Speeding ticket with tampered vehicle sheet!

AndyMc.....

dippa wrote: »

Thanks for the advice

Once my NIP comes through the door, how do I go about sending off for photographic evidence? I don't want to put myself in the position of getting a S172.

In regards to work, I am unsure if anyone has signed for the other van, I shall find out in my investigation later.

Once you get your nip join up to pepipoo.com.

[Deleted User]

I though an S172 only applied to the registered keeper.

AndyMc.....

craig1123 wrote: »

I though an S172 only applied to the registered keeper.

No it can be issued to anyone. In this case the OP was the keeper at the time of the offence.

Car_54

craig1123 wrote: »

I though an S172 only applied to the registered keeper.

Normally - but not necessarily - the first s172 request goes to the RK.

If he nominates someone else as driver then another s172 request is sent to that person. And so on if necessary.

Mercdriver

dippa wrote: »

Thanks for the advice

Once my NIP comes through the door, how do I go about sending off for photographic evidence? I don't want to put myself in the position of getting a S172.

In regards to work, I am unsure if anyone has signed for the other van, I shall find out in my investigation later.

As above, don't use the word evidence. Just ask for photos to assist with identification. They don't have to provide them, but usually will provided you don't ask for evidence. You won't necessarily get the 'money shot' if taken from a video stream from a camera van. You will get a shot of the vehicle, but often from the rear.

facade

I'd take this one over to pepipoo.

Are you absolutely sure that you were driving the van underneath the crossing out?

Seems to me that the simplest way to make the speeding go away would have been for the docket for the guilty van to just vanish. Then your company could not respond to the S172 at all, and the company would have been prosecuted for failing to name, and received the maximum fine, but no-one can get any points on their licence.

So stitching you up, by simply crossing out the van you drove, and writing in the guilty van in crayon would be rather stupid, as you are simply going to swear that you can't name a driver as you were driving another van at the time, and offer the altered docket as proof.
Then someone is going to face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice, which can carry a jail term. The only way to make this one work out is for you to agree that it was you driving when someone "reminds" you that it was definitely you driving, as it appears that you had left an envelope full of cash with your name on it inside on that day, that they had "forgotten" to give you until today.

All a bit elaborate, and sometimes Occam's Razor applies I'm afraid...

steppevos

Another vote for taking this one over to http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=5

facade wrote: »

I'd take this one over to pepipoo.

Seems to me that the simplest way to make the speeding go away would have been for the docket for the guilty van to just vanish. Then your company could not respond to the S172 at all, and the company would have been prosecuted for failing to name, and received the maximum fine, but no-one can get any points on their licence.

The company would still get a hugh fine (£ 1000-2000 if I remember correctly).

Joe_Horner

AndyMc..... wrote: »

No it can be issued to anyone. In this case the OP was the keeper at the time of the offence.

Although the requirements are different between the RK and "anyone else":

2)Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a)the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and

(b)any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

Note that "any other person" is only required to give information that it's "in their power" to give. It comes down to a question of how far over backwards you have to bend for them. Someone named as a driver by the RK can more easily state that it wasn't them and they have no idea who it was. In which case (at least in theory) it bounces back to the RK.

If you think about it, that makes perfect sense because otherwise you could get off any ticket by naming some random person then leaving them to carry the can.

In the OP's case, if he's certain that he was driving the van that's been crossed out on the log (so there won't be records to say otherwise) then simply stating that he was driving that vehicle (as he'd signed for) on that day so it isn't in his power to say who was driving the van concerned should be enough to return it to the company for them to sort out and likely get a fine because their records were screwed up.