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

[Wealthy Child]

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  Therefore the original offence of excess speed is no longer applicable in this case "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.

[Man in the middle]

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.

[Wealthy Child]

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.

 

 

[Man in the middle]

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.

[Wealthy Child]

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.

 

[Man in the middle]

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.

[Manxman in exile]

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).