3 Points!! This SUCKS! who is to blame! Need advice

raskazz

moonrakerz wrote: »

If the car was where you left it when you went to work you wouldn't necessarily suspect that someone had taken it "without owner's consent."

Er, but you would if you received the details of the speeding conviction, knowing that someone else had taken it at the time....

cyclonebri1

Sorry but this is very, very suspicious.

Someone could end up in serious trouble here.

If he did it, he should take the hit,

If he did'nt and the relative did, well fine, but don't expect them to get a warm welcome back.

Problem is it's a classic excuse, sorry.

meester

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Sorry but this is very, very suspicious.

Someone could end up in serious trouble here.

If he did it, he should take the hit,

If he did'nt and the relative did, well fine, but don't expect them to get a warm welcome back.

Problem is it's a classic excuse, sorry.

Exactly.

There is now an offence of failing to provide the name of the driver of a car. It is a more serious offence than the simple 3 points for speeding. You have a responsibility to establish the driver of the car. So instead of saying 'he was out of the country, maybe the relatives took it', FIND OUT. Go and ask them. Maybe they will say they did. If so you simply provide their name as the driver of the car, job done, no problems for you, they get the three points.

If the OP is telling the truth, by all means pursue the 'it wasn't me' line, but if not, be very very careful, as this is perverting the course of justice, wasting police time, etc., and will result in prison if you are caught out.

moonrakerz

raskazz wrote: »

Er, but you would if you received the details of the speeding conviction, knowing that someone else had taken it at the time....

a. That wouldn't be for several weeks.
b. There are also a lot of "cloned" number plates about.

raskazz

moonrakerz wrote: »

a. That wouldn't be for several weeks.
b. There are also a lot of "cloned" number plates about.

Conor wrote:

"You pursue this line. The Police will ask you if they had your permission. If you answer:
1) no, they would expect you to report the vehicle as TWOC which means the relatives could be liable for arrest if they came back to the UK;"

I.e. you 'would be expected to' report it as TWOC, not 'you would have been' expected to report it.

Conor_3

No, don't try putting words in my mouth. They would expect you to as in a Police Officer will be standing in front of you prompting you to if it was taken without your consent, pointing out the ramifications of not doing so as I said earlier.

So as I said, before you decided to try and be clever and correct a non existent grammatical error, they would expect you to report it as TWOC.

raskazz

Conor wrote: »

No, don't try putting words in my mouth. They would expect you to as in a Police Officer will be standing in front of you prompting you to if it was taken without your consent, pointing out the ramifications of not doing so as I said earlier.

So as I said, before you decided to try and be clever and correct a non existent grammatical error, they would expect you to report it as TWOC.

Nobody's trying to put words in your mouth, and nobody was claiming to be correcting grammatical errors, either.

If you had bothered to actually read the thread before jumping in, you would have noticed that the post above was actually in response to moonrakerz, who had misinterpreted your original post. I was pointing out that the OP would be expected to report the car as TWOC after their response to the police re: the speeding conviction, not before the conivction had been recieived..

Perhaps a bit more thinking is required before you type?