Help with speeding ticket on stollen vehicle

Car_54

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.

Indeed. But if the recipient of the s172 request is not "the person keeping the vehicle" (even if he is actually the RK) he is still obliged under s172 2(b) to "give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver."

In practice, that probably means identifying "the person keeping the vehicle".

Mickey666

AdrianC 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.  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.

Fair enough, but you’ve chosen examples that are not relevant to this case, ie is it reasonable to not know a vehicle has been stolen for many weeks or months?  I’m suggesting it is, though I’ve no idea how the courts would treat such a case.  If a court decides guilty in such circumstances, then that would seem to have significant implications for anyone who regularly ‘lays up’ a vehicle for any period of time.

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC 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.  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. 
...
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.

Fair enough, but you’ve chosen examples that are not relevant to this case, ie is it reasonable to not know a vehicle has been stolen for many weeks or months?

Ah, now that's a different question entirely...

Although it IS one I already answered - and you quoted the answer.

Dr_Crypto

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC 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.  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.

Fair enough, but you’ve chosen examples that are not relevant to this case, ie is it reasonable to not know a vehicle has been stolen for many weeks or months?  I’m suggesting it is, though I’ve no idea how the courts would treat such a case.  If a court decides guilty in such circumstances, then that would seem to have significant implications for anyone who regularly ‘lays up’ a vehicle for any period of time.

Courts do this all the time when deciding if someone has behaved reasonably. Are you going equipped to steal or are you carrying your tools home from your mechanic job? 

Did you actually borrow the money and it was merely resting in your account or did you steal it? 

Was it self defence or an assault? 

Yes people lay up cars all the time. Most people know that bikes aren’t used over the winter, for example. Ultimately it’ll be down to how believable he is on the day. 

[Deleted User]

The NIP is deliberately badly designed to make you think you have to name someone. You don't, you can put "I don't know who was driving because the bike was stolen before that date."

Dr_Crypto

Rover_Driver said:

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.

Yes but there is still a possible defence here. 
If he didn't recieve the original NIP within 14 days and can convince the court he didn't then any subsequent reminders have no bearing. 
I think he will struggle to convince them of this though given his general slovenly approach to the vehicle. 

AdrianC

Dr_Crypto said:
Yes but there is still a possible defence here. 

If he didn't recieve the original NIP within 14 days and can convince the court he didn't then any subsequent reminders have no bearing. 

You forget a couple of minor details...

The s172 does not have to be RECEIVED. It just has to be posted in time for a reasonable expectation of reception within the 14 days. Royal Fail doing their worst does not let the driver off the hook.

But the real kicker is that that is the timeline to send it to the address on the V5C. And the OP is... equivocal at best... as to whether post sent to that address would reach him at all.

Car_54

AdrianC said:

Dr_Crypto said:
Yes but there is still a possible defence here. 

If he didn't recieve the original NIP within 14 days and can convince the court he didn't then any subsequent reminders have no bearing. 

The s172 does not have to be RECEIVED. It just has to be posted in time for a reasonable expectation of reception within the 14 days. Royal Fail doing their worst does not let the driver off the hook.

But the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that, if posted in time, the NIP is deemed to have been served "unless the contrary is proved".

So Dr Crypto is right - it lets him off the hook IF he can convince the court. But, unless he has evidence he hasn't shared with us, that will be near impossible.

BTW the 14 days applies to the NIP, not the s172 request. There is no time limit (or escape route) for the latter.

Dr_Crypto

Certainly locally we work on the basis that if the person can persuade the court they didn’t receive it then they can’t be expected to comply with it and thus a defence is established.
The reasoning is that the police saying they sent it isn’t any always any more likely to be truthful than a reliable person saying they didn’t get it. 

Generally we ask about previous problems with post, what they have done about these etc. 

Dr_Crypto

Certainly locally we work on the basis that if the person can persuade the court they didn’t receive it then they can’t be expected to comply with it and thus a defence is established.
The reasoning is that the police saying they sent it isn’t any always any more likely to be truthful than a reliable person saying they didn’t get it. 

Generally we ask about previous problems with post, what they have done about these etc.