Hounslow PCN for traffic offense, no option to name the driver ???

stator

If the driver refused to pay, could the RK take them to small claims court?

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

It doesn't really matter who was driving, since there's no points involved. The RK needs to pay - and it's up to them whether they get the actual driver to reimburse the money.

That's slightly questionable because, under notification of penalties (S.78), the TMA provides that:

"(5)The regulations may provide that, if it appears to the enforcement authority that both the operator of a vehicle and the person in control of the vehicle are liable to a penalty charge, they may give notice to the operator requiring him to provide them with the name and address of the person who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention."

Without following through to see what SIs have been made under that section can't say for sure that a request for the driver's details is required, but it was certainly anticipated by the above clause in the primary legislation.

Car_54

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's slightly questionable because, under notification of penalties (S.78), the TMA provides that:

"(5)The regulations may provide that, if it appears to the enforcement authority that both the operator of a vehicle and the person in control of the vehicle are liable to a penalty charge, they may give notice to the operator requiring him to provide them with the name and address of the person who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention."

Without following through to see what SIs have been made under that section can't say for sure that a request for the driver's details is required, but it was certainly anticipated by the above clause in the primary legislation.

Surely the key words are: "if it appears to the enforcement authority that both the operator of a vehicle and the person in control of the vehicle are liable to a penalty charge" (my emphasis).

That would appear to exclude most minor traffic infringements.

Joe_Horner

Pretty sure that most violations that can be served in person (at the time) or by post later can be served against either - a parking ticket stuck to the car is served on the driver at the time, while a postal notice for the same goes to the RK.

Car_54

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Pretty sure that most violations that can be served in person (at the time) or by post later can be served against either - a parking ticket stuck to the car is served on the driver at the time, while a postal notice for the same goes to the RK.

"Either", yes, but not "both" as quoted from the regs.

Rover_Driver

Have there been any regulations made in respect of s.78?

Joe_Horner

Car_54 wrote: »

"Either", yes, but not "both" as quoted from the regs.

I'd argue that's a matter of semantics by the drafter.

If they'd used "either" then that could be said to apply in ALL cases that a contravention occurred because it's always the case that either the owner or the driver are liable.

"Both" gets round that by only including the cases where both can be held liable in a general sense, even if only one can be in a given instance.


In any case, that clause has no effect in itself because its only an enabling clause for other regulations to be made. Without trawling through related SIs I don't know whether any regulations have been made under it, or whether they'd apply in this case if they had.

Car_54

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I'd argue that's a matter of semantics by the drafter.

If they'd used "either" then that could be said to apply in ALL cases that a contravention occurred because it's always the case that either the owner or the driver are liable.

"Both" gets round that by only including the cases where both can be held liable in a general sense, even if only one can be in a given instance.


In any case, that clause has no effect in itself because its only an enabling clause for other regulations to be made. Without trawling through related SIs I don't know whether any regulations have been made under it, or whether they'd apply in this case if they had.

It may have been drafted carelessly (though we can't know), but the words used in legislation are normally chosen carefully to be unambiguous. The fact is that parliament said "both" not "either",and any argument that they actually meant "either" is unlikely to convince a court. Not that it's ever likely to get there.

Joe_Horner

Agree that taking it to court would probably be not worth it - even if you won the time and aggravation involved would be more than the penalty. You'd have to be doing it as a crusade - which I'm all in favour of in some cases, but in this situation far more sensible to simply ask the person responsible to cough up.

If they refuse now then it's very unlikely that they'll pay if they're named and, if they don't, then the authority will still have the power to revert to the owner for the fine in any case.

I do think the ambiguity is great enough to build a case on (assuming there are appropriate regulations derived from that clause) because there would be similar ambiguity whichever way it was worded. But simply not worth fighting in this case unless you enjoy tilting at windmills.