Jump to content


speeding ticket


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4208 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

hi all. well a few weeks ago i was caught on camera(side of the road van) doing 40 in a 30 zone, however both my mother and i drove the car within 10 minutes of each other on the same stretch of road, i am the registered keeper. i asked them for a photo in-order to decide which one was driving but the driver cant be seen as we are facing the wrong way.

so my point is does the fine default to the driver if it cant be proved who was driving? or do i have an arguement to drop the charge, thought it was worth a shot ,thanks .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure I have read recently that you have to declare who was driving. If you don't then both you and your Mother can be fined and given points. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes wino, you are wrong ;)

 

As lamma says, you will need to identify who was driving, the penalties for not doing so are more severe in this case than coughing for the speeding.

 

Did both you and your mother drive in the same direction on that road?

 

You do start off by saying YOU were caught ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify things for me kwaks as you can tell this is not a subject I know much about.:p As the registered keeper they would be liable for the points & fine unless they declare someone else was driving. In this case it is not known it could be the owner or her Mother. If they say that to the Court won't they both be fined?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading through some other forums on this topic and it seems that if you genuinely don't know who was driving then it is up to the court to decide. A lot of people have had the ticket cancelled but then again some have not and then have court charges to pay aswell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Neil & Christine hamilton got off on this technicality

 

 

... and AFAIK this "loophole" which was known as the "Hamilton Defence" was closed shortly after that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and AFAIK this "loophole" which was known as the "Hamilton Defence" was closed shortly after that.

 

 

I think that after the Hamilton defence, new regs were brought in with stricter penalties for refusing to say who was driving.

If you genuinely do not know, then I think it's still a defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a variation on the 'Hamilton defense' that has been used and that driver 'a' fills in the form saying that driver 'b' was the offender sending it back to arrive close to the deadline. When driver 'b' gets the form then he sends it back to arrive just before the expiry date naming driver 'a' who then repeats the exercise until the police fail to bring it to court within the six months

 

This is risky since a recent case where it ended in court and both parties were fined and collected points

Link to post
Share on other sites

... and AFAIK this "loophole" which was known as the "Hamilton Defence" was closed shortly after that.

 

wrong - its still a statutory defense to S.172 charges. courts have got a lot tougher on it but its still exists. it was never a loophole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As above, lamma correctly states this is a valid defence.

 

However, in order to succeed with this, you would have to supply all relevant details of possible drivers; request photos to assist with driver identification; and show the court that you had taken all reasonable steps to identify the driver - mobile phone records, fuel purchase receipts, cctv recordings, etc.

 

If the registered keeper has exercised "reasonable diligence", and other possible drivers have given "all information in their power to give" then paragraph 4 of Section 172 states they should not be found guilty of failure to provide info.

 

The speeding charge should also be dismissed, as there's no driver to charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. And caution that you should not expect the court or the CPS to 'play fair'. IF this is your valid defence then you you really need to do your homework and still be prepared to appeal the decision from the Magistrate's court should it be a streamroller decision - they do happen. lots of homework needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...