Speeding - Notice of intention to prosecute

[caddy-dave]

I received a letter from a police camera enforcement unit notifying me of their intention to prosecute me as the hirer of a vehicle at the time of an alleged speeding offence.

I have 28 days to either accept that I was the driver of the vehicle and provide my licence details or provide the name and address of the person driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

But I wasn't the driver and not sure who was driving the vehicle at the time - it could be one of three persons.

I wrote to the police to ask for a copy of the photograph that they have, to enable me identify the driver. But they wrote back saying they cannot provide such information to me at this stage. They will only provide such information after a summons has been issued. They want me rather to provide the names of all those that could have been driving the vehicle AS WELL AS the insurance document allowing them to drive the vehicle. Am I really responsible for other driver's insurance?

 

Anyway, any ideas people? Anyone had a similar experience?

 

cheers.

[papasmurf1cx]

Are you saying you hired a vehicle but let other people drive it? What were the conditions of the hiring? Normally vehicles are hired to individuals and the company take copies of driving licences and credit card details. However I am sure they also rent out to companies and place conditions on who can drive it did you do it on behalf of a company?

 

If it was a personal hiring and you allowed someone not authorised by the owner to drive it then you might technically comitted an offence of Allowing the Vehicle to be Driven Without the consent of the Owner. S 12 Theft Act 1968. That charge normally is accompanied by a No Insurance charge even if you have insurance it would be invalidated. So the short answer is that you probably are responsible for the insurance, but we need to know more about the details of the hiring.

 

Sorry if this is a shock to you.

[mightymouse_69]

Hi there and welcome.

 

So you hired a car and let other people drive it?

 

S.172(2)b says that:

 

any other person [other than the keeper] shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

 

If you fail to give this information, you are guilty of an offence.

 

If the hire agreement did not allow the use of the vehicle by the other people than you may be in further bother - potentially.

 

As for insurance, it is an offence to permit a person to use a vehicle if they are not covered by a policy of insurance. So if you allowed these other people to use the car without insurance than that's another offence.

 

So the question is: Did the hire agreement allow the other people to drive the car?

Edited September 15, 2010 by mightymouse_69
misread OP's post and made a series of c*ck ups

[caddy-dave]

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.

[papasmurf1cx]

Hi caddy-dave............ Did you check the other driver insurance certificates? Normally there are conditions ie allowed to drive other vehicles other than those hired out in a hire agreement or such like.

 

What does the contract say?

[caddy-dave]

mightymouse_69, thanks. I did not hire the car out. I let others drive the car, people I believe are covered by their own insurance. I may have to provide the police with the possible names I suppose.

[caddy-dave]

No I didn't check the other driver's insurance. I will also check my hire agreement properly when I'm home at the weekend. I'm currently working away from home.

[mightymouse_69]

You must provide the Police with the possible names. It is an offence not to.

 

You will need to check the other drivers insurance certificates, ensure there is no limitation on the drive other vehicles clause. You will also have to send copies of to the police with the names - as per their request.

 

As for the taking without consent, its probably worth worrying about that when the time comes - if it does. But it may be worth checking the hire agreement at any rate to see what it says about other people using the car.

[crem]

If, having checked all the possible drivers and the insurance they were driving under, if you find any possible "oversights" in this, then apart from never letting them drive your car again, you may find it prudent to think back to the offence day, and realise it was you driving the car at the time and tell the police that in your reply.

[green_and_mean]

The Police and Courts take a dim view of 'not remembering' in my experience. Most people can remember what they were doing on a certain day be it work, shopping or a social trip. If all 3 of your friends have amnesia it is you that is going to pay the price at the end of the day.

[papasmurf1cx]

you may find it prudent to think back to the offence day, and realise it was you driving the car at the time and tell the police that in your reply.

 

I don't think making up a story to fit is wise. If it is a bad situation which one can't get out of legally, I don't think Perverting the Course of Justice will make it any better!!!!!!!! Tell the truth and take the medicine if it is relevant.

[sailor sam]

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.

 

I take it the car was hired on your own insurance. If not, then the other drivers will not be covered in any event as their licences would of been need to be recorded/ok'd by the hire co as it would of been under their policy. The other driver's policies would no doubt cover then to drive another car not owned by them on a third party basis only but I doubt the hire co would agree to allowing that. If you don't tread carefully here, you could be opening a tin of worms for yourself.

 

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.

[green_and_mean]

I take it the car was hired on your own insurance. If not, then the other drivers will not be covered in any event as their licences would of been need to be recorded/ok'd by the hire co as it would of been under their policy. The other driver's policies would no doubt cover then to drive another car not owned by them on a third party basis only but I doubt the hire co would agree to allowing that. If you don't tread carefully here, you could be opening a tin of worms for yourself.

 

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.

