointing out the circumstances you have outlined and try the defence under Section 172 (4) Road Traffic Act 1988 -
A person shall not be guilty of the offence of failing to name if HE SHOWS that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
What happens then is up to the Gods and they may push for a Court date for failing to name and up to you to satisfy Their Worships.
Or you can take the rap as you say. (Not recommended).
Not content with whizzing around in a speeding car that you could have some control to say slow down, ten to one the driver wouldn't be insured under your policy and did you check to see if the driver had Insurance of his own? Really. Did you see the Certificate????
DVD
(More felons about here Fif/Toad.)
A person shall not be guilty of the offence of failing to name if HE SHOWS that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
What happens then is up to the Gods and they may push for a Court date for failing to name and up to you to satisfy Their Worships.
Or you can take the rap as you say. (Not recommended).
Not content with whizzing around in a speeding car that you could have some control to say slow down, ten to one the driver wouldn't be insured under your policy and did you check to see if the driver had Insurance of his own? Really. Did you see the Certificate????
DVD
(More felons about here Fif/Toad.)
mungo said:
Unless you have the guys contact details and he is VERY nice and admits liability, you'll have to face the fine and points I am sorry to say
No you won't, you have a perfect valid defence under Subsection 4 of Section 172 of the RTA. All you need to do is show "reasonable diligence" in your attempts to identify the driver. If you can't ascertain his ID, then as long as you've shown you genuinelly tried to, then no offence is committed.
>> Edited by FastShow on Thursday 18th December 16:00
Fastshow
Tell that to CC Hamps. One of his CID in cop car got flashed. Forms sent to him to name. He couldn't and case went to Court and Force fined 400 notes IIRC.
Problem is that defence was brought in for good reason to help genuine cases. Now so abused that nobody believes what is put forward.
Cannot remember the driver? Does not that indicate a medical condition loss of memory? If so what about notifiable disease in relation to taking away a driver's licence. Fanciful. Bet someone in Big House has considered this.
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 18th December 16:15
Tell that to CC Hamps. One of his CID in cop car got flashed. Forms sent to him to name. He couldn't and case went to Court and Force fined 400 notes IIRC.
Problem is that defence was brought in for good reason to help genuine cases. Now so abused that nobody believes what is put forward.
Cannot remember the driver? Does not that indicate a medical condition loss of memory? If so what about notifiable disease in relation to taking away a driver's licence. Fanciful. Bet someone in Big House has considered this.
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 18th December 16:15
If you can show that you advertised the vehicle for sale, that's a start. How many people came to view/drive it? Did you get all/any names? How many were called 'Joe Soap' (with apologies to any Joe Soaps out there)? Did you note anything about the vehicle this particular driver turned up in (make, colour, registration)? A partial picture might help to substantiate your claim.
Streaky
Streaky
A suggestion:
If you write back explaining the situation they will probably come back telling you that you will be prosecuted if you don't supply a name.
Then write back saying that you genuinely don't know who was driving, but that, under duress, you are prepared to name yourself even though you know it was not you driving, but that before you do that you want a written indemnity from prosecution for failing to identify if it subsequently comes to light that your'confession' was false, which you know it will be. Tell them that if they can't provide this indemnity, which is really an authorisation by them for you to attempt to pervert the course of justice, you will have to ask your solicitor to deal with the CPS and prepare a robust defence. If you got the indemnity think what a field day the press would have.
My guess is that they'll back right off.
This advice came to me from a serving police officer of inspector rank and I believe it to be sound.
Apparently this is a similar defence to the one in which a husband and wife do not know who was driving and both offer, in writing, to confess, asking the CPS from whom they would like the confession and asking for the same indemnity should the person confessing subsequently be proved not to have been the driver. They also offer to pay two fines and for both to take 3 points. At this point the CPS give up, as they can't accept a confession from two people for one offence. It reverses the situation where both deny the offence and it gives them a real problem.
Don't worry about the insurance aspect mentioned above. If the driver can't be identified no-one can know whether or not he was insured, so it's not your problem.
If you write back explaining the situation they will probably come back telling you that you will be prosecuted if you don't supply a name.
Then write back saying that you genuinely don't know who was driving, but that, under duress, you are prepared to name yourself even though you know it was not you driving, but that before you do that you want a written indemnity from prosecution for failing to identify if it subsequently comes to light that your'confession' was false, which you know it will be. Tell them that if they can't provide this indemnity, which is really an authorisation by them for you to attempt to pervert the course of justice, you will have to ask your solicitor to deal with the CPS and prepare a robust defence. If you got the indemnity think what a field day the press would have.
My guess is that they'll back right off.
This advice came to me from a serving police officer of inspector rank and I believe it to be sound.
Apparently this is a similar defence to the one in which a husband and wife do not know who was driving and both offer, in writing, to confess, asking the CPS from whom they would like the confession and asking for the same indemnity should the person confessing subsequently be proved not to have been the driver. They also offer to pay two fines and for both to take 3 points. At this point the CPS give up, as they can't accept a confession from two people for one offence. It reverses the situation where both deny the offence and it gives them a real problem.
Don't worry about the insurance aspect mentioned above. If the driver can't be identified no-one can know whether or not he was insured, so it's not your problem.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Tell that to CC Hamps. One of his CID in cop car got flashed. Forms sent to him to name. He couldn't and case went to Court and Force fined 400 notes IIRC.
No. CC Hants was indulging in politics. He pled 'guilty'. This was a blatant action to maintain the 'lie', espoused by all scammers, that the sub-section (4) (reasonable diligence) defence does not exist. If the Constabulary had successfully 'got off', its (ss(4)) existence would have got massive publicity.
Hants Constabulary spent ~1,000 man hours trying to find out who it was. Nobody could seriously suggest that that wasn't "reasonable diligence".
Cooperman said:
Don't worry about the insurance aspect mentioned above. If the driver can't be identified no-one can know whether or not he was insured, so it's not your problem.
Slight problem. 'Permitting'. Some scammers (including Essex) will threaten you with this; whether they will actually prosecute, I don't know. See this thread for more information.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 19th December 19:31
J.A.
Sorry but do not agree with your reasoning re CC Hants.
The defence available is fairly common knowledge. Go anywhere in motoring circles and it will come up if raised.
Re the Insurance. Cooperman is right. If the driver is not traced then whilst it may be possible to show that the owner did not have Insurance to cover someone else then Police cannot say the same of the driver because they cannot ask him so cannot prove to the contrary.
Further see O'Mahoney v Joliffe 1999 - a passenger can also 'use' the vehicle if there is an element of joint enterprise. Was this present. I would say so.
DVD
Sorry but do not agree with your reasoning re CC Hants.
The defence available is fairly common knowledge. Go anywhere in motoring circles and it will come up if raised.
Re the Insurance. Cooperman is right. If the driver is not traced then whilst it may be possible to show that the owner did not have Insurance to cover someone else then Police cannot say the same of the driver because they cannot ask him so cannot prove to the contrary.
Further see O'Mahoney v Joliffe 1999 - a passenger can also 'use' the vehicle if there is an element of joint enterprise. Was this present. I would say so.
DVD
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff