SIGN UP

Speeding fines & Pool cars

Avatar Image
mccfluff | 13:23 Mon 09th Jul 2012 | Motoring
13 Answers
If you cannot provide the name of the driver as its a pool car and the logs have not been correctly filled out, do you know what the next stage is and what steps the police will take, i've been looking on various forums etc but i can't figure out what happens. I've got this

"Are the obligations on a company any different to that of an individual Keeper?

Yes. The Company is required to keep accurate records of who was driving the vehicle on any given day. For all intents and purposes, the Court will expect an ongoing log to be maintained detailing the identity of all users of the vehicle at any specific time. Failure to be able to supply this information will probably result in conviction. It is not a defence to say that it is a "pool" car and that anybody could have been driving it at the time unless you have an exceptional case."

http://www.motorlawye...o_identify_driver.htm

but what would the conviction consist of - a fine?

i have asked for photos but its the rear of the car and doens't show the face of the driver (who if i find out who it was, won't have a very pretty face )

Answers

1 to 13 of 13rss feed

Avatar Image
The usual process is this:

Police (or safety camera partnership) sends to the Registered Keeper (presumably in this case the Company) a request for the details of the driver of their vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The RK has 28 days to respond. If they fail to do so, or say they are unable to identify the driver, a summons under Section 172 of the...
14:50 Mon 09th Jul 2012
It would seem unlikely just to be the usual level of speeding fine?

That would effectively give any company an easy way of avoiding 'points' for drivers by pleading ignorance and coughing up the cash each time someone is caught.
LOL, looks like your gonna get done, fluffy.
Question Author
its not going to be £60, its more than that, i can find info suggesting it could be a £1k but i'm not sure what's next, do they actually prosecute us?

i'm making them interrogate all the barstewards in the edit room, and if no-one 'fess's up, then i'm going over with murph
Put the driver down as Murphy MccFluff and see what happens when they try to prosecute.
I thought the director/s would get the fine/points.
"What if I do not know who was driving the vehicle?

If this is the case, then the law states that the owner or keeper of the vehicle must have exercised ‘reasonable diligence’ to find out the identity of the driver. Reasonable diligence just means making a real effort to find out who was driving.

If all the above checks, enquiries and investigations have been made into all the possible drivers and still there is no way in which the identity of the driver can be found out, the keeper of the vehicle and any potential drivers will usually be cross-examined by the prosecution solicitor or barrister.

If cross-examination has taken place and there is still no way to say for sure who was driving the vehicle, then the law says that the keeper of the vehicle cannot be held responsible. This will only be possible if the court is satisfied that the keeper has been diligent in trying to find out who was driving."

http://www.motoring.m.../failure-identify.php
Question Author
thats what i'm trying to establish ummmm

i can't find anything that gives me a clear line of what happens next

(and i might just try that chuck :-)
Question Author
cheers chuck i've emailed then both links and hopefully they will either find the driver or sacrifice someone
The usual process is this:

Police (or safety camera partnership) sends to the Registered Keeper (presumably in this case the Company) a request for the details of the driver of their vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The RK has 28 days to respond. If they fail to do so, or say they are unable to identify the driver, a summons under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act will be issued. (This section covers failure to provide driver's details when requested. The speeding matter is usually discontinued at this stage).

If they wish to avoid a conviction the Company will have to plead Not Guilty and go to trial. Their defence will be that, despite exercising all “due diligence” they have been unable to identify the driver.

It will be for the Magistrates to decide if their defence is successful. Despite what you have read on internet forums, Companies are not obliged to keep records of vehicles and drivers. It has been established in case law that the requirement to exercise “due diligence” does not begin until the request for information has been received. The prosecution will not call “potential drivers” to give evidence. They cannot help with who was driving and can only say that they were not. Similarly they are unlikely to be called by the defence as they will not be able to help with the “due diligence” issue.

Magistrates’ sentencing guidelines for the offence when dealing with an individual suggest a fine of one and a half week’s net income (reduced by a third for a guilty plea) and six penalty points. Companies (or directors) cannot be awarded points in the case of a Company vehicle and in these cases the fine is increased, usually considerably.
Question Author
Thanks Newjudge - any chance you could have a look at my q in law :-)

i'm having a day of it car wise!
Just a quick correction, mccfluff.

I may have misled you slightly when I said that Companies are not obliged to keep records of drivers driving their cars. Within the Road Traffic Act section 172 there is specific mention (Section 172.6) of Companies and the defence of “due diligence”. Although there is no obligation on Companies to keep records of their vehicles and drivers, their defence is compromised if they do not do so. In addition to showing that they exercised all due diligence in trying to identify the driver they also have to show that their failure to keep records was “reasonable”. (This is another matter on which the Court will decide).

Effectively all the prosecution has to prove is that the information requested was not provided. That is their case proved. The burden then shifts to the Company to show, in their defence, that they made every effort to identify the driver and, if they did not keep records, that their failure to do so was reasonable.

I cannot really add much to the answers you have received to your other question.
'reasonable dilligence' rather than 'due dilligence'
Yes quite right,ns. Thanks for the correction.

1 to 13 of 13rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Speeding fines & Pool cars

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.