Safe Speed Forums

Hmm nope! But then I guess I wouldn't know as I don't tend to eat much. The idea of eating something in the morning while I'm still almost asleep which requires cooking and not setting the house on fire is not something I would consider...

_________________
Andrew.

Sorry, been very busy and not had time to reply.
The OP here seems safe as he can prove where he was, hopefully by way of another clients records. This is not always the case.


This scenario is something i see quite often. An agency driver is named by a client company, on the word of one of their employed drivers, and his details supplied to the client by the agency.

Client companies always seem to support their own drivers and to be very willing to pin the blame on agency staff, even in the absence of any evidence.

Agencies put the customer, and the contract before the welfare of an individual employee.

In the cases I have seen the agencies duty to supply details when requested has always been accepted, even by defence lawyers paid for by a trade union.

In this situation that you see often, do you often convict on the say-so of people with a vested interest?

Regarding the penalty for lying in response to an S172 request. When you get your NIP it will probably tell you exactly what the penalty is for knowingly submitting a false statement. I think it's up to £5000 and possibly jail time, but don't quote me on that.

If you're lucky you may end up letting the SCP do the work of prosecuting them for you, then if they are convicted a civil case against them should go a lot easier since all the proof is already there thanks to the SCP's criminal case.

What is unclear from the OP is whether he has been passed a NIP/S.172 - in which case he can ignore it until a summons arrives; plead not guilty; prove he was elsewhere at the time. In fact, that the SCP do not have a signed S.172 statement may prove fatal to their case anyway as they can offer no evidence as to the identity of the driver.

If the OP has a NIP addressed to himself, then he must complete and return the S.172 or he will fall foul of 'failing to supply'; regardless of hos innocence to the speeding charge.

i must reply to the NIP or further action will be taken. the SCP will not prosecute for providing false information ( ) so i am forwarding copies to the police div hq and traffic commissioners office (im sure they will be interested in knowing that pollocks have no idea who they are giving their wagons to) so hopefully, one of them will take the case on. it is a criminal offence so surely the state should pursue it. if i was mugged, would i have to prosecute my assailant? same thing in my book

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

i have never read so much tosh in all my life. Has anyone ever thought maybe it is the guy or girl in the back office who deals with these sort of things!! Why on earth would they want to "set up" an agency driver or even protect one of his own companies drivers when he has probably never met or seen most of them.
There must be more to this than "Scania" is letting on. Why is he so bitter towards the company if he only worked there one day!! Why does he not want to set foot in their premises again!! If a mistale has been made it will be simple to rectify.
SCANIA MAN YOU HAVE A HIDDEN AGENDA

i never wanted to set foot there in the first place. i dont like the company and i resent being set up for a speeding ticket when i was nowhere near the camera or even driving at all. i have a lot at stake here so why shouldnt i throw it back at them? thats 2 false allegations from that bunch of cowboys and there is no way i am taking it lying down. i will not accept any BS from anyone. im not in the army any more so i can stand up to it. if that makes me the fool, what does that make the person who takes it without arguement?

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Are you seriously suggesting that you WOULDN'T be seriously upset if you were falsely accused of an offence?

Please also note that the requirement here is to attack the argument not the poster.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

who says he has been falsely accused?
Why would i get upset if i know i was not driving the vehicle i would not be bothered in the slightess.
What is apperant here is this chap has a major chip on his shoulder against what is one of the most reputable companies in the industry and he thinks they are targeting him. I would put money on it that it is a simple clerical error by either Pollock or the agency and nothing for anyone to get worked up about. No company would be stupid enough to try and put points on someone elses licence as they know the individual would just deny it...think about it before having a go at a decent company just because you obvioulsy dont like them for what ever reason

The answer to the first point is that innocent people get convicted by a juggernaut legal system which refuses to acknowledge it can be wrong. You may know you "didn't do it" but in this legal reverse world of motoring you are guilty until you can prove your innocence.

It may be a clerical error but it is one on which livelihood may depend and nobody will admit that they are wrong these days. Accuracy is important in criminal matters so getting documents checked by a more senior person should be standard practice at such a reputable company.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

What is your agenda then?

he can prove him self innocent easily by asking the agency who employed him to confirm this, he does not need to start his one man vendetta against a company he obvioulsy dislikes for what ever reason but.........this is not what the argument is about anymore. This chap has obviously got it in for a company and is using this as an excuse to try and see them punished. Lets hope he fails and does not put any more pressure on companies who employ 100's of people and work in a heavily regulated industry where life is tough enough for them as it is.

What's your agenda then?

Our esteemed poster Scanny77 of course.



Then I suspect you have no experience of the stress and time consumption of a false accusation.



It's even more likely that the error was 'constructive', and that the verification procedures are inadequate.

My best guess is that a driver and administrator had a conversation like this:

Admin: I'm sorry to say we have a ticket for you.
Driver: Anything you can do to make it go away?
Admin: I suppose I could 'accidentally' put down the wrong driver for you.
Driver: Thanks, mate, I owe you one.

Management: Not looking. Not listening. Not checking.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

are you asking me? why would i have one

I had to duck when I read your post due to the anger and vitriol flying form the page!

If I was Scanny I would firstly defend my speeding/s172 then deal with any revenge against the haulage company after that.

I'd be pretty miffed if i was in his shoes, it could be an innocent mistake, but maybe it's not. If I felt that I had been deliberately 'set up', however, rest assured I'd find a way to teach them a lesson.

Personally I think his reaction is strong but I don't sense a 'vendetta' do you work for said company per chance?

you obviously have no experience of how a haulage company works, a proper haulage company of a decent size (i have worked for many). The back office staff very rarely get involved or even know who the drivers are i would therefore find the conversation that you quote very unliklely!!

Why does nobody think there could be a genuine mistake here!!!!!!!

Yes I'm asking you, you clearly have one!

As the old saying goes: 'Once is a mistake. Twice is a habit.'

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign