DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 27868--------------------------------------------------
Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful about
who was driving
DIR By: shadowliner
Date: June 28, 2024, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 27869--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: 666
Date: June 28, 2024, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 27870--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: shadowliner
Date: June 28, 2024, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No, not insured.
However, they may be insured under their own policy else?
#Post#: 27882--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: slapdash
Date: June 28, 2024, 2:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: shadowliner link ---
>
> No, not insured.
>
> However, they may be insured under their own policy else?
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 27894--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: 666
Date: June 29, 2024, 12:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: slapdash link ---
>
> [quote author=shadowliner link=topic=2367.msg27870#msg27870
date=1719592520]
> No, not insured.
>
> However, they may be insured under their own policy else?
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
[/quote]
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.
#Post#: 27898--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: slapdash
Date: June 29, 2024, 2:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 27906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: roythebus
Date: June 29, 2024, 4:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 28126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: BertB
Date: July 1, 2024, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: slapdash link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
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'
#Post#: 28145--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: July 1, 2024, 6:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
#Post#: 28151--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: July 1, 2024, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page