Safe Speed Forums

I'm sure this has come up before and apologise for not being able to find an answer anywhere else.

Whilst on holiday in Spain last month my wife and her sister took my car on a trip to Wales. On the trip they split the driving and as you would expect did not keep records of when they swapped over. Upon my return from holiday there was a NIP waiting for me. I returned this explaining I was on holiday and that my wife was in charge of my car but on the trip to Wales they shared the driving so could we see a photo to confirm who was driving. The photo is from the rear, from a mobile van 500yds away and shows nothing.

I called the ticket office and they advised that as we could not determine the driver I, as the registered keeper, should request a court hearing - he would not divulge what he thought the outcome might be.

Surely as I can prove I was out of the country and I am not witholding any information its up to them to prove who the driver is and they will have no case.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Mike

Its an interesting one.

As I understand it s172 can only be brought to bear against the registered keeper, not any one of a group of people he knew to be using the vehicle. The fact that you were demonstrably out of the country, and are willing to furnish as much info as you can in the names of possible drivers, would hopefully protect you from conviction.

Firstly, do not worry about the case going to court. I would seem that so many people were claiming (genuinely or not) to be unable to identify the driver that these cases now go to court as a matter of course.

You will have to demonstrate that you have taken all reasonable steps to identify the driver. This would normally include things like having the drivers check what records they do have of the day (receipts, holiday snaps, phone records etc) to see if it highlights who was driving. In the case of both people being in the car sharing an excursion, both being eligible to drive it and indeed sharing the driving, I'm not sure how this would shed any more light, but you must go through the motions to demonstrate that you have tried.

Since only one person could be driving at any one time, I would hope that any prosecution brought against both potential drivers would fail, since simply by prosecuting both they have already demonstrated reasonable doubt as to the driver's identity.

Do the best you can to identify the driver, and if you cannot then they will have to accept it. If you do discover something conclusive though, it would not be wise to withold it, since perverting the course of justice is a much bigger deal than s172, and they seem to be pretty hot on using it in motoring cases of late.

mikeramsden - as RK it seems from your reasonable diligent enquiries you have determined that it is either your wife or her sister and no other who was driving on that occasion and despite your reasonable diligent enquiries and the photographic assistance from Arrive Alive's ticket office.

So you must respond to the NIP as not responding gives rise to a Sect 172 2) offence as desribed in 3) below

(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person 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.

(3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

So you should write back stating that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle VRM ( XXNNXXX) as mentioned in the attached NIP. Since receiving the NIP you made enquiries of those who could have driven this vehicle on the date and at the time stated and have done everything that was in your power to do so and your reasonable diligent enquiries have determined that the driver is either

XXX ( address ) or YYY ( address) .

You have received a photograph from the ticket office which has proved unhelpful and regret that you cannot determine with any certainty which if the two drivers could have been at the wheel at the exact time alleged in the NIP. You state that this letter is evidence that you have discharged your obligations under the Road Traffic Act 1988 ( as amended) sect 172 and you leave it to the authorities to make such further enquiries as they may see fit.
I have experience of 2 similar instances in North Wales, one when the police came and interviewed the 2 drivers 3 months later when neither could remember with any more clarity ( charges were dropped the day before the court hearing). On the second occasion a colleague was pinged and on that day he and his wife and 2 overseas visitors had driven. Although none could remember and the 2 visitors had left the country ( they were never contacted by the police ) CPS brought it to court as a 172 charge and a speeding charge against the RK. The bench on that day threw the S172 charge out stating that the RK had clearly complied and that there was no evidence against the RK of speeding.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Above advice is NOT correct. It is the keeper and "any other person" who has the obligation to provide information (although the exact nature of the obligation differs. In the circumstances described, you almost certainly gave possession of the vehicle to your wife, so you should nominate her as the driver. This does NOT prove she was driving. It merely diverts the investigation trail to your wife and ensures you cannot be charged with a s.172 offence. It will then be up to your wife, if she genuinely can't recall whether it was she or her sister driving, to say so; and that may be (quite likely will be) tested in court.

As you were not in the vehicle, it is obvious you cannot identify the actual driver with certainty. Don't think you can shield your wife by claiming doubt in your mind. As far as you are concerned, I suggest there is no doubt that your wife was 'charged' with responsibility for your car on that day.

p.s. I assume your sister is insured to drive your car? If she is not, your wife's claim that she can't remember would look a bit suspect, or she may open up an offence or 'permitting'.

