Speeding - Notice of intention to prosecute

[mightymouse_69]

Sailor Sam:

 

When Caddy said "I didn't say that I allowed 3 friends drive the car" I believe this was in answer to my question asking him what info he had given to the police. It was not in contradiction to anything he has told us though.

 

Caddy-Dave:

 

That is correct - give the 3 names and see what response you get back. As for the whole insurance and taking without consent issue - I see little point in getting too bogged down in that at this moment. There is not much you can do about it at any rate other than checking the hire agreement (I appreciate you have said that you will do this) and seeing what it says with regard to other drivers.

[crem]

Just because you intimated to the police that you didn't think you were driving that day, doesn't mean that "having had time to re-think about that day", you now realise you may have been driving and accept the fine.

 

To continue to pursue the posibility that it may have been one of the other people, and provide their details, leading to a possible investigation of their insurance situation, which may be "suspect" is, IMO, opening a can of worms that you may not be able to get closed again!

 

btw, I assume, in light of this possible anomoly regarding who is legally allowed to drive, you have banned all other people from using the car until you can resolve this situation.

Edited September 16, 2010 by crem

[green_and_mean]

I suspect the Police have little interest in the insurance status of the drivers its just a ploy to deter fictitious drivers from being listed as only those that are insured will be put forward.

[mightymouse_69]

I suspect the Police have little interest in the insurance status of the drivers its just a ploy to deter fictitious drivers from being listed as only those that are insured will be put forward.

 

True. I have never heard of them doing this before though.

 

The chances are that the OP could take crem's advice and get away with it. However, he would have to do so knowing that there is the chance (no matter how small it may be) that they may still wish to pursue the insurance matter. If they do this and it is found out also that the OP lied about the speeding offence in order to try and cover up the insurance issue he could be liable for other offences.

[sailor sam]

Sailor Sam:

 

When Caddy said "I didn't say that I allowed 3 friends drive the car" I believe this was in answer to my question asking him what info he had given to the police. It was not in contradiction to anything he has told us though.

 

Yes I see that could be the case. It dosn't change the fact that the OP appears to be very naive in understanding rental insurance works. He appears to think that his own insurance covers the hire but from the info he has given, i suspect it is being covered by the rental co's insurance. I would of thought anyone hiring a car would know who was providing the insurance. If my hunch is correct, the OP should consider himself lucky we are only talking about a speeding ticket here!

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[ForestChav]

realise it was you driving the car at the time and tell the police that in your reply.

Are you being sarcastic?

[crem]

[sailor sam]

Are you being sarcastic?

 

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[ForestChav]

Other than the notion that "?" is not a valid question, I presume you know, that it is a criminal offence to intentionally lie on a NIP (as it would be if you did in court); whilst the registered keeper is responsible for the NIP unless they can name the driver, as the OP cannot remember who was driving at the time, it is his responsibility to reflect the situation honestly and say that either he cannot remember who was driving, in which case he would have to take the points/fine on his licence, or he would have to name the people who he has given access to the car at that time and presumably the authorities would then contact them and hope one of them is forthcoming with who was driving? Either way I don't think openly lying on a NIP is a good idea even if it has the same result as a correct course of action - the OP should tell the truth and say he can't remember who was driving rather than lie and say it was him when it was not, unlikely as they are to follow it up if he did...

[mightymouse_69]

Forest Chav.

 

I agree with everything you say here. However I will point out that contrary to your post, If a RK does not provide the name of the driver because they cannot remember, the points and fine are not automatically awarded to the RK. The RK would have committed a separate offence.

 

It would then be up to the RK to prove "...to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was".

 

The situation here is different. The OP is not the keeper so only has to provide information that may lead to the driver being identified.

[ForestChav]

Yes, that is true. My point was more generally, that the OP is sure they were not driving the vehicle, they should not say they were because that is technically perjury imo.

 

The purpose, AIUI, of sending the RK the NIP is so that they can identify who the driver is (it is the RK's responsibility of course). If the RK was driving they take the fine/points in lieu of going to court (for the purposes of simplicity, providing they choose to accept it). If they know who was driving they send the NIP back and state this and the NIP is passed on to the driver. If they don't, then they presumably have to say they don't know who was driving... which would mean that the RK would not be responsible for the speeding but would be responsible for not knowing who was driving. And as G+M said the courts take a dim view to that.

 

For me it's a question of advising the OP to do the best they can. They don't know who was driving but they know who has access to the car, one of whom was driving presumably. So... do you co-operate, and say you cannot remember who was driving but name the people who it could have been, and presumably they would chase these people; do you lie and risk being found committing perjury, and say it was you, get the points yourself; or do you admit you can't remember, completely stonewall the NIP and risk being found guilty of the separate offence? Easier to do the first imo.

[green_and_mean]

papasmurf1cx, thanks for that. No it isn't a shock. I am looking for honest opinions and yours is certainly one.

I use the vehicle for my business so it is on a long-term hire agreement. I have let others drive the car cos their own insurance cover them to drive other cars. It isn't hired on behalf of a company, it is a personal hire agreement.

 

If its used as part of a business 'due diligence' is expected and records such as a log book are meant to be kept. If its for social use its going to sound a bit strange just leaving the keys lying about so anyone can use your car, what would happen if you then needed it for work?

[Old Snowy]

There is a significant difference between "due" diligence and what s. 172 actually requires i.e. "reasonable" diligence.

 

Similarly, s.172 refers to the "keeper" of a vehicle not "registered keeper". Again there is a difference between the two at law as mightymouse69 alludes to in post #35.

 

However, whether he is actually able to establish that he was or was not the keeper remains to be seen as in the face of the no insurance situation those nominated on his putative s.172 response may demur. This will almost certainly provoke a more detailed enquiry by the police rather than a back-office functionary.

 

The apparent additional request from the police for the insurance details of anyone else who is nominated whilst not a frequent request is not unusual in situations where there is a suspicion that the process is being worked to avoid an otherwise straightforward nomination. The often occurs in situations where for whatever reasons the person actually driving wishes or needs to avoid points. It is almost guaranteed that such a request would be made in situations where people attempt to suggest that the driver at the time is a foreign national who has now returned abroad.