PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Speeding Offence hearing date soon, Police change statement just 3 days before hearing..
carguy2111
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:15
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,832



Good Morning all..
In 3 days i have a hearing for a 51mph in a 30mph fixed camera offence, When the NIP first arrived I wrote back to the police stating I could not be sure who was driving that day its a Garage service Vehicle but would be happy to look at photos and ID the driver if I could, They wrote back first time saying as the reg Keeper I was obliged to tell them the name of the driver and the photos taken from the rear so wont help. I then wrote back saying I am not the reg keeper but one of 6 drivers with access to this car, They did then send the pictures but they do only show the rear of the car and no driver in sight at all, I wrote back again to state I am not the Reg Keeper but happy to provide all drivers details but would be wrong to name a single driver because I simply did not know, Got a letter back saying as reg keeper I must???, next I get a summons for excess speed and failing to give drivers details, in this pack his a a statement from a police officer stating she had checked the PNC system and I was the reg keeper, I wrote back to the court explaining my case a single magistrate then decided a full hearing was needed and set for in just 3 days time, Now only today in my post box a new statement arrives from the same officer to say her previous state was NOT CORRECT (and in bold) and that i have never been the Reg keeper of this car, My thinking is now to pass it to a solicitor and ask for more to time to investigate the polices action, this as already been through one hearing with her incorrect statement and I feel would have had a chance of dismissal if the truth was in place, any advice welcome and Happy new year
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:15
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:18
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,746
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



Were you the RK at the time of the offence?

If not, the you were named by someone else.

EXACTLY what information did you give to the Police?

This post has been edited by peterguk: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:19


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carguy2111
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:28
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,832



No in the new statement the police woman admits I was never the Reg Keeper (and again in capitals) and then says they pulled My name of the MID insurance database for the vehicle but I am not the only driver on that trade policy..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:32
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,746
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (carguy2111 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:28) *
No in the new statement the police woman admits I was never the Reg Keeper (and again in capitals) and then says they pulled My name of the MID insurance database for the vehicle but I am not the only driver on that trade policy..


OK. And EXACTLY what information did you give to the Police?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AntonyMMM
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:35
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,239
Joined: 17 May 2010
Member No.: 37,614



QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:18) *
EXACTLY what information did you give to the Police?


This is important - did you supply the details of the possible drivers ?

Not being the registered keeper means your obligations under s172 are slightly different, but you may be still guilty of the offence if you didn't give information you were able to give.

The fact the statement has been corrected in advance of the hearing isn't going to be a magic bullet to make this go away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carguy2111
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:43
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,832



When I wrote to them I have always said it could be one of several drivers and of course non are saying who but did offer to provide all the drivers details for them to write direct to the drivers, they just kept replying as the reg keeper I have to supply drivers details, and I explained 4 times I am not the owner of this car and to name a single person would be untruthful of Me so all I can do is provide every drivers name I know off ,all my letters have been with offers to help with the offence..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AntonyMMM
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:46
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,239
Joined: 17 May 2010
Member No.: 37,614



QUOTE (carguy2111 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:43) *
all I can do is provide every drivers name I know off

and did you do this YES or NO ??

You can't be convicted of the speeding offence as they have no evidence that you were the driver - the reason it is charged along with the s172 offence is to make it straightforward to do a deal ( but if you weren't driving that isn't an option).

You will have to defend the s172 offence - so, assuming that you didn't supply the details of all the possible drivers, your best option may be to argue that their insistence that as "registered keeper" you should name a single driver made you believe that nothing else was acceptable. The fact they have now corrected their error helps you, but whether the court will accept that the confusion it caused gives you a reasonable excuse for not giving the information you were able to give is debatable, but I see no other defence.

This post has been edited by AntonyMMM: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 12:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 12:13
Post #8


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,166
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Ignoring what the police said, and what they are currently saying, the requirements for the person keeping the vehicle are more onerous than the requirements for any other person. Some authorities suggest that the RK is necessarily the PKV, and others suggest that this is not the case.

An s. 9 witness statement is not admissible under s. 9 CJA 1967 unless it is served at least 7 days before the hearing and is not objected to. However, this does not prevent the author giving the same evidence in person. If you think that you are going to expose some massively corrupt conspiracy by proving that the civilian police staff are incompetent, you are somewhat delusional. If you think that an adjournment to investigate the matter is going to help your defence, it is far from obvious from your slightly unwieldy post how you envisage that happening.



