Speeding fine, no idea who was driving

Keep_pedalling

Car_54 said:

Kim_13 said:

blackbirdxx said:

I note that a number of people are saying the other driver was effectively uninsured. This may be the case but I thought that being a 'named driver' gave me the same level of insurance and the car owner? I also thought that allowing someone else to drive on a licence legally in the uk would make them insured also. This may in fact not be the case and both of us should have been 'named drivers.'   
Grateful if someone can confirm this fact? 


Apologies to Bigphil for my poor description of events.

 Accept the points yourself and see if he will agree that as neither of you know who was driving and could open another can of worms, he will reimburse you for the cost of the ticket while you take the points.

That sounds terribly like a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

It is, although the chances of being found out are extremely unlikely. On the other hand trying to claim that they can’t ID the driver because they allowed an uninsured driver to share the driving is going to land them in a whole heap of trouble for certain.

Kim_13

Car_54 said:

Kim_13 said:

blackbirdxx said:

I note that a number of people are saying the other driver was effectively uninsured. This may be the case but I thought that being a 'named driver' gave me the same level of insurance and the car owner? I also thought that allowing someone else to drive on a licence legally in the uk would make them insured also. This may in fact not be the case and both of us should have been 'named drivers.'   
Grateful if someone can confirm this fact? 


Apologies to Bigphil for my poor description of events.

 Accept the points yourself and see if he will agree that as neither of you know who was driving and could open another can of worms, he will reimburse you for the cost of the ticket while you take the points.

That sounds terribly like a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

I’m not suggesting anyone says they were guilty of something they definitely weren’t, meanwhile the car owner is the only innocent (assuming she either didn’t know OP was going to permit the other guy to drive or trusted an extended family member when they said their own insurance covered their use of the car.) If someone doesn’t admit to driving, she may still be at risk. Can the OP admit to being the keeper of the car at the time without unequivocally saying that they were driving, and guarantee that the owner doesn’t face 6 points? 

Advice on Pepipoo is often to name the most likely driver - are one of you more likely than the other? If he is more likely than you, then accepting the ticket yourself is of course wrong. 

TooManyPoints

"Can the OP admit to being the keeper of the car at the time without unequivocally saying that they were driving, and guarantee that the owner doesn’t face 6 points?".

If the owner names the borrower as the person who was keeping the vehicle at the relevant time, she is out of the loop entirely. Unless, that is, the borrower denies he was keeping the vehicle, then more enquiries will follow.

At this stage (or at least when he received his request for driver's details) the OP (as the person keeping the vehicle) has the duty to provide the driver's details. That's what he needs to concentrate on. All he has said is that he has no idea who was driving. If he responds to the police saying that he will be prosecuted for "failing to provide driver's details" and if he turns up in court simply saying "dunno who was driving", he will be convicted. He needs to demonstrate to the court that he has exercised "reasonable diligence" in trying to find out. It's a tough hurdle to clear. If it was easy everybody would do it.

If he names a person whom he knows was not or could not have been driving, he will almost certainly face a charge of "attempting to pervert the course of justice" which invariably carries jail time, even when the signature offence is as trivial as speeding. He will not be convicted if he names the person most likely to have been driving (though arguably he has not fulfilled his duty under s172). However, if he names a foreign driver the police will almost certainly require him to produce evidence of that person being insured to drive. It seems I was wrong when I assumed cover was in place for that person; from the later description it seems he wasn't covered. So he needs to be prepared for that eventuality.

So meanwhile, it's back to my earlier question to blackbirdxx: "Since you found out about this, what efforts have you made to establish who was driving?"

Okell

facade said:

... In this case she [the OP's wife's sister] should name the person she allowed to have custody of & drive the car, which would be you [the OP] ...

I'm probably being overly pedantic, but on a strict reading of the OP, wouldn't his wife's sister need to nominate her sister (the OP's wife) and then she would then have to nominate her husband - the OP?

I'm not entirely certain why the OP expressly said that his wife borrowed her sister's car rather than just saying from the outset that he borrowed it - especially as it seemed to be the plan all along that only the OP and his brother were going to drive it...

TooManyPoints

I'm probably being overly pedantic, but on a strict reading of the OP, wouldn't his wife's sister need to nominate her sister (the OP's wife) and then she would then have to nominate her husband - the OP?

Very possibly. 

However, in the circumstance I would suggest the OP needs to get this matter disposed of with the least likelihood of any "further enquiries" being made. The possibility of this extra step being introduced will make it four s172 requests (sister-in-law; wife; OP; brother-in law from Trinidad). If it goes to that last step there will be difficulties anyway because of the insurance issue. If, by that time, the police suspect a "timeout" is being engineered it will become very difficult to predict what they will do.

I suspect that in any event this will end badly if the brother-in-law from Jamaica finishes up at the end of the chain. But of course it is up to the OP to discover who was driving. But I don't think adding an extra link will help.

LightFlare

I will repeat that unsigned is still an option regardless of who was driving:

https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/speeding-in-scotland/msg19934/#msg19934

TooManyPoints

I will repeat that unsigned is still an option regardless of who was driving:

Indeed it is.

Assuming the OP lives in England and that he discovers he was the driver, he will actually be in a better position than a driver who lives in Scotland and who chooses to "go unsigned." In Scotland the police often visit drivers who have decided to go down this route but they are far less likely to venture south of the border to do so. English police forces are unlikely in the extreme to act on their behalf. 

This will make "keeping his head down" a lot easier.