N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - Brill {P}

Haven't been here for a loooong time, but thought I'd warn others to be a little more careful and go to court if anything like this happens to them re speeding.

My car was caught by a hand held camera (hidden totally from the road I might add as he was filming cars from the rear and was behind a wall out of sight in a side road).

Anyway I asked for the photo as I'm not the only driver, but the image just showed my boot so there was no way I could tell, and both my wife and I could have been on the school run that day (we both do it).

I wrote back saying apologising for speeding, saying that I couldn't identify the driver and there are no records of use of course. I DID say that I wanted to comply with the law, and that I would have to guess it could have been me driving and I'm the registered keeper so if they had they had to I would have accept the conviction myself to resolve the matter. This is our first offence in 30 years.

Anyway, I have now received a fine of £600 (including costs) and SIX point, because they have prosecuted me not for the speeding, but for a more serious offence namely failure to give identification of the driver. That seems crazy, and I did say even though I couldn't be sure, I would take the conviction immediately.

Had I just guessed and put my name down in the first place I'd have received a smaller fine and less points.

To make matters worse, I've now been told by my Insurers that such a conviction (MS90) they are unable to insure me!

Great :(

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - Leif

That's the problem with speed cameras/guns that do not show the driver. Dishonest people can lie and pass the fine to another person if need be. Wasn't there a case a year or two ago of someone passing on the fines to various relatives, some living abroad? The honest person who tells the truth is punished as if they lied. So, as you suggest, it is best to lie. Surely someone must have tried to argue this law as an example case?

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - Dutchie

Its best not to lie,either the op was driving or his wife they must have had a discussion about this.If the op had said he was the driver sixty pounds find and 3 points and no insurance problem.

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - ianhad2

The Law in the UK re motoring is quite simple, you are guilty until proven innocent. Further, don't explain/ complain, because you will be punished further.

Do you wonder why people lie and cheat?

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - madf

The law is clear. Your car = YOUR responsibility.

Tough. Being grown up means taking responsibility like the OP...

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - Leif

The law is clear. Your car = YOUR responsibility.

Tough. Being grown up means taking responsibility like the OP...

So you really do remember exactly where you drive and when? And when two people share a car, they remember every road on which they drove, and when? Sure, most of the time for most people there will not be a problem, but if two people regularly share a car, and do numerous journeys on a route ... Sorry, it is possible that the OP is dishonest, but it is also quite possible that he is honest too.

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - LucyBC

Failing to identify the driver or provide inbformation as to the driver is an offence under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act.

The penalties are deliberately punitive as it is an enforcement offence - designed to persuade people who *do* know who was driving not to risk it in court.

There is a defence to a Section 172 that if you genuinely do not know who was driving and can persuade the court that you do not - then you will be acquitted. The arguments are not easy to make and the bar is set relativelky high but we currently win in excess of 95% of Section 172 cases that we defend in court.

I would strongly advise against falsely naming an overseas driver or a UK person who does not exist or "has moved". In such circumstances the police will always demand to see evidence that they were insured to drive the car - and if you cannot produce it you will be charged with "permit, no insurance" which brings 6-8 points - (counts the same as no insurance).

If you genuinely do not know who was driving the car then please contact me at lucy.bonhamcarter@autolaw.co.uk and as with any motoring offence I will arrange for a specialist motoring lawyer to undertake a free advice call.

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - madf

Leif...I said the OP was responsible .

My comments were directed IanHad2 who appeared to be blaming the law......

And when someone else drives my car, I do remember...I am not that senile .. yet :-)

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - Leif

Leif...I said the OP was responsible .

My comments were directed IanHad2 who appeared to be blaming the law......

And when someone else drives my car, I do remember...I am not that senile .. yet :-)

Sure, and most people will know for sure. But what if two people regularly share driving on a particular route several times a day, and the NIP arrives after 10 days. My point is that there will be cases where it is not unreasonable that the people concerned do not know who was driving. And having to fight this law is not exactly easy, though no doubt some lawyers are licking their lips at the prospect of people fighting it. It does seem to be about intimidation.

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - Armitage Shanks {p}

Mr Loophole would walk thru this for anyone, but at a cost. I did think that a statement to the effect that one had made one's best efforts to establish who was driving but without success, was enough to close the matter. If the police can't prove whao was driving and the car owner doesn't know, beyond reasonable doubt, what is meant to happen?

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - madf

AS

The fines I suspect are high to ensure owners DO know..

After all, if they were low, no owner wouild ever know who was driving...(think fleet cars)

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - Dutchie

I know hindsight is a fine thing but would it have not been easier to ask for advice on this matter by the OP before filling in the form? It seems to me that the fine is very high a lot of money to pay i hope he gets it sorted.

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - pullgees

The OP has made a silly mistake from the start . To say "I guess could have been me" or similar is a bit wishy washy and would not cut it with the issuing authority. It sounds like an attempt to appeal to their understanding or conscience, no chance, it 's all a very robotic and box ticking process. Also they have heard every excuse under the sun and they are not interested in hearing more. Should have taken the matter up with a solicitor but having suggested it could have been "me" who was driving hasn't helped.

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - LucyBC

Mags don't like people who try to deceive the court and there is probably more suspicion on Section 172's - failure to identify driver - than any other offence.

Firstly you need to be certain both parties are insured to drive the vehicle. It helps if they both drove it on the day in question and better still if the camera was passed several times. Magistrates also tend to be more forgiving if the NIP took a while to arrive (as can be the case with a company or lease car)

Fundamentally it comes down to the credibility of the defendant though. If you are a respectable and upstanding person with a hitherto unblemished record then you stand a far better chance than someone with a number of previous motoring convictions.

As for Mr Loophole you can get his lawyers on your case for £9.99 a year with our legal cover (which includes motor prosecution defence protection)

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - Westpig

As for Mr Loophole you can get his lawyers on your case for £9.99 a year with our legal cover (which includes motor prosecution defence protection)

I have convinced myself never again to waste my money on legal cover, having been in the position in the past when I had a fairly rock solid case against a lorry driver who trashed my car whilst it was parked unattended (5 grands worth of damage to a then 3 yr old Jag S Type) and my legal cover through my then insurer just sent me a terse 2 line letter stating I didn't fit their criteria...at which point I realised i'd been well and truly had over and had a paid an extra premium for something that was in effect, worthless.

I realise the difference between having my own cover and using an insurers cover, but can you convince me (and no doubt others) that your service is worth having. The £9.99 bit seems good value and the theory of having the legal cover suits me, it's just that I don't like being had over, it then makes me overly cautious.

N/A - Conviction, a lesson learned - Bilboman

It is infuriating to read of cases like this and really offends my sense of justice. Someone was speeding and it was *probably* the named driver, here's some circumstantial evidence, so admit to it or we'll have you. Dither the slightest and it's "do not pass go" and a three figure fine. If only muggers and shoplifters could get caught so easily, eh?

 

Ask Honest John

Value my car