Speeding Offence hearing date soon, Police change statement just 3 days before hearing.. Options

[carguy2111]

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

[cp8759]

Not much only when used for breakdowns or loaned out but not showing anything that day

Just so you know, a company that is keeping a vehicle is generally required to maintain a record of who was using the vehicle, and if no such records are kept the "could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was" defence is not available (to the company, or to "a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity") unless it can be shown that the failure to keep records is reasonable.

Saying that as a matter of course nobody bothers keeping records is unlikely to be seen as reasonable.
To avoid such problems in future, you should really consider logging each use of the vehicle.

Just out of interest, who is the RK? I'm baffled as to why the police would write to you rather than the RK.

[Advertisement]

[Churchmouse]

What information, exactly, was requested by the police each time? If the police--each time--asked the OP to "name the driver", and never asked him to give in the alternative "any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver", it would seem a bit unfair to prosecute him for not answering a question he had not been asked. Does the case law require the volunteering of information that has not been requested? And this wasn't a simple omission: the police were specifically and repeatedly informed that the OP was not the keeper and could not name the driver, so the failure to ask the OP for "other information" was presumably intentional (even if based on the then-mistaken belief that he was the keeper).

--Churchmouse