Jump to content


Been wrongly named as the driver of car caught speeding *** Resolved***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 207 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

14 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

I disagree: he absolutely shouldn’t offer to plead guilty to speeding (which was what the previous thread quoted suggested)

1) It removes the “I had no reason to not return the S.127 and did return it”, and

2) is demonstrably false, and invites a conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Chris Hunhe got sentenced to 8 months (serving 9 weeks).

 

 

No BazzaS!

 

I did not suggest that norton47 follow the advice in that thread.  I told him to look at the advice in post #8 of that thread - nothing else.  Please read my post again. 

 

It is simply advising him that he may wish to cast his net further for advice.  He should be pointed in other directions if he may find there other advice to help him and his father.  It's a free country.

 

(Although I suspect that post has been edited after the fact to render it less useful now to norton47)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I read it after the edit you mentioned, (when the thread now reads more about the pleading guilty to speeding), so misunderstood

 

Apologies if I misinterpreted your post, and I’m glad if I’m now agreeing with you (that any such plea would be a very bad idea!)

Edited by BazzaS
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

I disagree: he absolutely shouldn’t offer to plead guilty to speeding (which was what the previous thread quoted suggested)

1) It removes the “I had no reason to not return the S.127 and did return it”, and

2) is demonstrably false, and invites a conviction for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Chris Hunhe got sentenced to 8 months (serving 9 weeks).

 

norton47 - ignore this post from BazzaS as he has completely misunderstood my earlier suggestion to you because he only looked at the thread I quoted after post #8 in it had been edited to make it meaningless.  (Cross posted with BazzaS)

 

My earlier advice above stands regarding what your father needs to consider in deciding whether to plead guilty or not guilty.

 

Pleading guilty to the s172 failure to identify gets him 6 points and (I think) a discounted fine.  Pleading Not Guilty means he will have to attend court and he might get off the charge, or the court might still find him guilty which means 6 points, a full value fine and probably costs on top.  If he pleads Not Guilty but does not attend court he will almost certainly be found guilty anyway.

 

The point of my other post was to suggest to you to look wider for advice and not to rely solely on this site.  Post #8 in that thread referred to another website that specialises in speeding and s172 offences that you might like to look at.  Unfortunately, after I linked to it, the software on this website broke the link to that other site, causing all the confusion above.  The only reason I was quoting that other thread was because it contained the link to the other site I'm referring to - NONE of the other advice in that thread apples to you - only that in post #8

 

Apologies for the confusion but it's caused by this site changing links to other sites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would refer to the Forum Rules then you would understand why external links are removed and why you have been previously told not to post them.

 

 

.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

My mother has found the letter (that i did not know had come)that came from the DVLA stating that my dad was never the owner or registered keeper and had no connection to the car and he has been removed from the database about the car in question,and the letter should be included in any reply to the police,but the letter didn't arrive until December 2020.

 

We are going to plead not guilty, but first i am going to ring the CPS to see if this can be stopped, to save my dad from going to court.

 

The facts so far

October 2020 My dad gets a a sec 172(3) RTA 88

 

We ring the police and request the photo of the offence

 

We don't know the car or recognise the driver.

 

We fill in the sec 172(3) RTA 88 and return it, stating the above (no proof, it was just posted in the post box but my mother will go to court and swear its true)

 

Following police advice we write a letter to the DVLA asking for my dads details to be removed from the database.

 

December 2020 They receive a letter from the DVLA saying he has been removed from the database about the car in question and my dad was never the owner or registered keeper and had no connection to the car.

 

March 2021 my dad gets charged with RT88567 failure to identify the driver of a car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be good to scan or take a photo of the letter so send to CPS and Police, keep the original safe

 

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brassnecked said:

It would be good to scan or take a photo of the letter so send to CPS and Police, keep the original safe

 

 

Unfortunately the letter from the DVLA is probably an irrelevant side issue as there is no suggestion anywhere that the OP's father was ever associated with the vehicle in question.  (It would seem the OP's father was led down this particlar garden path by the police wrongly suggesting he needed to contact the DVLA to "remove" his non-existent connection to the vehicle).

 

We know from the OP's post #20 that the first NIP/s172 was sent to the Registered Keeper and then two subsequent 172s followed and the OP's father was named by the third person in the chain.

 

It would thus appear that the DVLA have never linked the vehicle to the OP's father and that he only received a request because he had been named by somebody else.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you are saying,but would it not show that if he sent a letter to the DVLA about this,that he would have also sent the request back to the police asking to name the driver?

Link to post
Share on other sites

norton47

 

So long as you and your father appreciate that pleading Not Guilty does not guarantee success if you cannot persuade the court that the form was returned, then go ahead. 

 

If he wins there are no consequences other than having to present his defence in court; if he loses the only additional cost over pleading guilty is that he loses any discount available on the fine and will have to pay court costs.  (Not sure what this would amount to but others here probably can tell you).

