speeding fines/unidentified driver

jillywiz

Can anyone advise me please? I've received my first NIP for 35 mph in a 30 mph area. My problem is both my husband and I use the car daily and travel that road numerous times each day. I requested photographic evidence but the 2 photographs provided only show the back of the car and doesn't show anyone in it. If I say it was either of us it could be wrong and then we are accused of perverting the course of justice. Should I say it was me (lie even though I really don't know if it was) and take the speed awareness course or go to court as I don't know who was driving?
Help!!!!!!

bod1467

Might be better to take this question to Pepipoo as they have more experience with real fines.

As far as I know, if there's an element of doubt then it goes against the registered keeper.

peter_the_piper

Well if you don't say who it was, not knowing is no reason, it is an even bigger fine and points. So decide who its to be and return the filled in form within the time, or else.

bargepole

jillywiz wrote: »

Can anyone advise me please? I've received my first NIP for 35 mph in a 30 mph area. My problem is both my husband and I use the car daily and travel that road numerous times each day. I requested photographic evidence but the 2 photographs provided only show the back of the car and doesn't show anyone in it. If I say it was either of us it could be wrong and then we are accused of perverting the course of justice. Should I say it was me (lie even though I really don't know if it was) and take the speed awareness course or go to court as I don't know who was driving?
Help!!!!!!

The previous advice given in posts #2 and #3 is wrong.

If you genuinely cannot determine who was driving on that date, you should send back the form with a covering letter stating that it was either your husband or yourself, supplying full name, address, and driving licence details for both possible drivers.

State that you have looked at credit card statements, mobile phone records, and asked for photographic evidence from the camera to try and identify the driver, but have been unable to do so.

You have, therefore, exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to identify the driver, and you are providing this information to comply with s172 of the Road Traffic Act.

The_Deep

If you follow the above advice they will probably prosecute the RK. If it is more convenient to name someone else, i.e. fewer penalty points, name them You will be signing "to the best of your knowledge and belief".

After all, you are not doing a Huhne, both he and his wife both knew full well who was driving, whereas you are not sure. The system does not care who is punished, as long as someone takes the wrap.

bod1467

Exactly.

Bargepole is technically correct, but this can be a very risky path to take. If they decide to be obstinate then you could end up with a bigger fine and more points (6 rather than 3).

esmerobbo

“reasonable diligence”

The Huhnes lied because they knew who the driver was, the OP would be lying because they don't!

Is perjuring yourself to make it easy any better then perjuring yourself to save it getting worse?

By the way if it was me I would name the person less likely to be affected by the fine and points or taking a SAC. However if you follow the law to the max!:cool:

bod1467

esmerobbo wrote: »

By the way if it was me I would name the person less likely to be affected by the fine and points or taking a SAC. However if you follow the law to the max! :cool:

Indeed. It's called "taking the path of least resistance". If a driver is named then there's a 50:50 chance of it being correct anyway, and they (the NIPpers) won't really care as naming a driver makes their life easier too.

Aretnap

If you name the person you genuinely think is most likely to have been the driver then you're not perverting the course of justice - that requires intent. In theory if the name you provided turned out to be wrong you'd be committing an offence of failing to identify the driver, but to convict you of that they would have to prove that you didn't name the person who was actually driving... and if you don't know, your husband doesn't know and the photos don't show the driver, how likely is that to happen?

Or you can follow Bargepole's advice and explain why you can't, with reasonable diligence, work out who was driving. It's not for the faint-hearted though was you will end up having to argue the point in court, and if the magistrates don't believe that you couldn't remember, or think you could have made more effort to find out, the penalty is 6 points, a fine of several hundred pounds, and an MS90 code on your licence which will have a bigger impact than a speeding ticket on your insurance premium - insurers will wonder what you did that was so terrible that 6 points and £500 was a better option than owning up to it. Of course if the magistrates do believe you you get off Scot-free... but too many people claim they don't know who was driving and are either lying or have made virtually no effort to find out, so courts are often rather sceptical of such defences.

Personally I'd discuss it with my other half, decide which of us was more likely to be driving, and that person can do the speed awareness course. Braver souls than I might prefer the "sorry, can't remember" route.

bargepole

Aretnap wrote: »

... Or you can follow Bargepole's advice and explain why you can't, with reasonable diligence, work out who was driving. It's not for the faint-hearted though was you will end up having to argue the point in court ...

Two of the cases referred to in my signature block were for exactly this, and in both of those the cases were discontinued by the CPS before they reached court.

Faint-hearted? I don't know the meaning of the word. Bring it on, I say.

peter_the_piper

Wish we could all be as confident as you but for most of us its not possible so the easier route is probably better.