Hit & Run

casseus

AdrianC wrote: »

Which clearly isn't the case here, since there's no way any of those people consented or connived to the failure to stop.

Stop reading what you want and read the act in its entirety. When your a company you have to keep a good record of your drivers, Effectively this means that companies have to keep records of who is driving their vehicles at any given time. Either that, or risk hefty fines for failing to provide information if they are unable to name the driver when asked.

(5)
Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

And reasonable diligence wont really stick for a company with the higher bar placed upon them, The only other defence which has a higher success rate is "reasonably practicable" defence.

AdrianC

OK, so what managerial neglect was there that caused the driver (whoever it might have been) to scrape a parked car and drive off?


Connivance is actually far less unlikely - say, they know who scraped it, but are keeping quiet.

I still don't believe it.

casseus

AdrianC wrote: »

OK, so what managerial neglect was there that caused the driver (whoever it might have been) to scrape a parked car and drive off?


Connivance is actually far less unlikely - say, they know who scraped it, but are keeping quiet.

I still don't believe it.

Do believe it as it happens often. What if the guy walked in the yard and said to his line manager I just blitzed a car up the road and no is around to report it to,they agree to say well if no one reports it to us then don't worry about it. They would be guilty under this act. If there was no proper record keeping and neglected to keep a record of the drivers the Company is guilty under this act. If police can see its their vehicle, but say no drivers records are kept for any vehicle then "attributable neglect" in not naming the driver.

Don't think individuals, think company on how the act applies to the company

AdrianC

casseus wrote: »

Do believe it as it happens often. What if the guy walked in the yard and said to his line manager I just blitzed a car up the road and no is around to report it to,they agree to say well if no one reports it to us then don't worry about it. They would be guilty under this act.

Yes, that would be the connivance.


The neglect clause is more for unroadworthiness offences, or where the driver was speeding to ensure he wasn't late due to an unrealistic schedule.

Deanston

casseus wrote: »

Do believe it as it happens often. What if the guy walked in the yard and said to his line manager I just blitzed a car up the road and no is around to report it to,they agree to say well if no one reports it to us then don't worry about it. They would be guilty under this act. If there was no proper record keeping and neglected to keep a record of the drivers the Company is guilty under this act. If police can see its their vehicle, but say no drivers records are kept for any vehicle then "attributable neglect" in not naming the driver.

Don't think individuals, think company on how the act applies to the company

So what if they have 50 vehicles and records for who had each on the day of the collision. Which driver was it?

casseus

Deanston wrote: »

So what if they have 50 vehicles and records for who had each on the day of the collision. Which driver was it?

that's for the company to work out then isn't it.

1. Yard CCTV of the day it happened and work form there.
2. Tracking information if they have it would tell them who was where and when at what time.

If none of the above they have a large task ahead of them.

Deanston

casseus wrote: »

that's for the company to work out then isn't it.

1. Yard CCTV of the day it happened and work form there.
2. Tracking information if they have it would tell them who was where and when at what time.

If none of the above they have a large task ahead of them.

No, it's not.

It's for the police to determine what vehicle they are investigating.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

You leave for an hours or so and this place turns into the bar association smokers room.


Adrian you spoiled my fun! Deanson the point being a S172 doesn't require a "keeper" "registered Keeper" or a full number plate for it to be used, it can be used as tool in situations where a company has been identified.
It may not lead into anything, not even FtF charge, but it can and does get used. IF THE POLICE WISH TO INVESTIGATE. Op's insurers may see the footage and claim against their insurance and battle it out that way.
Good points by both Adrian and Casseus, but moot points all the same.

Deanston

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

You leave for an hours or so and this place turns into the bar association smokers room.


Adrian you spoiled my fun! Deanson the point being a S172 doesn't require a "keeper" "registered Keeper" or a full number plate for it to be used, it can be used as tool in situations where a company has been identified.
It may not lead into anything, not even FtF charge, but it can and does get used. IF THE POLICE WISH TO INVESTIGATE. Op's insurers may see the footage and claim against their insurance and battle it out that way.
Good points by both Adrian and Casseus, but moot points all the same.

Give us an example of it being used.

Car_54

Deanston wrote: »

No, it's not.

It's for the police to determine what vehicle they are investigating.

Not necessarily.


As quoted variously above, the police can demand information (under s172) from "the person keeping the vehicle". The act makes clear that that "person" may be a body corporate.


It seems entirely reasonable for the police to proceed on the basis that "the person keeping" any vehicle liveried as ABC Widgets is in fact ABC Widgets, and to request the driver's details from that body corporate. A court might disagree, but I doubt it.