House mate speeding notice

TooManyPoints

Can we assume you know who the owner of the BMW is?

Not a clue, its not my housemates car.

From the limited information you have provided I would recommend that your flatmate responds to the request for the driver's details by saying that he has no idea to whom the car belongs, has no connection with it, it has no connection with his address and he has no idea who was driving it at the relevant time (provided, of course, that all that is true). He should also point out that the letter was incorrectly addressed but he has responded nonetheless. As he is not the "person keeping the vehicle" he has an obligation to "give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." If it really is a total mystery why the police have asked him to provide information then that's all he can do.

Didn't a couple of politicians get 2 years in the clink for perverting the course of justice? This is a serious matter.

They didn't get two years. Chris Huhne and his wife Vicky Pryce got eight months apiece:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21737627

Another politician more recently received a three month sentence for a similar offence:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47455618

Your flatmate should make sure that what he tells the police (if he tells them anything) is the truth. If he declines to reply he may find himself facing a charge under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. If he disputes the matter on the basis that the request was not addressed properly to him It will be for a court to decide whether or not it was properly served. If they do it will cost him several hundred pounds in fines and costs and, whether it troubles him or not, six points on his driving record.

macman

What has the minimum wage got to do with all this?

SHAFT

TooManyPoints wrote: »

From the limited information you have provided I would recommend that your flatmate responds to the request for the driver's details by saying that he has no idea to whom the car belongs, has no connection with it, it has no connection with his address and he has no idea who was driving it at the relevant time (provided, of course, that all that is true). He should also point out that the letter was incorrectly addressed but he has responded nonetheless. As he is not the "person keeping the vehicle" he has an obligation to "give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." If it really is a total mystery why the police have asked him to provide information then that's all he can do.


They didn't get two years. Chris Huhne and his wife Vicky Pryce got eight months apiece:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21737627

Another politician more recently received a three month sentence for a similar offence:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47455618

Your flatmate should make sure that what he tells the police (if he tells them anything) is the truth. If he declines to reply he may find himself facing a charge under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. If he disputes the matter on the basis that the request was not addressed properly to him It will be for a court to decide whether or not it was properly served. If they do it will cost him several hundred pounds in fines and costs and, whether it troubles him or not, six points on his driving record.

If he was not the person keeping the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence what obligation does he have?

Car_54

SHAFT wrote: »

If he was not the person keeping the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence what obligation does he have?

As "any other person" he has precisely the obligation that Toomanypoints has already explained, i.e. to "give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver" [Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 172(2(b))]

TooManyPoints

What has the minimum wage got to do with all this?

I can only imagine that the driver of the BMW earns a lot more than that. But then I'm a suspicious so-and-so and tend to read between the lines!

... the owner of the BMW will no doubt pay the fine, based on his low wage, if he stays.

:rotfl:

SHAFT

[quote=[Deleted User];76247948]As "any other person" he has precisely the obligation that Toomanypoints has already explained, i.e. to "give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver" [Road Traffic Act 1988 s. 172(2(b))][/QUOTE]

If it's not your vehicle and you were not the keeper at the time of the alleged offence then they can do very little if you say nothing other than you weren't the driver.

(4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

Barny1979

sevenhills wrote: »

He could be leaving the UK in a matter of weeks, or he may get his visa extended, I dont think he will be bothered about the points, the owner of the BMW will no doubt pay the fine, based on his low wage, if he stays.

So your housemate knows the owner of the BMW?

DoaM

Drip .. drip .. drip ..

TooManyPoints

(4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was

.

Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above refers to "the person keeping the vehicle" and his obligation to ascertain who the driver was. "Any other person" has no such obligation. He only has to provide "...any information which is in his power to give". It is a lower burden. He does not have to show that he has used reasonable diligence. He only has to show that he has given all the information that he can. A response along the lines of yours or mine will do in these circumstances (if what we are led to believe is true).

Car_54

SHAFT wrote: »

If it's not your vehicle and you were not the keeper at the time of the alleged offence then they can do very little if you say nothing other than you weren't the driver.

(4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

Para 4 does not apply here, since the OP's housemate's situation is subject to para 2(b), not 2(a).


The law requires him to provide "...any information which is in his power to give". It would be wise for to state firmly that he has no such information, rather than just "It wasn't me". Provided, of course, that it is true.