Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: HELP NEEDED - Letter fom Kent SafteyCam Partnership
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
misternomer
Hi there,

My car was caught in a Truvelo doing 89mph in a 70mph on the A21 heading south outside Tonbridge.

Having recieved a conditional offer I wrote back with the identity of the driver at the time, a friend of mine from California who had borrowed the car with my permission on that day.

I gave the name, address and zip code of the driver


The Scamera partnership wrote back 2 days later asking me:


1: For further information to help me identify the driver
2: Flight details etc
3: Proof of insurance cover at the time the car was being driven.

I have no problem providing this information, but I resent doing so as it would take a couple of hours of my time and go against every grain of my being.


As far as I'm concerned I have no further obligation in these circumstances and should write back politely apologising for not being able to help them on this occasion.


If they want to charge the driver with no insurance then they should do so, at which time he will respond that he was covered by my policy. Equally - if they wish to question him about his methods of access and egress from the UK they should contact him at the [correct] address which I gave.


This is the line that I intend to take - a letter which states:

1: What further information do you require to help identify the driver beyond the correct name and address which I have given?
2: You are welcome to contact him at the above address in order that he may personally vouch for his insurance cover. I am not however at liberty to answer on the behalf of a third party unless compelled to do so in court. My own insurance policy clearly states that it covers any driver who is not the registered keeper.



Any thoughts? Advice?
firefly
QUOTE (misternomer)
My own insurance policy clearly states that it covers any driver who is not the registered keeper.


Just be wary of that one. A lot of insurance policies state that only EU licence holders are permitted to driver on any person insurance. Check the wording of your policy.
dave99
I wouldnt have thought you were obliged to provide this information. You have fulfilled your obligations under section 172 by identifying the driver at the time - if they want more information they should investigate it themselves (or you could charge them 50 quid plus vat for your time biggrin.gif)
Captain A
Check this judgement which may give you some scope for argument http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/...n/2004/490.html
chrizm
Is it " guilty until proven inocent " or " inocent until proven guilty " that comes to mind here! rolleyes.gif
Odd Job
QUOTE
3: Proof of insurance cover at the time the car was being driven


There has been a lot of discussion on this subject lately, and to my mind it is completly irrelevant.

If a third part wishes to drive your car, then they can providing that they are licenced and insured to do so. Whether they provide the insurance or you do is irrelevant. 90% of motor policies permit the insured to " drive another vehicle that is not owned by them or not hired to them under a hire purchase agreement". That means if an insured person wants to drive a car he does not own then he can. So if you permit another person to drive your car, why should you [the owner] have to prove that they were insured to drive ??. Surely the person who has driven the car has the onus upon them to prove that they were insured.

Lets take the above example. The visitor has proved to the lender that they are insured to drive the vehicle, so the lender lets them drive. If a subsequent allegation of an offence occurs, why should the owner have to proffer proof of insurance, surely that would be the obligation of the driver should the police ever apprehend them.

If the owner had to prove that the lender was legally entitled to drive the vehicle then why aren't the police asking for a copy of the lenders driving licence for example, or a blood sample to prove he wasn't p1ssed at the time.

IMHO its complete bullsh1t. The police are trying it on, and if it were me I would be politely telling them to get stuffed.

All a NIP asks you to provide is the identity of the driver - which in this case has been provided - end of story.

Misternomer.....................tell em to get stuffed.
Captain A
I would definitely ask them under what legislation they are asking for - er excuse me - flight details ???
DW190
As long as misternomer has completed the S172 with the details requested and signed he has fulfilled his obligation.

I wouldn't even bother to respond to their letter for more information. If he does reply a simple " I'm sorry but the further information you have requested is not in my power to give".
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (Odd Job)
If the owner had to prove that the lender was legally entitled to drive the vehicle then why aren't the police asking for a copy of the lenders driving licence for example, or a blood sample to prove he wasn't p1ssed at the time.