 

Good point about the 3rd party cover! Even if the lease company are happy with it as cover if one of the 'friends' wrote off the car you would be liable to replace it.

[sailor sam]

Good point about the 3rd party cover! Even if the lease company are happy with it as cover if one of the 'friends' wrote off the car you would be liable to replace it.

 

Doub't it very much. Most (the ones I worked for) insist on fully comp cover as we are no doubt talking new car. Only way round it as I see it is if the OP had the car covered on his own insurance and his policy would need to be for any driver. Unless this is the case, my advice is to pay the ticket without any fuss! The OP runs the risk of finding that the driver may not have been insured. As you point out, it could of been a lot worse!

 

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.

[mightymouse_69]

Caddy-dave:

 

In your correspondence with the police, did you :

 

1) State that you were not the driver?

2) State that you allowed three friends to drive the car?

 

If not, then the suggestion to pay up immediately has merit. However, the fact that you have written already asking for the photo for identification purposes may well arouse some suspicion.

 

I have a feeling that the police, being aware that this is a hire car, may already be suspecting that something is up.

[Old Snowy]

Firstly, it would seem likely that the OP made the understandable error of asking the police to provide him with their photographic "evidence" rather than asking for them to provide copies of any photographs that might assist in his duty to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. This might seem like a ridiculously subtle difference but the SCP will have latched onto the word evidence and slammed the shutters down because no one is entitled to evidence (in such cases) until such time as they have entered a "not guilty" plea at court.

 

There is long-standing ACPO guidance recommending to SCP's and police forces that in the face of a genuine request to divulge photographs to assist drivers in fulfilling their legal duty (s.172 RTA 1988) that such photographs should be provided.

 

If there is sufficient time left of the 28-days, I suggest that the OP replies to the SCP and renews his request for a copy of photographs and emphasises that it is solely to assist him in fulfilling his legal duty. He should not elaborate upon that request at this stage and make the request as polite as possible. This renewed request should be sent by Special Delivery and a copy of the letter kept - in common with copies of all correspondence.

 

The production of insurance details should be regarded as a side issue at this stage and has no relevance as yet. In any event unless the requirement for it came directly from a police officer then it is a dead duck and cannot be enforced. It is likely that it is just a frightener.

 

In the interim the OP should start checking through and collating such records as are available - mobile phones; bank cards; credit card statements; diaries; receipts etc etc and those of his colleagues. This checking may provide the answer he seeks but will also go to proving (if needs be) the degree of "reasonable diligence" he has carried out, as required by s.172, to ascertain the driver's identity.

 

Whilst in normal circumstances a defendant is only required to reach the level of proof "on the balance of probabilities" in terms of his defence, such is the dislike of courts for the offence of 'failing to furnish' (failing to comply with a s.172 requirement) that many additional hoops are often created. The OP would do well to bear this in mind should he ultimately remain unable to name the driver and is summonsed. He will need to show that he exercised reasonable diligence at the time of the requirement not at the point of receiving the summons - a mistake some drivers often make.

 

Should the OP be minded to come up with a "cooked book" together with some or all of the putative drivers - whether this relates to whomever is named as the driver or in relation to the insurance issue - then he may well stray into the territory of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. If discovered the police will prosecute and anyone convicted would almost certainly be imprisoned.

 

However, if any reply was made carelessly or recklessly then no such conspiracy can by definition have taken place.

 

A conviction for "failing to furnish" carries a hefty fine (anything between £350 and the maximum - salary dependant), will probably include an order for costs, the Victim Support Levy and a mandatory 6 points. The licence endorsement code - MS90 - is not popular with insurers and those who "collect" one could expect a substantial hike in premiums for some years and may even see their insurance revoked.

[mightymouse_69]

In the interim the OP should start checking through and collating such records as are available - mobile phones; bank cards; credit card statements; diaries; receipts etc etc and those of his colleagues. This checking may provide the answer he seeks but will also go to proving (if needs be) the degree of "reasonable diligence" he has carried out, as required by s.172, to ascertain the driver's identity.

 

There is no degree of reasonable diligence where the person is not the keeper of the vehicle (s.172(4)). The OP is merely required to provide "any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver."

 

In my opinion, the OP is in a rather awkward situation - He must provide an accurate list of all drivers. Doing so, however, could in turn lead him into more trouble...

[caddy-dave]

Firstly, it would seem likely that the OP made the understandable error of asking the police to provide him with their photographic "evidence" rather than asking for them to provide copies of any photographs that might assist in his duty to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. This might seem like a ridiculously subtle difference but the SCP will have latched onto the word evidence and slammed the shutters down because no one is entitled to evidence (in such cases) until such time as they have entered a "not guilty" plea at court.

 

I was careful about that actually. I did not ask for a photographic evidence but rather a copy of the photograph to enable me identify the driver.

