Free Traffic Legal Advice

A trust is not a body corporate so the provision for a body corporate will not apply. Courts are very reluctant ever to accept that reasonable diligece has been exercised, the feeling is that "everyone would do that if it was easy." I think it is quite possible that both trustees will be convicted of the offence.
The DVLA should never have registered a trust as the keeper as it has no legal personality, but no doubt it just went through without anyone picking that up.

a Trust can be RK - check the FOI referenced in previous post

No ones getting convicted. The case was dropped

I think if the recipient is deemed to be a "body corporate" you will have difficulty defending this. The very section - 172(4) - which you are relying on as a defence is not available in those circumstances (which, as I said, I am not able to comment on). In that case it is only available if the body corporate can show that no records were kept (and they obviously were not) and you can convince the court that it was reasonable not to do so.

It's a shame because you have at least the basis of a decent "reasonable diligence" defence under s172(4). It might therefore be better if you could convince the court that the recipient of the s172 request was an individual. Then a defence under s172(4) would be available to that individual unconditionally. But, from your description of the arrangements, I'm not quite sure how that could be done.

Meanwhile, in case you need to demonstrate it to the court, what are the circumstances surrounding this vehicle and the people who may drive it which might make the requirement to keep records of who does so unreasonable?

Moving a little further along, if "the trust" did end up convicted and, as southpaw suggests in post#2, it has no "legal identity", I'm not sure how any financial penalties imposed might be enforced. But once again, not something I have enough knowlwdge of.

Thanks all for the replies.

Southpaw is correct in that a trust has no legal personality but strangely too it is not a body-corporate either so effectively, and based on legal advice now sought, there is no effective way for the court to rule and any enforcement to be pursued.

If I were a trustee I would step up and defend but I am not exposing my sons to that.

So the strategy is to ignore the summons and hope I won't come to regret that decision

"Where the alleged offender is a body corporate...subsection (4) above shall not apply unless, in addition to the matters there mentioned, the alleged offender shows that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable."

How does one prove a negative!? i.e. show that no records were kept?

Is a private irrevocable trust not registered with HMRC, a body corporate?

Registered Keeper (RK) has received a summons for the offence of failing to identify the driver related to an alleged speeding offence.

Salient points:-

- RK is a private trust.
- Magistrates' Court has summoned the trust.
- The trustee was in contact with the police prior.
- Outlined that the trust could not identify the driver even though reasonable diligence has been used. Stated what reasonable diligence consisted of.

Reasonable diligence included:
  Interviewing the two possible insured drivers, checking their phone, bank, calendar, diary, Employment and CCTV records which they co-operated in supplying
  None of these records evidenced who could be using the car at the time of the alleged speeding offence


The defence will rely on the fact that the RK has complied with their duty under s172(4) and thus is not guilty of the charge of failing to identify the driver.

Questions:
What is the supporting case law in RK's defence? i.e. relating to the reasonable diligence clause 172(4) of the RTA1988

What documents should be asked for at the disclosure phase?

- even though RK will be submitting documentation evidencing reasonable diligence would it be wise to probe the reliability of the officer operating the speed camera, the speed camera certificates etc?

- RK already requested photo/video evidence to try and ascertain the driver's identity. Police sent rear view of the car but admitted that such evidence wont help as car was caught speeding driving away from the officer operated camera

- any other documents that could be requested?

- police ignored reasonable diligence provided in email correspondence prior to summons. Can they be accused of wasting the court's time?

- can any counterclaim be brought against the CPS/DPP for time preparing for the case as a LIP?