Wrong name on NIP

sevenhills

Herzlos said:

You'll certainly come out of this much worse off if you try and play silly games with them - they'll see it all the time.

Not sure why people regard answering a question honestly, as playing games.

jimjames

sevenhills said:

TooManyPoints said:

How do you know you were at home at the time?. I'll mention your reference to the time again:

"I have just looked at the time of the offense, 5.39, I have just looked at my timesheet and I finished work at 5.25. The vehicle, I assume, was parked near my home at that time, ready for the next days work."

I've asked you a number of questions which a court will ask itself or you if you are prosecuted and you haven't really addressed them. You haven't asked for photographs although it seems pretty certain your vehicle was involved. You have said this is because of the name issues. Well if it was my vehicle and I doubted it was at the alleged location at a time I believed it was elsewhere, I'd want to see them. It's clear you have decided what you are going to do so I think I'm out now unless anything startlingly new crops up. Good luck and do let us know how it goes.

 we also use an app that tracks our vehicles and who is driving them. The app doesn't always work, but it probably was..

Surely the solution is to have at least looked at the data from the tracker app. That will either give you evidence to prove your location or verify the police paperwork. Any reason you've not done that?

TooManyPoints

This satisfies your requirements under S172, as you have given then the information you have.

No it doesn't.

Assuming he is "the person keeping the vehicle" (which it seems he is) his duty is to "...give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police..."

Only if he is "any other person" does he have the less onerous duty to "...give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver."

If the OP responds by saying he was not driving at the relevant time this is going to pan out in one of two ways. Either:

1. The police will realise they have made an error and either correct it or discontinue the matter entirely.

Or

2. They will issue proceedings for "Failing to provide driver's details."

From the information provided and the apparent lack of "reasonable diligence" on the OPs part, it is by no means clear what will happen.

If it was me, I would take steps to ensure I had covered all the bases before responding. He hasn't. He's simply relying on his assumption that the vehicle was at home at the time and that there must be some mistake. That assumption may well be correct and he may well see either no further action or an amended request. But if it isn't correct (and one easy way to help with his enquiries would be to ask for the photographs the police have) he faces a stiff penalty.

sevenhills

TooManyPoints said:

Assuming he is "the person keeping the vehicle" (which it seems he is) his duty is to "...give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police..."

It is confusing looking at the form, I was the "keeper" in that week, but I am not the registered keeper/owner/hire company.

Herzlos

sevenhills said:

TooManyPoints said:

Assuming he is "the person keeping the vehicle" (which it seems he is) his duty is to "...give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police..."

It is confusing looking at the form, I was the "keeper" in that week, but I am not the registered keeper/owner/hire company.

As far as they are concerned, you were responsible for the car that week and thus are the keeper.

Herzlos

sevenhills said:

Herzlos said:

You'll certainly come out of this much worse off if you try and play silly games with them - they'll see it all the time.

Not sure why people regard answering a question honestly, as playing games.

Because you sound more interested in finding a technicality to avoid it rather than trying to answer the question.

The less obstructive you are when dealing with the police in this, the easier it'll go for you.

If you have telemetry data from work that puts you nowhere near that road at that time, and are willing to go as far as court to prove it, then you can reply with 'no's in the field and a cover letter basically saying:

"I was the keeper of the vehicle in question on that day, but I have work telemetry data showing the vehicle was parked at _______ at the time of the alleged incident. As this is ____ miles away from _____ road, I don't believe it could be my vehicle."


As I said, the police and courts deal with people making the same excuses all of the time. But at least you have hard data to prove your case and hopefully aren't relying on a statement saying "It couldn't have been me because I was at home at the time".


If you do believe it isn't your vehicle, then you need to put a bit of due dilligence in - is it even the correct car? Was the NIP to your boss correct? Did he give your details instead of another staff members?

My suspicion is that either (a) the original plate was misread and it wasn't your companies vehicle at all or (b) the car belongs to someone else in your company and your boss sent the wrong details to the police. 

Without asking for the pictures you'll never know, and if they pursue you for failing to provide driver details you're going to have an expensive uphill battle to win it.

TooManyPoints

It is confusing looking at the form, I was the "keeper" in that week, but I am not the registered keeper/owner/hire company.

The Act (s172 of the Road Traffic Act) does not mention the registered keeper or owner. It only differentiates between "the person keeping the vehicle" and "any other person". If you claim not to be the person keeping the vehicle (and so claim to be bound by the lower burden of information that you must provide) the prosecution must prove that you are. "The person keeping the vehicle" is not defined in law and it would be for a court to decide the issue if it is challenged. Frankly, that's not a route I would suggest you go down as the vehicle was clearly under your control and you have referred to it as "my vehicle", suggesting you were the one keeping it.

sevenhills

Herzlos said:

As far as they are concerned, you were responsible for the car that week and thus are the keeper.

I have emailed them for the photo evidence, even though I am not the person named in the letter. I guess that will be against some privacy rules, but it needs sorting out.

TooManyPoints

I have emailed them for the photo evidence, even though I am not the person named in the letter. I guess that will be against some privacy rules, but it needs sorting out.

I think that's a very sensible decision.

If they argue the toss about providing them, explain that you have a s172 notice relating to your vehicle.

LightFlare

I hope you didn't do that and instead emailed them and asked for a photo to help identify the driver

They have zero obligation to furnish you with evidence untill it gets to court proceedings