Pool Car - Speeding Offence

[GuidoT]

We have a pool car and received a Notice of Intended Prosecution. having been caught going 40 in a 30 MPH area by a camera in that car.

 

It has been addressed to the firm which a limited firm, as the car is registered to the firm.

 

Trouble is we do not know who was driving it. We have narrowed it down to 2 people and they accept it could have been either of them.

 

It is not possible to tell from the photograph available on line who is the driver, as the sun is reflecting off the screen.

 

If I return the form saying we are unable to determine who the driver is, what are they likely to do to?

 

The individuals have offered to pay half of the £60 fine each, should I send payment in any event?

[green_and_mean]

Speeding fine aside its very poor business practice not to keep a log of whos using the car. What happens if a huge dent suddenly appears in the front or it doesn't come back at all? Where I work we have to sign the keys in and out and fill in a log book in the vehicle.

I would just forward the names of the 2 'suspects' and let the police deal with it without a clear photo I expect they wont persue the matter.

[Zamzara]

I would just forward the names of the 2 'suspects' and let the police deal with it without a clear photo I expect they wont persue the matter.

 

Unlikely I'm afraid. The will probably prosecute the company for failing to provide the driver's details. To defend this charge it would be necessary to show reasonable diligence in trying to identify the driver, and to show that it was reasonable not to keep a record.

[green_and_mean]

Unlikely I'm afraid. The will probably prosecute the company for failing to provide the driver's details. To defend this charge it would be necessary to show reasonable diligence in trying to identify the driver, and to show that it was reasonable not to keep a record.

 

I realise that could be the case thats why I suggested forwarding the two names rather than a list of pool drivers. I find it hard to beleive their work records do not narrow down who was driving down that street or in the area on the day in question.

[GuidoT]

BUMP for some constructive advice (no lectures please).

[Shanks]

I think the problem here is going to be the points, they might be willing to share the fine but which one is going to carry the points on their licence?

 

I think green_and_mean's idea would be the best - at least it is a honest response. Explain the situation to the police and let them take it from there. They are likely to follow it up but it will come down to the two individuals to work out which one it was.

 

I think you will have adequately shown at least some compliance with due diligance in that you have narrowed it down to two.

 

Cheers

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

How are cases when husband and wife were travelling together, sharing the driver and cannot remember who was driving and the photo gives no help? It must have happened.

[patdavies]

How are cases when husband and wife were travelling together, sharing the driver and cannot remember who was driving and the photo gives no help? It must have happened.

 

They must demonstrate to the Bench that they have used reasonable diligence to ascertain the identity of the drive, but failed.

 

It is a statutory defence.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

They must demonstrate to the Bench that they have used reasonable diligence to ascertain the identity of the drive, but failed.

 

It is a statutory defence.

 

So that would be the answer here I guess!

[patdavies]

So that would be the answer here I guess!

 

No, because the RTA places a higher duty on a corporate body as RK.

 

Section 172 of the RTA 1988 was amended by S.21 of the RTA 1991. Specifically,

 

(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.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

No, because the RTA places a higher duty on a corporate body as RK.

 

Section 172 of the RTA 1988 was amended by S.21 of the RTA 1991. Specifically,

 

Sorry, I meant its the answer for the two possible drivers. Not for the company who I suspect may be stuffed if the CPS decides to prosecute. One for a guilty plea I suspect.

[Esio Trot]

Unlikely I'm afraid. The will probably prosecute the company for failing to provide the driver's details. To defend this charge it would be necessary to show reasonable diligence in trying to identify the driver, and to show that it was reasonable not to keep a record.

 

If the firm gets prosecuted and fined, does it matter? It's not a CCJ and if paid it is the end of the matter. The fine won't be allowable against corporation tax, but that is small beer.

 

The main point is that the firm won't get points. And it is these that are a bummer for any driver, not the fine.

 

The firm has done its best and identified two potential drivers. It should notify these two and let the investigating officer decide on further action. No doubt they will write to the two drivers. If both drivers do not admit to being the driver, then it unlikely they will be prosecuted and if not then no doubt the company will be.

 

If the company is prosecuted, it should simply plea guilty and pay the fine as the socially responsible thing to do.

[Shanks]

If the firm gets prosecuted and fined, does it matter?

 

I think the OP and any other company director may think so. He has shown due diligence in identifying that it is one of two individuals. You could argue that additional records may have managed to eliminate one or other but that wasn't the case here so there is little point labouring over that topic.

 

The Police have two people and they will have to deal with it from there. I think it would be unreasonable, although sadly not improbable, for them to say "Oh we [the police] cannot get these people to decide which one it was so we'll just fine the company instead"

[Esio Trot]

If the firm gets prosecuted and fined, does it matter?

I think the OP and any other company director may so. He has shown due diligence in identifying that it is one of two individuals.

 

What I really meant to convey is that even if the company is prosecuted and fined, then as long as the fine is paid according to the court order there is no stain on the company's reputation (unlike a CCJ - unless paid in 30 days). It is simply a financial penalty. If the company is told it is to be prosecuted then to save the courts time and effort it should plead guilty, accept any fine and pay it promptly.

 

Both drivers have offered to split the £60 fixed penalty, even though each has not admitted to being the driver. If they did this, or even split the company's fine and paid that (which they may feel morally they should do) then the company has not lost anything.