Speeding Summons?

Dr._Shoe

This is really, really frustrating.

Firstly, I cannot give a better defence than that I have, it is impossible.

Secondly, how can I give names when I don't know who it is who's cloned my car?

A SP30 (?) won't have any effect on my job whatsoever and I have an otherwise clean licence. I wouldn't be that bothered if I did get a speeding conviction. I'd probably qualify for a course, it's just the expense of having to pay for it that sticks in my craw a bit. Had I been driving at the time then fair enough it wouldn't be a problem. I'm hoping (assuming it comes to court in the end) that it may spark an investigation leading to the arrest of the muppet who's cloned my car!

Sometimes I feel like I want to dig a deep, deep hole and hide in the bottom of it until everybody else has !!!!ed off and left me alone! LOL
(I don't mean you guys BTW!)

matttye

facade wrote: »

If you knew that it couldn't possibly be your car you would have said so before.

Agreed, it is possible that the time was about right, and you could think it was you as you could have been speeding, then a photo of a pink cadillac appears bearing a different reg and you breathe a sigh of relief when you tell them they are wrong.

But this is the right make, colour and reg number, and the OP knows that it cannot possibly, no way, never ever be his car , and knew that all along. (unless it drove itself, or the unknown Other Person done it, which is a completely different story)

Take this one to the Pepipoo forums for better advice

Disagree - you only have a certain amount of time to respond to a section 172 notice so it would be better to get the photos rather than argue the toss.

Minrich

What the prosecution needs to do is prove "beyond reasonable doubt" , from what i have read here there is reasonable doubt as to the identity of the car in the photo . We will never see the photo of the offending vehicle . The OP has that evidence . Take it to court and just say its not your car that it has been cloned , show the photos of your car and the police one . Point out the areas that are different . Simple . The issue will be whether the court believe that you have altered your car after the offence . If they can prove that you will be in alot more serious trouble than a speeding offence . Down to you .

Herzlos

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

This is really, really frustrating.

I can totally understand that. Try not to let it get to you. We're here to help.

Firstly, I cannot give a better defence than that I have, it is impossible.

What have you done so far, and we'll see what else we can come up with.

dacouch

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

OK...

Let's just suppose for one second that it was me speeding and I've decided I don't want to pay £90 for a speed awareness course (this is what we're talking about here).

So I go on t'internet and buy a new reg plate. I don't know how much they cost but it must be about £20 or so. Then I search for some rusty screws to attach it to my car. Then I pay someone to take the old tow bar off my car and put another one on, that must be £30 at least. Then on top of that I've had to pay £80 or so for the new towbar and paint or whatnot to make it look less new (a tenner?). I've also had to buy some sort of cleaner to get rid of the GB sticker and probably some touch up spray to replace any paint that comes off with the sticker not to mention T-cut to blend it in...

I'm looking at the best part of £150?

Why would I bother?

This (Now Ex) Police Officer had the same idea and received three months in prison and loss of his job for trying the same thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30479468

Dr._Shoe

dacouch wrote: »

This (Now Ex) Police Officer had the same idea and received three months in prison and loss of his job for trying the same thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-30479468

What do you mean "trying to do the same thing"?

I'm not trying to do anything other than live a law abiding life.

In the case of that police officer, they were able to prove that he had committed a perversion of the course of justice. In my case they would not be able to do this because I am not.

Here's the scenario according to a qualified solicitor:

I go to court to answer a charge of S172 infringement and claim that the car is not mine. I point out the differences and the magistrate agrees that the two pictures are different and that there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction on the grounds that the prosecution are unable to provide any other evidence. PoCJ does not even figure at this point.

Should the police have sufficient reason to believe that I have made alterations to my vehicle then they will seek proof of it. They will probably check for newly purchased number plates, they may inspect my car for traces of a GB sticker and they may ask for CCTV evidence from work. I have not bought any new number plates (in fact I have never bought number plates in my life), As far as I know the car has never had a GB sticker and there is no CCTV at work. I will not be prosecuted if they cannot gather any evidence.

To summarise, should I get a summons I will not be done for PoCJ there and then at the court. The only reason I might (apparently) get a summons is because there is no mechanism under RTA to deal with S172 cases where the registered owner is unable to give driver details. I have cooperated as much as I could and there is a chance that they won't even bother.

Rover_Driver

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

there is no mechanism under RTA to deal with S172 cases where the registered owner is unable to give driver details.

s.172 (4) could apply in those circumstances:


"A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."


Just producing photographs on their own may not be considered acceptable by the court as 'reasonable diligence'. Car details in photographs can be changed, as mentioned in an earlier post. You may need to provide more information as to why it was not your car.

You will need to convince the court that as it was not your car, you cannot name the driver. The prosecution do not provide any evidence in that respect, only that you were required to name the driver, which you failed to do.

Minrich

Rover_Driver wrote: »

s.172 (4) could apply in those circumstances:


"A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."


Just producing photographs on their own may not be considered acceptable by the court as 'reasonable diligence'. Car details in photographs can be changed, as mentioned in an earlier post. You may need to provide more information as to why it was not your car.

You will need to convince the court that as it was not your car, you cannot name the driver. The prosecution do not provide any evidence in that respect, only that you were required to name the driver, which you failed to do.

NO - The prosecution has to prove the offence , the defendant doesn't have to "prove" anything , if there is doubt , then the defendant is NG . All the defendant has to do is put doubt in the mind of the magistrate .

Rover_Driver

Minrich wrote: »

NO - The prosecution has to prove the offence , the defendant doesn't have to "prove" anything , if there is doubt , then the defendant is NG . All the defendant has to do is put doubt in the mind of the magistrate .

The offence is failing to nominate the driver, all the presecution have to 'prove' is that the defendant did not.

The defendant would need show the court why they could not - s.172(4).

Minrich

The OP is apparently being summonsed for speeding not the S172 offence . They cannot change their mind , they could send him a further summons for the offence you disclose above but until then the OP is going to court for a speeding offence . The OP is saying that it is not his car and the above offence is not relevant for a car he does not own .