Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not much to say as Manxman has near enough covered all the angles.   Just a couple of points of clarification:   The requirement to serve the first NIP within 14 days is actually contained in the Road Traffic Offenders' Act, not the Road Traffic Act. In fact the first NIP is the only one required by law. Subsequent NIPs are usually provided along with the S172 Request for Driver's Details notice because they are both produced by the same system and are usually printed on the same piece of paper.   If you do decide to challenge the speeding allegation on the basis that the first NIP was served beyond 14 days the burden to prove that it was rests with you, not the recipient of that NIP. They have no basis (or need) to challenge it as the person prosecuted for speeding will be you, not them. As mentioned, once the police produce evidence to show that it was sent in time to be served within 14 days you will have to show to the court's satisfaction that it was not served.    You need to be very sure of your ground before embarking on this course of action. You need to find out who the RK is and when they received their NIP. There have been one or two notable successes with this strategy. Here's one:   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45668735   The RK of the car Mr Beckham was driving - Bentley Motors - had a good system of recording when post was received and the court was satisfied the NIP was received late.   You don't say what the speed alleged and the limit is but if it was within the course or Fixed Penalty limits it will cost you around £100. If you are convicted following a trial it will cost you an income related fine, a "victim surcharge" of 10% of the fine (minimum £34) and prosecution costs which have a starting point of £620.    
    • Hi all,   I was taken through consultation back in 2019 as my company restructured out dept.  Basically we went from 4 team leaders down to 3 so had to re-apply for our jobs. One thing that did not change was our contracts, they stayed the same but we did have a verbal agreement with our manager that a monthly contractual payment of £250 for working weekends would stop immediately.  At the time I was not fussed but I am now again going to be going through consultation and possibly TUPE transfer.  My questions is: Would I be eligible for this payment to be reinstated if I was TUPE transferred and could I request this to be back dated as it was a contractual payment that I did not officially agree to loosing?    Thank you in advance!  
    • Just looking at the date of the offence 12 December.  Possible was delayed in the post at that time as it was taking me up to 2 weeks to get a first class letter, then the New Year Shut down so to get it early January while the Xmas backlog was cleared seems about right to be honest.  Not that I am telling the police that. 
    • Please take note: I got 2 tickets for 32  miles in a 30 zone on different days.  The police said its their policy to ticket anything over 30!!   I had to pay £100 for one and do the course as well.  Even as a disabled driver there was no give on the tickets. Please stop saying that it has to be 35+ it really does not. West Midlands police in Nuneaton so definitely dont go 1 mile over in that area.  
    • New figures from the Insolvency Service show that early termination rates of IVAs have dropped 11% in the past year, while total IVAs have risen by almost 20,000 in the past two years. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Failure to provide driver’s details and Summons -Court Trial


Recommended Posts

Hello

I received Notice to owner for Excess speed;,  59 on 50 local traffic.

I was not the driver,  I was shielding during the 1st corona virus lockdown in May 2020. 

 

I needed support on shopping for essential, food, medication etc and people helped,  sometimes using my car because I was advised to stay at home as per NHS guidelines.

 

I promptly responded , confirming that I was NOT the driver, completed the driver's name, address and returned.

 

About 5 weeks later, I received another Notice to review the details I sent previously, I confirmed again the driver’s name, address but could not complete parts of  date of birth , driver’s license or insurance, as I don't know it. 

 

The next thing  I rcvd was a Single Procedural Notice, stating no trace of nominee and I was charged with 2 offences; Excess speed and Failure to provide driver’s details.. I was asked to submit plea by post or online.

 

I pleaded Not guilty to both charges by post stating reasons and that I made efforts to locate the driver, went to his address which is a multi occupational flats and was told he was ill and had moved. I went to the address given but no one opened door.  I did all I could reasonably do, to locate the driver .

 

Been summoned to attend Magistrates court in February for Trial. I requested for all evidence relating to my case, and was sent a pre-trial pack.

I noticed a paragraph "The defendant plea,  she is not guilty of the the driving offence as she was not driving at time of offence.  Therefore the original offence of excess speed is no longer applicable in this case "

 

So my questions are as follows:

  • Does the above statement mean I will no longer be charged with excess speed?
  • .How can I proceed on the Failure to provide driver’s details,?  I diligently made efforts but no luck,  especially during this unprecedented times
  • What is my best course of action now?. I cannot afford a Solicitor. 
  • What's the worst that can happen.? 

 

I have a clean licence. 

Please advise me. Been having sleepless nights .

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll reply more fully  later as I'm about to go out. But meantime who was this person who you allowed to drive your car? How did you know him? Was he insured to drive your car? If you are to defend the matter we need to find out if you have a reasonable chance of success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Man in the middle.

He is a friend's friend. 

I met him through a friend.  He's not  on my insurance, but he drives a car, which I believe is his.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. 

 

The law says that when you are asked to provide the driver's details you have to use "reasonable diligence" to find out who it was. The diligence you are required to use only begins once the request is made (this is covered in the case of Atkinson vs DPP). So it cannot be held against you if you did not obtain his details before you allowed him to drive the car. 

 

I take it you provided the police simply with his name and address? If you are to defend this successfully you must convince the court that you did everything that was reasonably practical to identify him. But it seems you already know who it was. It just happens he seems to have disappeared. 

 

You can understand the concern of the police. If it was so simple to just name somebody as the driver and you know that person, even if he was genuine, could not be traced, then everybody would do something similar. You have a simple choice to make: you can defend the charge against you on the basis that you have provided the details required, or you can plead guilty for failing to do so. It should not be in dispute that you provided the details; the matter for the court will be whether they believe they were genuine or not. If they do they should acquit you. It is not your responsibility to trace people who are accused of offences but who have since disappeared.

 

Personally I don't rate your chances of success too highly. You only know him as a "friend of a friend". At the very least you should have checked that he was insured to drive your car. That is something a car owner definitely must do before allowing another person to drive their car. If you had done that (say, by seeing a certificate of insurance to prove the cover) you may have been able to take other details which would help you convince a court hat the person was genuine. As an aside, if the driver was traced and it turned out he was not insured you could be prosecuted for permitting  him to drive your car uninsured (an offence which carries six points).

 

The outcome if you are found guilty at trial will be a fine of a week and a half's net income, a victim surcharge of 10% of the fine, six penalty points but, most significantly, prosecution costs which will be in the region of £600. If you plead guilty to the offence the fine will be reduced to just one week's net income and the costs will be £85, but six points will still be imposed.

 

The speeding matter is a dead duck. You were not driving, you have told them you were not, they obviously have no proof that you were so you cannot be convicted of that offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wealthy Child said:

I genuinely did all I could to identify the driver, I was not aware he was the one that drove.

 

If that's the case why did you provide his details as the driver? Did you lend your car to somebody and they then lent it to somebody else without your knowledge? How did the person you thought was driving get the keys? This is important because you may have a possible defence to this charge but what you've said up to now is makes it very difficult to understand what has happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wealthy Child said:

Thanks a lot for d detailed reply.

I genuinely did all I could to identify the driver, I was not aware he was the one that drove.

 

 

As Man in the middle has asked, if you were not aware that person "X" was the driver of the car, why did you identify them as the driver?

 

If you are saying that you had given the car keys to person "A" and that they were the person who should have been driving, but they gave the keys to "X" without your knowledge and "X" was the driver, you probably should have named "A" in the first place as it was they (and not "X") who was authorised by you to drive the car.

 

You really need to post here ALL the details of what has happened, leaving nothing out, so you can get the best advice on the failure to identify charge.  (Six points, a big fine, and insurance becomes VERY expensive).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...