Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) - Court Summons

atrixblue.-MFR-.

1.your going to have to show exceptional hardship to the magistrate to get lenienceny.

2.take along you earnings your wifes earnings, so a judge can calculate incomings and outgoings and see for himself that youll be under hardship if you lose your license.

enrolling in any course is not a defense, or incentive for the CPS to revive the points and drop the s.172. or show a judge that youve learned from your mistakes you may get a CPS prosecutor that may let you do this, its slim chance at best as he will know your driving record and previous, he/she most likely will be looking for a totting up ban conviction.

maninthestreet

There are, allegedly, 3 people involved here: The OP, their relative (the owner/keeper of the car), and a 'friend' who was the driver of the car at the time of the alleged offence and sometimes stays at the address of the relative. But reading the linked pepipoo forum, it seems there is no mysterious 3rd party 'friend' - the driver was the OP?? Though it's not clear how the OP could be guilty of ' Failing to Provide Driver Details' as they were not the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The relative (who was and still is the keeper of the vehicle) also cannot be guilty of ' Failing to Provide Driver Details' as they have provided details of the driver.

Aretnap

maninthestreet wrote: »

Though it's not clear how the OP could be guilty of ' Failing to Provide Driver Details' as they were not the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

Anyone can be required to provide driver details, and be guilty of an offence if they don't.

(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

seguna

TheLastMinute wrote: »

Looks like the OP has started a thread over at Pepipoo here... http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79357[/url

I've flagged this post to the mods as this is out of order for you to presume, cross-refer and go back and forth as you're doing.

seguna

maninthestreet wrote: »

But reading the linked pepipoo forum, it seems there is no mysterious 3rd party 'friend' - the driver was the OP??

That's what happens when you over-reach and try to play net sleuth. Did I refer anyone here to pepipoo?

Please leave anyone's posts on 'pepipoo' out of this!

Hermione_Granger

Please leave anyone's posts on 'pepipoo' out of this!

Why?
If you ask for advice, you can't be selective as to which facts you want people to know about.

This is a public forum, as is pepipoo and neither yourself, your "friend" nor the MSE forum mods have any right to stop people reading whatever they wish to read and if you post the same question on multiple forums, many people are always going to read all of the posts.

gazfocus

So are you saying the post on pepipoo isn't you? Because there's an awful lot of similarities (6 points due to driving uninsured, 7 years previous no claims, NIP with wrong spelling of name)....hmmm

Tilt

Did I read the OP correctly?

"My relative wasn't the driver or in the car but it was her car so she got the NIP in the post. She quickly replied she was not the driver and named the person (my friend) she believed was the driver at the time".

So who exactly is the OP attempting to 'defend' here.... the relative or the friend? At the end of the day, there is an allegation of an offence being committed to which needs to be addressed as it won't go away. It is the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle (or the RK) to provide the required details of the driver AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE was committed. It's as simple as that really... there are no if's or but's, the RK (or owner) should know who is driving the vehicle at any given time.

Aretnap

Tilt wrote: »

It is the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle (or the RK) to provide the required details of the driver AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE was committed. It's as simple as that really... there are no if's or but's, the RK (or owner) should know who is driving the vehicle at any given time.

That's wrong on many levels - if there were no ifs or no buts parliament would not have provided a statutory defence where the person keeping the vehicle doesn't know who was driving, and in any event the person keeping the vehicle is not necessarily the registered keeper. Not that it's of any help to the OP/his friend if he didn't reply at all.

alastairq

''Due diligence'' has to be shown for that defence.