Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: shadowliner on June 28, 2024, 05:27:57 pm
-
Context is everything.
The s. 172 requirement included in the notice specifically requested the details of the "possible driver" if you were not the driver. That is absolutely fine, you have provided the information that was requested, and the reference to "possible driver" was to the wording of the form, not your own qualification of your response.
However, we're not psychic. Most forms do not use this term, but many s. 172 recipients cause themselves unnecessary grief by providing an equivocal response (they add that the nominated person might not be the driver, and then fail to provide other information that can be expected to be in their power to give).
-
But I can't do anything but name the "possible driver" - look at the title of Section 4
Here is a photo of the section of the NIP in question - https://ibb.co/zPBTp21
-
We have named Robert as the "possible driver", and it's now up to him to thrash it with the police.
Without adding context you could now see the company in court for failing to ID the driver. No-one suggested that!
-
Thanks all - an interesting discussion for sure.
I think the language on the NIP is of note, I've taken a photo of the relevant bit, which may feed the discussion a touch. It's attached to this post.
We have named Robert as the "possible driver", and it's now up to him to thrash it with the police.
I hope you said a bit more than that, i.e. explained the relationship and that Robert was keeping the vehicle.
Simply naming someone as the "possible keeper" would see you prosecuted.
-
Thanks all - an interesting discussion for sure.
I think the language on the NIP is of note, I've taken a photo of the relevant bit, which may feed the discussion a touch. It's attached to this post.
We have named Robert as the "possible driver", and it's now up to him to thrash it with the police.
The car was allocated to Robert and we, as vehicle owners, can't be sitting there with him 24/7 checking if he's driving it. It's the fact that we don't know who this third person is that's set off alarms - if he'd said another employee was driving the vehicle at the time then maybe this whole discussion wouldn't be happening!
-
I disagree. In the context of this thread, Robert appears to be the PKV. Unless Robert was a passenger in the car while his imaginary friend was driving, he cannot know for certain that his imaginary friend was indeed driving at the material time. What he can know is whether he gave the keys to his imaginary friend, and possibly saw his imaginary friend drive off.
The handing over of the keys (by Robert to his imaginary friend) is relevant insofar as most cars are somewhat difficult to drive without the keys, but beyond that I would suggest that it is irrelevant to the OP's obligation.
If we can assume that the OP is not the PKV, then his obligation, when so required is to provide any information that is in power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver. If there is a likelihood that this will go south, then it would seem appropriate to ensure that he dots the "i"s and crosses the "t"s.
The information that is in his power to give would appear to be that the vehicle was assigned to Robert (Robert was the PKV), and that Robert has informed him that <name of imaginary friend> was driving at the material time.
However, without seeing the notice, it is not possible to determine what exactly is being asked of the OP - merely to nominate the keeper of the vehicle, or chapter and verse.
-
There seems to be an assumption that handing the keys over to someone makes them the “person keeping the vehicle” for the purposes of the legislation. Other than SWAG, is there any authority for that?
-
Personally I don't see any real reason for OP not to just nominate "Roberts mate" provided he can still do so in good faith, though I would get Robert to produce a statement for the corporate records.
I think you have given a reason as to why he can't just name Robert's mate. The OP wasn't the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the offence, Robert was. Only Robert can honestly testify that he gave his mate the keys. What if his mate responds to the OP naming him as driver with 'it wasn't me'?
Seems like a lot of hassle can be easily avoided by just naming 'Robert'
-
Agreed, "Robert" should be named as the keeper at the time as far as the OP is concerned. that "Robert" may have let someone else drive is "Robert's" problem. It's worth leaving some adverts for soap-on-a-rope lying around in case his job involve delivering porky pies.
-
In my non comprehensive sample of 2 one says "... private motor vehicle ..." the other "... another car ...".
But yes, it can be either. Though in this case with no permission from the owner it's unlikely to help.
Of course, if Robert simply nominates the actual driver the likely insurance issue may well pass unnoticed.
Personally I don't see any real reason for OP not to just nominate "Roberts mate" provided he can still do so in good faith, though I would get Robert to produce a statement for the corporate records.
I understand OPs reluctance of course. Especially if there is a non UK licence or address involved.
-
No, not insured.
However, they may be insured under their own policy else?
Any DOV cover could be problematic.
It is commonly the case that they need the permission of the owner.
It shouldn't be an issue for you.
Also, it's normally DOC (cars rather than vehicles, so vans aren't covered.). The OP says "van" in the thread title but "car" in his post, so that's not clear.
-
No, not insured.
However, they may be insured under their own policy else?
Any DOV cover could be problematic.
It is commonly the case that they need the permission of the owner.
It shouldn't be an issue for you.
-
No, not insured.
However, they may be insured under their own policy else?
-
Yes.
Respond naming Robert as "the person keeping the vehicle". He will then receive a s172 request in his own name, requiring him to name the driver.
BTW was this "someone else" insured to drive the car? If not, Robert has committed another offence.
-
I own a company.
Small operation, 2-3 company vehicles.
Each car assigned to one employee, nobody else should be driving that car.
Received an NIP for going through a red light for the car assigned to Robert.
Robert is telling me someone else was driving it - I do not know this person. By company rules, they shouldn't have been driving but hey-ho, that's a separate issue that I will need to sort with Robert later.
In the meantime, I am not 100% sure that this person was driving it, nor can I be 100% sure that Robert was driving it.
I appreciate that I cannot say this in response to the NIP.
Is there a mechanism to transfer the liability of naming the driver to my employee, considering he was responsible for the car/keys, and is a name driver on the insurance policy?
I do not want to be caught up in anything that could potentially be fraudulent.