--------------------
Andy

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carguy2111
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 13:15
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,832



Hi Antony , No I did not provide the names I made the offer 2-3 times in writing to name the drivers but never actually did this the reason I did not want to cause bad feelings with the people I work with unless i really had to, I,m not sure I would like My name been provided like that if I had not done anything wrong and also I always said in My letters I would do this if needed but the replies where always the same format from the police"as the Reg keeper its my legal duty to name the driver"(which I never have been) and hand on heart honestly I could not tell them who was driving the vehicle that day,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 13:22
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,703
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



You face a difficulty then - you were obliged at the least to provide the police with such information as was in your power to give them that may have assisted in identifying the driver. The names of a small set of potential drivers is almost certainly such information. You appear to be guilty albeit you may be able to argue that the police responses confused you.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carguy2111
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 13:31
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,832



Thank you , Can I ask which is the part I,m not sure of is, as not or ever been the Reg keeper and of the car is it my responsibility, It still gets to Me that this as gone through one hearing already with a statement from a police officer that was incorrect. Thanks for all the good advice
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 14:44
Post #12


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,166
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



The fact that you are not the RK is probably irrelevant.

The person keeping the vehicle must name the driver. If they do not do so, they would have a defence if they could prove (on the balance of probabilities) that they do not know who was driving, and could not with reasonable diligence determine the identity of the driver.

Any other person (which also includes the person keeping the vehicle if he is unable to name the driver) must provide any information that is in his power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver.

The general view is that the absolute minimum information required (assuming that the driver was not specifically named) in most cases is the details of the possible drivers. They have evidence that you had this information but did not provide it. However, as the police ignored your offer, IMHO it should be strongly arguable that it was not information that might have lead to the identification of the driver as the police were adamant that you were the RK and that you had to name the driver.

The other information that might well have been relevant is who was in charge of the vehicle, or otherwise responsible for it in general (the person keeping the vehicle if we assume that the RK is not necessarily the PKV in law). You have given us no indication of who this is (at least as far as I have seen), and no indication that you provided such information to the police.





--------------------
Andy

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carguy2111
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 18:44
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,832



Hi Andy, Thank you for the reply again, I did tell them in writing that this was a vehicle that was owned by my employer and there are six plus drivers, I told them the name of the company and said I would name the drivers I know off but I could not give a single name because it could prove not correct, But really was a standard reply every time "you are the RK and its down to me etc", I even rang DVLA to say why am I RK of this car as the police say, they said you are not and never been, Thanks for all the kind advice , Guess its just take My chance in court, But when you do the best to tell the truth you really do expect the same from the police, and My feeling still is that if this had been declared in the last hearing it may have been dismissed, Thanks again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 18:49
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,054
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (carguy2111 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 11:28) *
No in the new statement the police woman admits I was never the Reg Keeper (and again in capitals) and then says they pulled My name of the MID insurance database for the vehicle but I am not the only driver on that trade policy..


Are the other possible drivers on that policy? Is there anyone on that trade policy who is not a possible driver? If the answers to these questions are yes and no respectively, it appears that the police are already in possession of all the information that you would be able to give them. That does not mean that you did not need to give the information yourself, but it is a fact worth mentioning along with your repeated offer to supply the names of possible drivers that the police did not accept. While not a legal defence, it may muddy the water enough to encourage the court to leniency.



--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carguy2111
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 18:54
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,832



HI Yes its a garage policy there are 6 names on there, But we use other drivers to and the policy as a section that allows anyone driving for us is covered even when not named on the policy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 19:11
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,746
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (carguy2111 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 18:54) *
HI Yes its a garage policy there are 6 names on there, But we use other drivers to and the policy as a section that allows anyone driving for us is covered even when not named on the policy


What records does the company keep regarding who drives the car?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carguy2111
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 19:17
Post #17


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,832



Not much only when used for breakdowns or loaned out but not showing anything that day
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 19:34
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,703
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (carguy2111 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 18:44) *
My feeling still is that if this had been declared in the last hearing it may have been dismissed

Your gut is probably wrong. It’s open to the prosecution to try to prove the offence in whichever way fits the facts, in your case as the PKV or some other person. I don’t see why the court would have (or could have) dismissed the charge simply because you’re not the RK.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carguy2111
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 19:47
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 7 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,832



Thank You southpaw...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 19:55
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,703
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (carguy2111 @ Sun, 7 Jan 2018 - 19:47) *
Thank You southpaw...

Hopefully makes you feel less hard done by.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 23rd February 2018 - 20:07
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.