Free Traffic Legal Advice

Looking to get some advice please.

My wife received a speeding fine on her registered vehicle, which I had possession of that day.

I dropped her car off to a mechanic in London, working from home (to accommodate whilst during unsociable hours) to sort a few issues.
The mechanic or one of his workers must’ve test driven the car and got flashed. It was 25mph in a 20 according to the letter.
Upon questioning the mechanic and his staff, they’re conveniently deny any of their actions and not willing to provide details.

My wife responded to the fine, as such advising that she didn’t have the the vehicle that day; and that I did, gave my details but equally stressed that she’s unable to provide details of the driver as it’s unknown.

She’s now received a second letter that as the owner of the vehicle she has to provide details of the driver, otherwise in other words “take responsibility” of the offence (reference to s172 Road Traffic Act 1988)!

I’m obviously not letting my wife take any blame but equally feel it’s unfair for me to accept responsibility.

It’s an awkward situation, as I can’t force the mechanic or his staff, nor do I want to get in any further conflict with them, the last visit/chat wasn’t pleasant at all!

Do I have any grounds to send back to the police issuing the letter, or do I just bite the bullet and accept the responsibility and move on from this horrible experience?!

Thank you

Details are often critical in legal issues. Please refrain from making things up.

Your wife has not received a speeding fine, or any other fine for that matter. She has received a Notice of Intended Prosecution which included a requirement under s. 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide information regarding the driver's identity.

Ownership is largely irrelevant. The "person keeping the vehicle" has a more onerous responsibility than "any other person".

The former must name the driver, but has a defence if they provided any information that was in their power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver and is able to satisfy the court (on the balance of probabilities) that they both do not know who was driving, and could not with reasonable diligence ascertain who was driving.

The latter is merely required to provide any information that is in their power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver.

Whether/when a person is or is not the "person keeping the vehicle" is not well defined in law, but if she provided all the information that was in power to give, and could not with reasonable diligence ascertain who was driving, she would have had a defence either way.

From what little you have told us, she has not mentioned the mechanic who had control of the vehicle at the material time, nor explained why she does not know who was driving, and so would appear to be guilty of the s. 172 offence, assuming that the 28 days has expired. It sounds like the police are giving her a second chance to comply with her obligations, but from the lack of detail or accuracy of your account so far, it is difficult to be certain of anything.

It really is not a tricky situation at all.

The RK nominates you as Keeper, and you in turn nominate the Mechanic to whom you dropped te vehicle off to.

How to turn something simple into a S172 offence and the resultant 6 points and large fine and a massive hike in any insurance policy due to the MS90 conviction code.

Details are often critical in legal issues. Please refrain from making things up.

Your wife has not received a speeding fine, or any other fine for that matter. She has received a Notice of Intended Prosecution which included a requirement under s. 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 to provide information regarding the driver's identity.

Ownership is largely irrelevant. The "person keeping the vehicle" has a more onerous responsibility than "any other person".

The former must name the driver, but has a defence if they provided any information that was in their power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver and is able to satisfy the court (on the balance of probabilities) that they both do not know who was driving, and could not with reasonable diligence ascertain who was driving.

The latter is merely required to provide any information that is in their power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver.

Whether/when a person is or is not the "person keeping the vehicle" is not well defined in law, but if she provided all the information that was in power to give, and could not with reasonable diligence ascertain who was driving, she would have had a defence either way.

From what little you have told us, she has not mentioned the mechanic who had control of the vehicle at the material time, nor explained why she does not know who was driving, and so would appear to be guilty of the s. 172 offence, assuming that the 28 days has expired. It sounds like the police are giving her a second chance to comply with her obligations, but from the lack of detail or accuracy of your account so far, it is difficult to be certain of anything.

Hi, apologies, I can appreciate the way my post is written is not clear.

Yes it is a NIP, my wife did respond initially advising that she clearly can’t confirm who was driving at the time and that it’s between myself and the mechanic(s)……unfortunately my wife and I are not quite on talking terms either so everything has been fairly awkward. I just thought I was doing a favour by getting her car sorted after she was quoted a huge amount by the main dealer, so on the one occasion I took her car.

I suppose she equally panicked as she’s never received one of these before; and she knew that I had given the car to the mechanic and she doesn’t know him nor his workers, so she actually cannot confirm who was driving.
She must’ve thought that providing my details as the keeper of the car that day, it means I’d accept the fine/points, when it wasn’t me driving at the particular time of the offence.

Hope that makes sense!

For now, my wife has responded back with my details.

Thanks

It really is not a tricky situation at all.

The RK nominates you as Keeper, and you in turn nominate the Mechanic to whom you dropped te vehicle off to.

How to turn something simple into a S172 offence and the resultant 6 points and large fine and a massive hike in any insurance policy due to the MS90 conviction code.

Thank you, it makes perfect sense, it is something that’s being blown out of proportion and causing further issues and risks.

My wife has responded providing my details.

Thanks

Except that that is what they have already done, albeit seemingly padded out just enough to show that there is some padding missing.

Understood……thank you