DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 28156--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: shadowliner
Date: July 1, 2024, 7:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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!
#Post#: 28163--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: 666
Date: July 1, 2024, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: shadowliner link ---
>
> 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.
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 28183--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: July 1, 2024, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: shadowliner link ---
>
> We have named Robert as the "possible driver", and it's now up
to him to thrash it with the police.
>
--- End Quote ---
Without adding context you could now see the company in court
for failing to ID the driver. No-one suggested that!
#Post#: 28187--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: shadowliner
Date: July 1, 2024, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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 -
HTML https://ibb.co/zPBTp21
#Post#: 28192--------------------------------------------------
Re: Company van - I'm not sure my employee is being truthful
about who was driving
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: July 1, 2024, 12:10 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).
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page