speeding company car help please Options

[allycat]

Hi,

I was nominated by my Work that i was driving at the time of the possible offence of doing 86mph in a 70 zone, i phoned them to ask for the photographic proof and it didnt show my face it even states that the photo is to hazy to identify the driver.

I havent replied back to them yet but my cousin was over from Canada for Xmas and i gave him a loan of the car that day as i finnished work early,now i dont know what to do as my cousin is Canadian should i just take the blame so he doesnt maybe get arrested when he comes to Scotland again?

I understand that the first request was sent to Ogilive then it was passed to my company then it was passed to me so i dont think timeline of 14 days counts? i wish it did as the offence happened on the 15th of December

Can anyone tell me what should i do please?


Regards,

A

[Advertisement]

[slushpuppy]

If your cousin was driving then name him. He is unlikely to be chased in Canada but be prepared to be asked about his stay in the UK, insurance that covered him etc. They are likely to look at it a lot closer with a foreign driver.
If your cousin wasn't driving then dont name him. If you do it could come back and bite you - Hard.

[ford poplar]

If it was a company car I don't think your cousin would be allowed to drive it, even if he had his own insurance. That defence could give you trouble with your Co.

[Transit man]

If it was a company car I don't think your cousin would be allowed to drive it,

Don't see why not, I have had fleet policies that covered ANY driver with limitations of age, licence held etc.

You have, from the NIP, an exact time of the offence, can you prove that you could not have been driving? ie, you were in work at the time & this is the proof (clocking in/out, CCTV etc), if so, you're in the clear.

[nemo]

If it was a company car I don't think your cousin would be allowed to drive it,

Don't see why not, I have had fleet policies that covered ANY driver with limitations of age, licence held etc.

Quite.

Unless the specific terms, conditions and insurance requirements of the OP's company vehicle are known, then none of us are in any position to comment on whether a third party should or should not have been driving.

You have, from the NIP, an exact time of the offence, can you prove that you could not have been driving?

I suspect that the police would be equally interested in the OP proving that his cousin was actually in the country at the time of the alleged offence..

[jimster]

Has the OP phoned his cousin to ask if he remembers getting zapped?

Is the cousin prepared to accept responsibility?



As others have said you better ensure everything is cosha with insurance before you do anything

[jeffreyarcher]

and it didnt show my face

Now, why might it do that if your cousin was driving?

What you would appear to have in mind is a very bad idea. ™

Is the cousin prepared to accept responsibility?

That hs got absoulutely noithing to do with it.
The point is, who was driving?



This post has been edited by jeffreyarcher: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 - 15:54

[jimster]

and it didnt show my face

Now, why might it do that if your cousin was driving?

What you would appear to have in mind is a very bad idea. ™

Is the cousin prepared to accept responsibility?

That hs got absoulutely noithing to do with it.
The point is, who was driving?

You have selectively quoted only the second part of my question. The OP has told us that his cousin had a loan of the car on that day.



To the OP … Phone your cousin to confirm that he was actually driving at the time and location - if your cousin does not own up and ignores any contact from the police then that may make your position difficult.

You may have noticed some scepticism from certain posters .. there have been instances where folk have been issued a NIP after a friend / relative has borrowed their car before mysteriously leaving the country. Then they suddenly remembered that they were driving after all when 6 points and a large fine are on the cards for failure to furnish or insurance violations.

[7159keith]

You have selectively quoted only the second part of my question. The OP has told us that his cousin had a loan of the car on that day.

As JA said that is not the point, the point is who was driving at the time of the alleged incident. The OP obviously recalls the time he left work that day so should be able to work out who had the car at the time of the ping.

[jimster]

WHAT is not the point?



The OP says his cousin had a loan of the car at the time

I asked him to phone his cousin and ask if he was driving when it was zapped.



Do you think there is no point to this advice?

[7159keith]

WHAT is not the point?



The OP says his cousin had a loan of the car at the time

No he does not, he has not given a time as yet.

He says he loaned his cousin the car that day as he finished work early.

1. Does that mean early that day e.g. he had the car in the morning or
2. Does he mean he finished work some days before Christmas and did not need the car that day so lent it to his cousin.

In 1 there could have been one of two drivers at the time, in 2. it clearly would be the cousin.

I think JA was taking issue with the comment "is your cousin willing to accept responsibility" as it may imply to the OP that this was a get out of jail card when in fact if the OP was driving it is actually a pretty effective "get into jail" card. I too felt that was a loose comment which could be mis-construed as no-one on here would ever support any illegal action. Sorry if it sounded harsh but time pressure often does not allow expansion.