Hire Car Speeding Ticket - Help!

HO87

Hi Becky

Rather than debate the issue of whether you were insured or not - which isn't exactly terribly relevant at the moment I will deal with the speeding allegation and the paperwork your OH currently has.

The document he has is a formal Notice of Intended Prosecution - the section of the letter covering this element is actually quite short and probably includes a relatively poor quality still shot from the DVD footage recorded in the van. It will also include details of the location, the vehicle the police allege was involved and along with the alleged speed, details of the time, date and location.

this section is straightforwardly information.

However, attached to that is a formal requirement (what is known as a s.172 requirement) that the person named on the form (presumably your OH) must name the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The reply (using their form - which must be signed) has to be returned so as to reach them within 28 days.

Failure to do so is an offence and carries a mandatory 6 points, a fine (usually in the £350-400 range) and the dreaded endorsement code MS90. Dreaded because insurers have been known to rescind policies immediately on being notified of such a conviction or have declined to renew polices as a result. Premiums are inevitably loaded and this can last for 5-6 years depending on your insurer. It is understood that insurers view a MS90 conviction as being one of dishonesty.

Conspiring together to pervert the course of justice so that your OH names himself as the driver at the time is likely to see both of you serve a term of imprisonment which will pretty much see the end of any sensible careers, mortgages, home ownership etc not to mention the loss of dignity, character and reputation. I do not say this lightly. There are a large number of examples of people who have found themselves in exactly the same situation as you who got it wrong and have paid the price. Do not even think about it.

If you think you can be clever then think again. There will be reasonable good video footage of the vehicle which (especially if its from the front) is likely to clearly show the driver and would probably allow a decision to be made about their gender. The footage will be checked.

I therefore suggest that - as this is a pretty much an automated process unless you try to rock the boat - that your OH names you as the driver and gets the form back to the police promptly. Always making sure to keep a copy of the completed and signed form and return it by either Recorded or Special Delivery. That costs but you wouldn't want to end up with the OH picking up a conviction for failing to respond if the form gets lost in the post!

The police will then send you your own version of the form. You can then fill that in and get it back to them within the time limit. Unless the speed is horrendous then you will either be offered a speed awareness course or be offered a fixed penalty.

It is unlikely that you or the OH will be asked to produce or otherwise prove current insurance. That would be far more likely if you try to step outside the system or give duff information. Just play a straight bat and in all likelihood nothing will be said. If you are asked just come clean. A few fines and points is far preferable to serving time.

The hire company will not be involved further now the form has come out to your OH and if you play the straight bat then his employers will be unaware as well.

Just make sure that you understand what you are insured for next time!

FormulaDriven

beamerguy wrote: »

But you have not seen her policy have you
It is no red herring and yet again Quentin I am closing this conversation with you, POINTLESS

beamerguy - a quick search of Google images throws up several certificates which all seem to share the following wording, so it looks like Quentin knows what he's talking about, ie it's standard wording (this or something very similar):


The policyholder may also drive with the owner's permission a car not owned by the policyholder and not hired to the policyholder under a hire purchase...

I assume in this case the OP did not have the owner's permission. Or is there a loophole if the hire agreement was with person A, but it gave permission to person B (eg a spouse) to also drive the car?

Quentin

HO87 wrote: »

..... return it by either Recorded or Special Delivery.....

This is just an unnecessary waste of money!


(This is a money saving website, not for money wasting)


All you need to do is to get a free certificate of posting when you hand in the envelope at a post office with a normal stamp on it.


(The police don't use recorded or special delivery when sending out these docs so why waste money on their return?)

beamerguy

Quentin wrote: »

This is just an unnecessary waste of money!


(This is a money saving website, not for money wasting)


All you need to do is to get a free certificate of posting when you hand in the envelope at a post office with a normal stamp on it.


(The police don't use recorded or special delivery when sending out these docs so why waste money on their return?)

HO87 is right, it is the police the OP is dealing with not a PPC scammer

glentoran99

beamerguy wrote: »

The camera vans check everything now, but they asked who was driving ... big question mark

they always ask who was driving, Even when I was driving my car outside my house a got a letter confirming who was driving

nigelbb

beamerguy wrote: »

My insurance policy includes third party for any car

I have third party cover for any car too but only with the permission of the OWNER. Your policy probably states the same. Without the permission of the car rental company I would not be insured to drive a car hired by somebody else.

Quentin

beamerguy wrote: »

HO87 is right, it is the police the OP is dealing with not a PPC scammer

This is nothing to do with dealing with a scammer - simply a money saving v money wasting scenario!


***************************************

Have you really read your insurance certificate (the bit that says you can drive other cars third party only provided.......)

rs65

My policy says I can drive other cars not hired to me.

I do however require the owners permission.

Herzlos

beamerguy wrote: »

The camera vans check everything now, but they asked who was driving ... big question mark

Which is completely standard, no?

HO87

Quentin wrote: »

This is nothing to do with dealing with a scammer - simply a money saving v money wasting scenario!


***************************************

Have you really read your insurance certificate (the bit that says you can drive other cars third party only provided.......)

My aim is to save the OP a considerable amount and the investment in Recorded or Special Delivery postage is very much part of that. My recommendation was that the OP did whatever they could to ensure that their case remain as "normal" as possible and didn't fall out of the mainstream. Recorded or SD just helps ensure that it does.

Remember: we are dealing with the criminal courts here not the county court and in the face of a Crown Prosecutor saying that the police received zero a simple certificate of posting doesn't cut much. However, a signed receipt showing that the letter was delivered carries far more weight.