 

Yes - try contacting the police and CPS and try to persuade them to drop the charges.  (You might also want to try arguing with them that to prosecute your father in these circumstances is not in the public interest)

 

 

 

Good luck

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, norton47 said:

I get what you are saying,but would it not show that if he sent a letter to the DVLA about this,that he would have also sent the request back to the police asking to name the driver?

 

Fair point.  Use it to stregthen the argument "Why would I not return the 172 request when I've gone to the trouble of writing to the DVLA?  And I only contacted DVLA because the police advised me to do so when I contacted them.  Why wouldn't I etc etc... ?"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this and Manxman has covered all the angles.

 

Just to advise you that should your father plead Not Guilty but be convicted, he faces a fine of one and a half week's net income, a "Victim Surcharge" of 10% of the fine (minimum £34) and prosecution costs which are usually £620. The prosecutor may reduce the amount requested as this is a fairly straightforward matter to prepare for court and will involve no "live" witnesses, but I doubt it will be less than £300. He will also have six points imposed on his licence and an endorsement code (MS90) which insurers really hate.

 

In normal circumstances I would not rate your father's chances of acquittal too highly. However, I think he should major on the "nothing to gain by not replying" aspect. The correspondence with the DVLA is somewhat irrelevant but it will help bolster his case so it's worth a mention.

 

If he does have to attend court you can go into court with him as a "McKenzie Friend." You will be allowed to sit beside him and advise him but you will not be allowed to address the court.

 

All that said, I really think an approach to the police (or CPS if they are handling the case) might prove beneficial. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news then they might have realised it was a procedural mess up with wrong target for S172  Did you ask them to send confirmation?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

:rockon:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will do,i now know he was named as the driver of a speeding car,but the actual thing he was getting charged with was failing to name the driver,caused by the reply going missing in the post.

I don't know if you can change the title to reflect that,to help people in the same situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Been wrongly named as the driver of car caught speeding *** Resolved***
On 26/03/2021 at 10:41, brassnecked said:

Great news then they might have realised it was a procedural mess up with wrong target for S172  Did you ask them to send confirmation?

 

There hasn't been any procedural mess up with the s172 process.  If you look at #20 the original NIP/s172 correctly went to the registered keeper and two subsequent s172s went to a garage and then to "a convicted fraudster", who it would appear named the OP's father - possibly maliciously.

 

The issuing of s172s was correct based on the information returned to police.

 

There are perhaps three things to note for anybody who receives a s172 request:

 

First, when preparing to return a s172 request I'd prepare three identical copies.

 

Second, I'd keep one copy and return the other two.  At least one of those I'd post first class from a post office and get a free certificate of posting.  The second one I'd post first class in a letter box, or from a different post office if I could.

 

Might seem a bit belt and braces but (1) it's unlikely that two independently posted s172s will go missing and (2) if they do go missing you've got proof you returned something and kept a copy of what you sent.  Worth it to avoid a conviction in court, 6 points on your licence, and insurance grief for at least five years.

 

Third and perhaps most important - if you are bang to rights but think you've got a "compassionate excuse", put it to them and ask them to drop the charges.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/03/2021 at 10:26, norton47 said:

Hello everyone and thank you.

I have just had a telephone call with a very nice man from the prosecution service,the charge has been dropped.

 

Well done.  Your dad and your mum must be relieved that you got this sorted for him.  (To be honest I didn't think it would work  - but you had nothing to lose!  Again, well done.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I can only strongly reiterate what Manxman has said.

 

If you receive a S172 request for the driver's details you simply must respond to it. Very often we hear tales of people who received a request and, for whatever reason (either a plate mis-read, an administrative error or simply something as described in this question) they think "That's not my car, nothing to do with me" and they bin it. That is a very big mistake. You must respond, explain why you believe it is nothing to do with you and, as Manxman suggests, keep a copy and proof of posting. The idea of sending a second response independently of the first is an excellent suggestion.

 

It's sometimes possible to avoid conviction in such circumstances but it sometimes is not. In this particular case if the matter had gone to court the OP's father would have relied solely on his testimony that he had provided a response - there was nothing else. The court might have believed him or they might not (I have a feeling that they might have found in his favour). But it's simply not worth running the risk for the sake of five minutes of your time and a couple of stamps. The endorsement code (MS90) which goes with such a conviction is a real crippler to insurance premiums and it will last for five years.

Edited by Man in the middle
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Man in the Middle has pointed out the most important thing about dealing with a s172 request (which I failed to mention!)

 

And that is - make sure you respond to it within the timesacale - even if it's just to tell them that it isn't your car, or you weren't there or whatever.  And make sure you sign it.  (Different advice might apply in Scotland)

 

Even if you haven't a clue what it is about, you still the run the risk of a conviction, a fine and points if you do not reply to a s172 request addressed to you.

 

Binning it or otherwise ignoring it is asking for trouble...

 

(Of course the OP's father did exactly the right thing in this thread.  He was just unlucky it got lost in the post.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...