DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30719--------------------------------------------------
Tricky situation with speeding fine
DIR By: Peace88
Date: July 22, 2024, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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
#Post#: 30722--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tricky situation with speeding fine
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 22, 2024, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest your wife must respond to the s175 stating that
at the time of the offence the vehicle had been left in the
control of blah blah garage at blah blah address and that a
person unknown to you but connected with that garage must have
been the driver.
can you provide any evidence that the vehicle was at the garage
at that time to corroborate this?
#Post#: 30724--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tricky situation with speeding fine
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: July 22, 2024, 4:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 30760--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tricky situation with speeding fine
DIR By: BertB
Date: July 23, 2024, 4:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The problem with writing detailed responses to a request for
driver details is it often clouds the response and makes it
equivocal.
"This person had the vehicle but they couldn't have been driving
it" does not satisfy the requirements. Presumably there is a
record of the booking at the garage and an invoice or receipt
for the work done?
How did they advise the work was complete?
She needs to nominate either yourself or the garage as having
possession of the vehicle at the time. Not both.
#Post#: 30762--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tricky situation with speeding fine
DIR By: Irksome
Date: July 23, 2024, 4:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 30767--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tricky situation with speeding fine
DIR By: Peace88
Date: July 23, 2024, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mickR link ---
>
> I would suggest your wife must respond to the s175 stating
that at the time of the offence the vehicle had been left in the
control of blah blah garage at blah blah address and that a
person unknown to you but connected with that garage must have
been the driver.
>
> can you provide any evidence that the vehicle was at the
garage at that time to corroborate this?
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi, thanks for the advice.
Unfortunately this was purely an agreement for a “private cash
in hand job”, the cost paid was a fraction of what main dealer
advised; and the work was actually finished perfectly, but Sod’s
Law this incident happened and bought me in an awkward
situation.
There’s no proof as such of the work being done in that respect,
I have a log of calls exchanged and the address, that’s really
it.
But yes, for now my wife has submitted my details for contact
and I will explain the best I can.
Thanks
#Post#: 30768--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tricky situation with speeding fine
DIR By: Peace88
Date: July 23, 2024, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
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
#Post#: 30769--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tricky situation with speeding fine
DIR By: Peace88
Date: July 23, 2024, 5:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: BertB link ---
>
> The problem with writing detailed responses to a request for
driver details is it often clouds the response and makes it
equivocal.
>
> "This person had the vehicle but they couldn't have been
driving it" does not satisfy the requirements. Presumably there
is a record of the booking at the garage and an invoice or
receipt for the work done?
>
> How did they advise the work was complete?
>
> She needs to nominate either yourself or the garage as having
possession of the vehicle at the time. Not both.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for your advice.
#Post#: 30770--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tricky situation with speeding fine
DIR By: Peace88
Date: July 23, 2024, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Irksome link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
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
#Post#: 30771--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tricky situation with speeding fine
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: July 23, 2024, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Except that that is what they have already done, albeit
seemingly padded out just enough to show that there is some
padding missing.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page