Help with speeding ticket on stollen vehicle

Rover_Driver

Dr_Crypto said:

I’m a little unclear as to the 14 day limit here. The OP says they didn’t receive anything until 27/8 for an offence in June. There is a potential line of defence here to a s172 if the OP can persuade the court that they didn’t receive it. 

The 14 day limit only applies to the first Notice of Intended Prosecution sent to the registered keeper. There is no time limit for sending a subsequent notice, or to send any  s.172 requirement.

ToxicWomble

OP isn’t coming back anyway.
He tested the waters with his fishy story to see if it would hold up - it didnt so he’s off making another up

Grumpy_chap

A big part of the OP being able to claim they did not know who was riding the bike as it was whoesver stole the bike will depend on the crime report recorded to the Police.
The OP says:

• last used it back in March/April pre covid/lockdown (which is a bit vague)
• reported stolen 20th July
• The vehicle was retrieved by police and scrapped on 28th July.
  
• On 27th August I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP). Speeding camera - excess speed. Date of offence 7th June.

If the OP reported the theft on 20th July and said that was the date of the theft, then the OP claiming they were not in possession of the bike in June is going to look weak.
If the OP reported the theft on 20th July and said it was stolen anytime after March/April and only discovered as stolen on 20th July, the claim that they did not know who was in possession of the bike in June carries more weight.
Though why that would not have been first line of defence to the NIP is odd.

Mickey666

Requiring a registered keeper to say who was driving a vehicle is one of those thing that sounds easy but can be fraught with difficulty in practice.  There will always be cases where a registered keeper genuinely doesn’t know.  Is it reasonable for the law to decide that the keeper is legally negligent in such circumstances?

Also, I recall reading about a speeding case many years ago in which a man and wife sharing a long overnight journey and because they were both tired they were constantly changing who was driving.  Their car was caught by a speeding camera and they BOTH admitted that one of them must be guilty but they couldn’t remember who was driving at that particular time.  I seem to recall that one of them even offered to pay the fine even though they could not honestly state who was actually guilty but the court could not accept someone paying a fine for someone else so because the guilty party could not be identified beyond doubt - even from a shortlist of two who both admitted it COULD have been them - neither of them were found guilty in the end.

I searched for a report of this remembered case but couldn’t find anything.  I did find similar recent cases where a similar defence didn’t work, so perhaps I’ve mis-remembered.  I found some interesting reading here though: https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/speeding-defences-2/

Car_54

Mickey666 said:

Requiring a registered keeper to say who was driving a vehicle is one of those thing that sounds easy but can be fraught with difficulty in practice.  There will always be cases where a registered keeper genuinely doesn’t know.  Is it reasonable for the law to decide that the keeper is legally negligent in such circumstances?

The law doesn't decide - the court does, after hearing all the evidence.

The law actually says "A person shall not be guilty ... if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was." So your keeper who "genuinely doesn't know" simply has to convince the court that he passes that test.

facade

Grumpy_chap said:

If the OP reported the theft on 20th July and said it was stolen anytime after March/April and only discovered as stolen on 20th July, the claim that they did not know who was in possession of the bike in June carries more weight.
Though why that would not have been first line of defence to the NIP is odd.

The OP is probably a victim of "The Expert Down the Pub" or the interweb. Everybody knows that any NIP is invalid if it arrives more than 14 days after the event, so he simply tried to get it cancelled rather than have to argue about how come he didn't know it was stolen. (Half the posters on here can't believe he wouldn't know, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially if he was furloughed in March)

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

Requiring a registered keeper to say who was driving a vehicle is one of those thing that sounds easy but can be fraught with difficulty in practice.  There will always be cases where a registered keeper genuinely doesn’t know.  Is it reasonable for the law to decide that the keeper is legally negligent in such circumstances?

Yes, absolutely.

Let's take some examples...
Perhaps you're the RK of a car that your student offsprog took to uni for a while. You don't know for sure who was driving - but you know who was in charge of it. So you nominate them, and if they lent it to somebody else, they nominate them.
Same for a lease company RK with a vehicle that's with a corporate customer - they nominate their customer, who nominates the individual driver. If a corporate doesn't keep adequate records of who had which vehicle when, that's their poor admin.

Also, I recall reading about a speeding case many years ago in which a man and wife sharing a long overnight journey and because they were both tired they were constantly changing who was driving.  Their car was caught by a speeding camera and they BOTH admitted that one of them must be guilty but they couldn’t remember who was driving at that particular time.  I seem to recall that one of them even offered to pay the fine even though they could not honestly state who was actually guilty but the court could not accept someone paying a fine for someone else so because the guilty party could not be identified beyond doubt - even from a shortlist of two who both admitted it COULD have been them - neither of them were found guilty in the end.

Yes, of course there are edge cases such as that where it's possible that the "Don't know" is genuine. But they are massively outnumbered by the idiot chancers who think that they've got a cast-iron loophole to get off.

neilmcl

Mickey666 said:

Requiring a registered keeper to say who was driving a vehicle is one of those thing that sounds easy but can be fraught with difficulty in practice.  There will always be cases where a registered keeper genuinely doesn’t know.  Is it reasonable for the law to decide that the keeper is legally negligent in such circumstances?

Then you have the opportunity to write and explain this along with any accompanying evidence to back this up and return this with the signed s172.

Qyburn

Mickey666 said:

Requiring a registered keeper to say who was driving a vehicle is one of those thing that sounds easy but can be fraught with difficulty in practice.  

It's the actual "keeper" who's responsible under S172 2(a).  Or as the law is written "the person keeping the vehicle".  That's not necessarily the Registered Keeper.

AdrianC

Qyburn said:

Mickey666 said:

Requiring a registered keeper to say who was driving a vehicle is one of those thing that sounds easy but can be fraught with difficulty in practice.  

It's the actual "keeper" who's responsible under S172 2(a).  Or as the law is written "the person keeping the vehicle".  That's not necessarily the Registered Keeper.

It's whoever received the last s172.