Yes - my wife's sister is insured by virtue of having her own fully comprenesive insurance which allows her to drive othe cars with third party insurance.

The set of circumstances we find ourself in just shows how wrong the camera/fixed penalty system can be. You can't talk sensibly to someone in authority to get a feel for how you should proceed - I am willing to co-operate but get told by the guy in the ticket office I should either admin the offence or go to court - end of chat! You either take the easy way out, 3 points, small fine or have to go to court blind and rely on a judges verdict on the day. Is it really worth the risk of getting more points, a bigger fine and all the time and cost that are incurred?

If you have a valuable car, that's comprehensively insured for you and your wife to drive, that's a bit of a risk, no? If your wife's sister had an 'at fault' accident you would be bearing the damage to your own car yourself.



All you need to do, to get yourself off the hook, is name your wife. She was in charge, wasn't she? Then it's up to her and her sister to decide whether they really can't remember who was driving. If they are telling the truth and can give reasonably credible evidence under oath, the court may well (should) believe them.

What does the panel think would happen if everyone concerned swore on oath in court that 'they' were driving and invited the bench to adjudicate.?

If one of the group received a conviction, could the evidence and statements of the others be used in an appeal.?

Might just serve to screw up the system - what.?

Observer sorry but you are wrong to state that the advice is incorrect. As I posted above, S172 s2) b)

(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(b) any other person 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.
It is NOT the obligation of the RK to interrogate 'any other person', or relay the opinions or statements of 'any other person' it is the police. The RK has discharged his obligations by naming two 'any other persons'


we agree on this bit but

Thats up to the police to find evidence as to whether its the wife of wife's sister, not the RK


You are just trotting out the frighteners used by the SCPs here Observer It may well be that the car is insured for any user and quite possible that the wife's sister has an "any car not the property of the insured...." clause on her own insurance. Provided the wife asked the wife's sister and she responded in the affirmative that should be quite sufficient as far as the wife is concerned.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

that is for mikeramsden to decide. I'm sure he is well aware of that. What are you trying to infer here ?




WRONG WRONG WRONG ! Your advice Observer is michieveous and an incitement to PCJ. If mikeramsden names his wife when he has no knowledge as to whether his wife or his wife's sister was the driver then he has no business to do so and should confine himself to the true facts. In naming BOTH, he has complied with S172 2) a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police How to proceed after the truth has been given to them is then entirely up to the authorities. They can interrogate both ladies and if they then secure sufficient evidence to support a case against one then they should prosecute that case. If they can't then they can't proceed and without evidence the case should get dropped.
Just because the connection between the RK and his wife seems to be stronger than the RK and his sister has no relevance.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

Spireman, firstly a full stop is not followed by any other punctuation mark, it is one or the other.

Secondly, we here have no interest in 'screwing up the system'. We aim to change those aspects of the system that we feel are wrong by legal, legitimate means. I do hope that you do not erroneously believe otherwise.

no worries here as under English Law the Courts have to prove beyond reasonable doubt it was you who was driving before a Guilty verdict can be reached

simple as

I can tell you exactly what happens in that scenario.

The court is tied up from 10:30 until 17:45 hrs, and nobody gets convicted of anything.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

All but one of them would also be guilty of perjury.

Not if it is true that they were all driving (or riding) the same vehicle on the day in question.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

They don't care about the day, they care about who was driving at the time of the alleged offence.

Please don't bandy about attractive-sounding advice thats likely to land anyone who heeds it in much deeper water!

And that is the very question that the OP is in no position to answer because he wasn't in the country.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

So that is what he should say, not get everyone to admit they were driving when they plainly couldn't have been, and doing so could result in charges of perjury and/or attempting to pervert the course of justice!

I'm not suggesting the OP lies at all, what I am saying is that he should play the law at it's own game by adhering to the law exactly as it stands.

The OP wasn't even in the country (let alone the car) at the time of the alleged offence, so he has no way of knowing for sure who was behind the wheel and therefore he is in no position to start naming names.

If the partnership/police/whoever want their £60 that badly then why should he do their job for them?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

He shouldn't, but may have to. How is lying in court going to help the situation exactly?

You're missing my point Robin.

The OP knows there was more than one person in charge of the car, but he is in no position to say who was driving at the time because he wasn't there.

The OP doesn't have to lie about anything, he can't name names because he can't get to the bottom of it himself.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?