Speeding in company van

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: Speeding fine.

Shankly62

Can anyone tell me and my colleague what happens when caught speeding at 42mph in a 30 zone buy these 'sneaky' unmarked speed vans parked up at side of road, when neither of us can remember who was driving the company van on this particulat date of 18 March '24, over 3 weeks ago ?.
Also when requested the image so as to see which one of us was driving the image we received is of the rear of the van only ??.
Regards
Gary and Dave

Wonka_2

Shankly62 said:

Can anyone tell me and my colleague what happens when caught speeding at 42mph in a 30 zone buy these 'sneaky' unmarked speed vans parked up at side of road, when neither of us can remember who was driving the company van on this particulat date of 18 March '24, over 3 weeks ago ?.
Also when requested the image so as to see which one of us was driving the image we received is of the rear of the van only ??.
Regards
Gary and Dave

Firstly it's better to start your own post then secondly it's even better that one of you remembers who was driving - assuming your employer is registered keeper then they'll be getting asked to name the driver and they're unlikely to want their day in court to explain why they can't 

TooManyPoints

That speed just qualifies for a speed awareness course (provided the driver has not done one in the last three years). 

But the more pressing matter is identifying the driver. If a “body corporate” (e.g. your company) has received a request for driver’s details, and they fail to do so, they face a hefty fine, but no points (a company does not have a driving record and so cannot receive points). If an individual is the recipient of that request and he fails to do so, he faces a hefty fine, six points and an endorsement code (MS90) which gives insurers a fit of the vapours.

There is a defence to the charge of failing to provide driver’s details if the recipient, ” …did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.“ It’s a high hurdle to clear (if it was easy everybody would do it) and there is an additional barrier if the recipient is a company. The “reasonable diligence” defence shall not apply “…unless, …the alleged offender shows that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable.”

So, who has received the request to name the driver, and what have they done to establish who it was?

Keep_pedalling

Assuming registered keeper is the company, then the company should be logging vehicle use, so it will not have a defence for failing to nominate the driver and is likely to result in a fine for the company of up to £1000.

If the registered keeper is a person then they face 6 points plus a fine for failing to nominate the driver. 

bluelad1927

Paper Scissors Stone best of 3

Okell

Shankly62 said:

Can anyone tell me and my colleague what happens when caught speeding at 42mph in a 30 zone buy these 'sneaky' unmarked speed vans parked up at side of road, when neither of us can remember who was driving the company van on this particulat date of 18 March '24, over 3 weeks ago ?.
Also when requested the image so as to see which one of us was driving the image we received is of the rear of the van only ??.
Regards
Gary and Dave

What stage is the process at?

Presumably the company has received a NIP.  Presumably the company knows which of you (Gary or Dave) the vehicle was logged out to.  Has the company replied to the police nominating that person and has that person received their own s 172 request yet?

Or has the company simply passed the s172 request addressed to the company onto you to deal with?

TooManyPoints

Assuming registered keeper is the company, then the company should be logging vehicle use, so it will not have a defence for failing to nominate the driver and is likely to result in a fine for the company of up to £1000.

Unless they can show that no records were kept and that not keeping them was "reasonable" (as per my earlier answer, and s172(6) of the RTA. If they show that not keeping records was reasonable, then they can run the "reasonable diligence" argument.