Speeding ticket received - no idea who driver was

atilla

There are also the cases where the registered keeper is a company, not a named individual.
Vans out on the road with two employees, either of which could be driving as both allowed to do so.
Director gets the form, asks both who it was, both say no idea, form returned accordingly, with no further action.

So, it does happen, but that form has to be returned.

The_Slithy_Tove

The_Deep wrote: »

You have an inalienable right to view the evidence prior to committing yourself to a definitive answer. And failing conclusive visual proof of the guilty party, if you have the balls to defy by failing to sign the declaration (on the grounds of possible perjury) could well mean that it would be dropped just before getting to court and evolving into a lengthy theoretical and problematic argument devoid of any evidence of who did it – the confession or denunciation is worthless without a signature – and their need to prove culpability beyond doubt to gain a conviction may well be viewed as a waste of time. And there is always the chance that they will !!!! it up anyway without needing your input. But you would have to be prepared for court and that is the lever applied to most motorists, as they don’t want to be inconvenienced and just quit rather than risk having to attend court.

If you've ever read anything on the Speeding forum on Pepipoo, you'll know that most of what you have written is wrong. You have no right to see any "evidence" until you've pleaded not guilty to an offence. Going unsigned, as they call it, will definitely result in a prosecution for failing to furnish (Scotland is a little different), and the bar for equital is pretty high (as the magistrates have seen every excuse under the sun). Looking at it from the point of view of the police/CPS, the OP is just another punter trying to wriggle out of sticking their hand up to something.


I would recommend the OP asks on the relevant Pepipoo forum. Sounds like you have been given a second chance to nominate someone. You must make every effort to reconstruct the day in order to identify ONE PERSON to nominate. Anything but an unequivocal response will result in a summons, no matter how unfair it seems.

boliston

atilla wrote: »

There are also the cases where the registered keeper is a company, not a named individual.
Vans out on the road with two employees, either of which could be driving as both allowed to do so.
Director gets the form, asks both who it was, both say no idea, form returned accordingly, with no further action.

So, it does happen, but that form has to be returned.

Would the company not still get a fine for failing to keep a record of who is driving their vehicle?

atilla

boliston wrote: »

Would the company not still get a fine for failing to keep a record of who is driving their vehicle?

They return the form stating the two possible [STRIKE]culprits[/STRIKE], drivers.

HO87

Bargepole's advice is absolutely on the money.

Keep in mind that the process of writing letters and the response from the police does not stop the clock in terms of your duty to respond within 28 days.

As stated above, although you are not automatically entitled to see any evidence writing and asking for copies of any still photographs the police may have that will assist you to fulfil your legal obligation to identify the driver normally elicits photos.

Rover_Driver

The_Deep wrote: »

You have an inalienable right to view the evidence prior to committing yourself to a definitive answer. And failing conclusive visual proof of the guilty party, if you have the balls to defy by failing to sign the declaration (on the grounds of possible perjury) could well mean that it would be dropped just before getting to court and evolving into a lengthy theoretical and problematic argument devoid of any evidence of who did it.

Very bad advice.

The evidence would only be made available following a not guilty plea at court.


A lot has changed since 2002, if a signed reply to the s.172 request is not received unequivocally nominating the driver, the original offence is not proceeded with, and person that form is addressed to will usually be summonsed for failing to nominate the driver. Which for speeding, can easily turn a driver awareness course/FPN for £100 and 3 points to a £600 fine and 6 points.

The_Deep

If you've ever read anything on the Speeding forum on Pepipoo, you'll know that most of what you have written is wrong. You have no right to see any "evidence" until you've pleaded not guilty to an offence.

Really, MUII that most forces are happy to provide photographs "to help you identify the driver" When I received an NIP at Nottingham photographs were readily provided. In Reading bus lane penalties photographs are available to view on the internet.

Where else do you think I am wrong?

matttye

HO87 wrote: »

Bargepole's advice is absolutely on the money.

Agreed, subject to what I said in post #10.

Rover_Driver

The_Deep wrote: »

If you've ever read anything on the Speeding forum on Pepipoo, you'll know that most of what you have written is wrong. You have no right to see any "evidence" until you've pleaded not guilty to an offence.

Really, MUII that most forces are happy to provide photographs "to help you identify the driver" When I received an NIP at Nottingham photographs were readily provided. In Reading bus lane penalties photographs are available to view on the internet.

Where else do you think I am wrong?

Most speeding partnerships etc. are happy to send photographs, but there is no right to them, or any other evidence, until a not guilty plea is entered at court.

The_Slithy_Tove

The_Deep wrote: »

If you've ever read anything on the Speeding forum on Pepipoo, you'll know that most of what you have written is wrong. You have no right to see any "evidence" until you've pleaded not guilty to an offence.

Really, MUII that most forces are happy to provide photographs "to help you identify the driver" When I received an NIP at Nottingham photographs were readily provided. In Reading bus lane penalties photographs are available to view on the internet.

Where else do you think I am wrong?

That is not "evidence", as suggested by the OP. There is no "inalienable right to view the evidence prior to committing yourself to a definitive answer."** They don't have to provide, and anyway, we know they aren't any help in this case. So, you're not wrong there, as such.

However, as pointed out by others, prevaricating over who may have been driving, including not signing, will lead to a Failing to Furnish prosecution, no matter how unfair it may seem. To defend such a charge will need demonstration of exhaustive and detailed efforts to determine who the driver was, not simply "I asked around and everyone denied it was them."


[** EDIT, to save misunderstanding. You can't demand evidence until you've decided to go Not Guilty. In other words, you can't ask for their evidence in order to decide if they've got enough against you. Once you've got a summons for an offence, then you can start to get the prosecution evidence, but not before. Photos to help identify the driver is a courtesy, nothing more.]