Confused with Speeding Ticket

societys_child

Mmm, not remembering who was driving, is not a get-out clause . .

MEM62

foxy-stoat wrote: »

You must be able to make an educated guess as to the likely person at that time of day - if you cannot then take the wrap for the speeding.

My thoughts also.

It is unlikely, in my opinion, that the driver cannot be identified. The time of day would allow then to work that out. However, in the unlikely event that this is the case, then they are better off with one of the three taking the speeding rap than all three being done for failure to furnish.

EssexExile

I have known the "it was so long ago I can't remember" defence work & I have known it fail. All I would say is make sure you have tried as hard as you can to remember, leave no stone unturned. Some prosecutors are very good & will find any hole in a story if there is one. On the other hand some are rubbish!

Mercdriver

You urgently need to take this to pepipoo. It's quite conceivable that two of you could end up with a fail to furnish and one could get by with just 3 points if dual charged.

Hind sight is 20/20 but you should have asked for advice when you received the letters not when it got to requisitions, as then this could have been averted.

As I say, take this to pepipoo.

Johnmcl7

Mercdriver wrote: »

You urgently need to take this to pepipoo. It's quite conceivable that two of you could end up with a fail to furnish and one could get by with just 3 points if dual charged.

Hind sight is 20/20 but you should have asked for advice when you received the letters not when it got to requisitions, as then this could have been averted.

As I say, take this to pepipoo.

Agreed, they do have a thread over there now.

John

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

At present, no-one can be convicted of speeding - there is no evidence to identify the driver. But all three are guilty of failure to furnish.

They are given they must have been served a 172 notice, however how have the two named drivers on the insurance become the keeper of the vehicle?

First notice to the lease company second to the person who took out the lease once they are named by the lease company. If they then don't name the driver why go down the list of insured drivers?

Imagine doing that with Eddie Stobarts.

Johnmcl7

AndyMc..... wrote: »

They are given they must have been served a 172 notice, however how have the two named drivers on the insurance become the keeper of the vehicle?

I don't know what you mean about the named drivers becoming keepers of the vehicle, the leasing company received the first S172 who named the OP who then received a S172 as well who then replied saying it was them and two other possible drivers who also received S172's. As the OP and the two others did not respond with the driver of the vehicle, they've been charged with failure to furnish. The additional possible drivers do not need to be keepers of the vehicle to receive the S172.

casseus

AndyMc..... wrote: »

They are given they must have been served a 172 notice, however how have the two named drivers on the insurance become the keeper of the vehicle?

First notice to the lease company second to the person who took out the lease once they are named by the lease company. If they then don't name the driver why go down the list of insured drivers?

Imagine doing that with Eddie Stobarts.

They wouldn't do it with eddie stobarts they would fine the company Eddie stobarts instead (no points on anyone licence) because its a business. Not a private individual.

Also the insured didn't become keepers thats impossible, they were nominated by the OP in her response to her Nip and request for evidence that the OP states didn't help in identifying the driver. so ticketing office issued to every nominee a S.172. This does happen, the ticketing office has also kept the Speeding issue going by issuing all three with speeding too which is common. They also intend to take the OP to court for FTF and speeding. The other two who were nomited either nomited a driver or they face the same as OP and all three end up with 6 points and costs and MS90's

Herzlos

kayla1999 wrote: »

We can remember that day, it was GCSE results day so we were all off work. The camera was on a stretch of road behind our house and we all used the car that afternoon. My son picked my daughters friend up, I took them to collect their GCSE results and then we went out for food. It could have been any of those trips, None of us are clear of the timings that afternoon and it is very difficult to remember your precise movements from 2 months ago

What time was on the ticket? When did you pick up the GCSE results?

Aretnap

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

The additional possible drivers do not need to be keepers of the vehicle to receive the S172.

No, anyone can be sent an s172 requirement. However only the keeper of the vehicle is under an obligation to provide a name for the driver (or to show that he couldn't with reasonable diligence). A person who is not the keeper merely had to provide any information that they have which may help to identify the driver - they are under no obligation to carry out investigations or show reasonable diligence. And if their reply is "haven't the foggiest" the onus would be on the prosecution to prove that they had information that they could have disclosed but didn't. In practice this makes it rather difficult to convict someone who is not the keeper of the vehicle of a s172 offence.