[sailor sam]

Caddy, can you answer the other points which have been raised; A) was the hire car on your own insurance (under a cover note bearing the car's details- VRM/make/model ect) and is your cover 'any driver'? B) If not, does the hire agreement show whether any driver other than yourself can drive?

 

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.

[caddy-dave]

Caddy, can you answer the other points which have been raised; A) was the hire car on your own insurance (under a cover note bearing the car's details- VRM/make/model ect) and is your cover 'any driver'? B) If not, does the hire agreement show whether any driver other than yourself can drive?

 

 

I will check the terms of the hire agreement when I get home at the weekend. I have insurance that allows me to drive 'any car' so the vehicle details dont appear on my insurance.

[caddy-dave]

The Police and Courts take a dim view of 'not remembering' in my experience. Most people can remember what they were doing on a certain day be it work, shopping or a social trip. If all 3 of your friends have amnesia it is you that is going to pay the price at the end of the day.

 

 

It is not a case of not remembering but rather not knowing who was driving the car on the day. Strictly speaking, I did not give my consent on that occasion which is the reason behind the denials. I suspect that I may have to carry the can at the end of the day but having learned a lesson.

[sailor sam]

I will check the terms of the hire agreement when I get home at the weekend. I have insurance that allows me to drive 'any car' so the vehicle details dont appear on my insurance.

 

I'm not being funny but I would of thought you would know whether the hire car was covered on your insurance or not. The point being, if it is covered on your insurance (which means you would of had to provide to the hire co a cover note bearing their vehicle details on it) and your policy is for 'any driver', then there is nothing to worry about. However, if the car is covered by the hire co's insurance then the drivers MUST be named on the hire agreement and they would of been needed to be present when the agreement was opened other wise they would not be legally entitled to drive the car and you would not have the authority to give consent. I'm sorry, but you appear to be holding back on this very important issue which suggests to me that the car is on the hire co's insurance. Now, with a little luck (and has allready been pointed out by

Old Snowy), this issue may not be relevant to the speeding ticket unless it is indeed a driver who was driving who is not on the agreement. Having said that, the police MAY not pick up the fact that the driver (whoever he/she was), was not entitled to drive the car as they would not have been insured to do so. BUT my concern is that when you name the driver, he/she will have to accept the FPN and submit their licence for endorsement. If they choose to contest it in someway, then there is a signifitant chance that the fact that they may not have been covered by insurance, may come to light and then this will fall back on you because the car was your responsibility as far as the RTA is concernerd. So my advice to you is that you (assuming that the car wasn't covered by your insurance), is that you pay the ticket and submit your licence as required. You mentioned in an earlier post that the other driver's insurance would cover the car which is quite possibly correct if it was hired to them with the owners consent, but according to your info so far that was not the case.

 

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.

[caddy-dave]

Caddy-dave:

 

In your correspondence with the police, did you :

 

1) State that you were not the driver?

2) State that you allowed three friends to drive the car?

 

If not, then the suggestion to pay up immediately has merit. However, the fact that you have written already asking for the photo for identification purposes may well arouse some suspicion.

 

I have a feeling that the police, being aware that this is a hire car, may already be suspecting that something is up.

 

 

Yes, I stated that I was not the driver.

I didn't say that I allowed 3 friends drive the car. I said that it could have been any one of three persons.

So I will now furnish them with the 3 names and wait to hear from them if need be.

[caddy-dave]

I'm not being funny but I would of thought you would know whether the hire car was covered on your insurance or not.

 

I did say that it is covered on my insurance which allows me to drive 'any car'. But the details of the hire agreement relating to other people driving the car is what I will confirm over the weekend.

[sailor sam]

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.

 

Sorry but i'm getting the impression you are giving contridicting info here. As I have worked in the car rental industry, I know how it works. Your'e either covered by the rental co's insurance or your own. If the latter, you would need to inform your insurers of the car's details and the rental co would need a cover note which would almost certainly need to be fully comp. You say your policy covers you to drive any car (as does mine and most others) but I would bet it is only on a third party basis. I suspect that you are taking it for granted that the other 'drivers' were covered by there own respective insurance which is very risky because their policies no doubt will stipulate that the car is (again) coverd third party providing it is being driven with the owners consent. I don't know of any car rental co (certainly none of the nationals) which would accept a hirers insurance cover that was for third party risks only. Your info suggests that the rental is in your name only thus meaning that only you have the owners consent to drive. I am also concerned to note that you are now saying that you havn't given your consent for the other 3 drivers to drive the car although in your earlier post (above) you indicate you did. Not sure if I speak for anyone else on this thread, but I will only give my time to assist people who give accurate and honest info.

 

So (in the theme of Dragon's Den), for those reasons, i'm not going to 'invest' in this thread anymore so 'i'm out'.

 

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.