Speeding question

[CoxyLaad 0]

My dad got issued a nip for doing 61mph in a 50mph limit (roadworks)

thing is its a company car and it has been used by the lads to transport gas cylinders about, so he genuinely has no idea who was driving?

 

So he told them this and asked for the photographic evidence.

This is what they produced (see attachment)

 

The word inconclusive springs to mind.....infact you could be forgiven for thinking there wasnt anyone driving!

 

So, what do we do now? why should my dad have to take a speeding conviction when the chances are it wasnt him?

 

any advice would be welcome.

[Stormin Dave 0]

I would thaink that this is the same as any other offence in that proof is not conclusive and therefore a conviction cannot me made.

 

I'm not a solictor by the way....

[MikeVR6 0]

Whatever you do, don't send that NIP back!

 

Checkout the Forum on http://www.pepipoo.com

Quite a few legal experts on there to reply to your post.

 

I've managed to get out of points twice now ;)

[dinkus 10]

Well no, proof that the vehicle was caught speeding is conclusive and if your dad is the registered owner then it's his responsibility to know who was or wasn't driving the car at the time. If you can't say it was someone else driving then he's gonna have to take the fine/points.

 

Has your dad got any log sheets for who was driving the car when? If not, it might be a good idea to start some... :(

[dr_mat 0]

He's not the registered owner, as it's a company car. Seek legal advice. My instinct says that there's nowhere near enough evidence to press those charges, but then, the law on speeding pretty much places the liability on your father to find out who *was* driving and pass on the details..

That's why it is STILL being challenged in the EU courts as a breach of human rights (i.e. the right to be innocent until proven guilty).

[dr_mat 0]

.. its a company car and it has been used by the lads to transport gas cylinders about, so he genuinely has no idea who was driving?

 

Though it sounds like your dad is confident he WASN'T driving at the time. Where was he at 10:55 on the day in question? Any witnesess?

[h100vw 0]

Though it sounds like your dad is confident he WASN'T driving at the time. Where was he at 10:55 on the day in question? Any witnesess?

 

Right on Sherlock :lol:

[Jimjam 0]

THIS should help.

[MikeVR6 0]

Yup, Honest John has it in one.

 

A quick post on the Pepipoo forum would have got you the same response.

 

It's not up to your Dad to keep a log of everyone that drives his car.

If he can prove he's done everything in his power to ascertain who was driving the car at the time and still drawn a blank then the courts should be satisfied.

Tell him to look through his records for petrol receipts/claims from that day. If he finds one, he can write a letter to the filling station asking for a copy of their forecourt camera video for that day. They'll either not respond or tell him to clear off. He can then present copies of this correspondance as evidence of his efforts.

 

From my own experience....

9 times out of 10 if you send back a NIP that requires further investigation or paperwork from the cops, they won't pursue it.

They issue such a high volume of these things and get enough responses from people accepting points and a fine that they simply can't be arsed with ones that cause hassle.

 

Happy driving! :)

[PhatVR6 0]

I'm sure I've read somewhere that temporary speed limit's aren't "the law" unless it's on dual carriageway or motoroway.

 

check out the pepipoo site and ring Robert Dobson, the solicitor who's number is listed on there, he'll give you some DAMN good free advice. I used him and paid him to appoint a barrister for me who worked wonders with my case.

[CoxyLaad 0]

thanks for the advice lads

I will go and stick it up em now :)

[Roger Blassberg 0]

Apologising for my ignorance - "Pepipoo"??????

 

By the way, the Honest John article was just great.

 

Best wishes

 

RB

[MikeVR6 0]

Apologising for my ignorance - "Pepipoo"??????

 

No apology necessary.

Read further up my thread and you'll see the link to it.

Go onto their Forum from there.

 

Strange name for a site I know. :)

[Supercharged 2]

This is why it is a must for companies to keep a detailed journey log of who is driving and where, there are so many camera's about at the moment you'd be stupid not to!

[swfblade 0]

just spoke to a legal friend about this sort of thing. He said that if its a company car and no-one owns up to be the driver at the time of the offence, the Company Secretary takes the rap!

 

How true this is, I dont know, but he's a good solicitor so Ive no reason to disbelieve him.

[jonocos 0]

My friends father has just finished in the courts with this one:

 

His car was driving at 114mph on a dual carraigeway, within 6 minutes of the offence 2 people had been driving the car,he being one of them.

He as the registered keeper was charged with the offence. He disputed the fact that he was driving,he did not have to disclose who the other driver was but asked the court to prove that he was driving the car.

Due to the privacy glass on his M3 the camera could not see the driver so no one could be charged with the offence as a positive identification could not be made of the driver.

 

It is a far as this case goes the responsibility of the police to prove who was driving the car at the time, not the owners responsibility to prove he wasn't or divulge who was.

 

Obviously if you take the same route as Mr M3 and it backfires and it is you then it could turn out to be worse, especially being over 100mph.

[Jimjam 0]

just spoke to a legal friend about this sort of thing. He said that if its a company car and no-one owns up to be the driver at the time of the offence, the Company Secretary takes the rap!

 

How true this is, I dont know, but he's a good solicitor so Ive no reason to disbelieve him.

 

That's utter rubbish.

[swfblade 0]

erm, no its not

[dr_mat 0]

BTW I believe Scottish law is a bit different to UK law on this (as with many things).

[dazzyvr6 0]

just spoke to a legal friend about this sort of thing. He said that if its a company car and no-one owns up to be the driver at the time of the offence, the Company Secretary takes the rap!

 

How true this is, I dont know, but he's a good solicitor so Ive no reason to disbelieve him.

 

i cant believe that either...what if the company secretary doesnt drive and doesnt even have a driving license..then what??

[saysomestuff 0]

i cant believe that either...what if the company secretary doesnt drive and doesnt even have a driving license..then what??

 

Then whoever *was* driving has a big smile on his face (until he gets sacked!) :lol:

[NickRStorm 0]

i cant believe that either...what if the company secretary doesnt drive and doesnt even have a driving license..then what??

I can just see the job advert now: "Company Sec with no driving license required" 8)

[corradostorm 0]

Cars MUST have a registered keeper i.e. a person, even a company car.

 

A company is not a person as so cannot be the keeper (but can still be owner but thats a different issue)

 

If the Co Sec is the registered keeper then sure they can be fined.

[Roger Blassberg 0]

Just for everyone's information, today's London Evening Standard (p4) tells us that in the first 5 months of this year, 444 speeding fines, 900 bus lane violations and over 1000 parking violations were recorded against..... (wait for it).......... the Metropolitan Police. One officer was charged with reckless driving and seven with careless driving (no mention of what the verdicts were and no mention of how many innocent bystanders were killed and injured by irresponsibly driven police vehicles).

 

Now the crucial bit; "The Met believes the rise (in offences by Officers) has been caused by the presence of more cameras rather than by worse driving".

Presumably that applies to us mere mortals as well.

 

Most interestingly, "The Met. (that's you and me, dear fellow tax-payers) pays when the driver cannot be identified or when the payment deadline has passed". Are we to believe that police cars are being driven by unidentifiable people? Don't police cars have a drivers' log?

 

Best wishes

 

RB

[Storm Warning 0]

There are some offences in company cars where the Company MD can be held responsible, e.g. If a company car was un road worthy and the driver/passenger died the MD could be charged for manslaughter. With a speeding fine it has to be the driver thats charged full stop. If unknown then no prosecution.