Because there isn't an offence of permitting someone to drive unlicenced or permitting someone to drive while pissed.
There is aiding & abetting, however, that's not the same thing.
misternomer
Guys - I think section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1998 states fairly clearly that it is an offence to permit a vehicle to be used without insurance


s143(1) and (2) Road Traffic Act 1981

"A person must not use, or cause or permit any other person to use, a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, such a policy of insurance or such security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988."


However - it is a valid defence to say that you had lent the car to a friend on the basis that they provide their own insurance.
misternomer
Here's how my letter will read - any comments?


I am in receipt of your letter dated 27May, 2004 in connection with the above conditional offer fixed penalty.

I have now twice furnished you with the requested name and address of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question and have fulfilled my obligations under s172 of the Road Traffic Act. I do not understand how the flight would help to identify the driver since you have already been given the correct name and address. I can confirm however that Mr XXXXX arrived in the UK on April 8th at 10:40am on flight number VS020.

In the matter of additional motor insurance to cover the above use, I can confirm that Mr XXXXXX was asked to make his own insurance arrangements relating to the use of the vehicle and that use was strictly conditional on those arrangements having been made by the driver.



Yours faithfully
Glacier2
QUOTE
I can confirm however that Mr XXXXX arrived in the UK on April 8th at 10:40am on flight number VS020.


Even that is too much info. If they want to check they can check with the home office immigration database which would have a record of your friend entering the UK.

Otherwise the letter is good. Best of luck with it!
firefly
QUOTE (misternomer)
The Scamera partnership wrote back 2 days later asking me:


1: For further information to help me identify the driver
2: Flight details etc
3: Proof of insurance cover at the time the car was being driven.

It was possibly a standard pro forma letter that the scameraships may use, thus explaining the rather puzzling statement of number 1.

QUOTE
I am in receipt of your letter dated 27May, 2004 in connection with the above conditional offer fixed penalty.

I have now twice furnished you with the requested name and address of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question and have fulfilled my obligations under s172 of the Road Traffic Act. I do not understand how the flight would help to identify the driver since you have already been given the correct name and address. I can confirm however that Mr XXXXX arrived in the UK on April 8th at 10:40am on flight number VS020.

In the matter of additional motor insurance to cover the above use, I can confirm that Mr XXXXXX was asked to make his own insurance arrangements relating to the use of the vehicle and that use was strictly conditional on those arrangements having been made by the driver.



Yours faithfully


Excellent letter. Informative with a slightly sarcastic tone! Hopefully will have the desired effect.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (misternomer)
In the matter of additional motor insurance to cover the above use, I can confirm that Mr XXXXXX was asked to make his own insurance arrangements relating to the use of the vehicle and that use was strictly conditional on those arrangements having been made by the driver.

In the matter of addititional motor insurance to cover the above use, I can confirm that the vehicle was lent to Mr XXXXXX on the express strict condition that he supply his own suitable insurance; a condition which he agreed to beforehand.

It may seem pedantic, however there is another judgement (I can't remember which at the mo.) that says an an owner cannot escape conviction for permitting by asking the driver to provide their own insurance.
I know that the last clause of your wording covers that off, howwever, with the courts' penchant for selective use of judgements, there's no point in tempting providence.
misternomer
Jeffrey - that's excellent advice and I'll re-word accordingly.

This otherwise seems to make sense to everybody - yeah?
firefly
Hi misternomer,

Good advice from jeffrey.

You are obviously not the first person to have this happened to you. It definately smells of scaremongering.

One can only assume that by sending letters of this type, the scammers hope to make people change their minds and nominate themselves after "further reflection" shows that it was indeed them. There is little else I can think of for them doing this.

In so doing, the scammers are implying that you have been a naughty boy by nominating someone who lives thousands of miles away and there is little realistic chance of securing a conviction. Better to scare Joe Public into believing that they (the scammers) are out to investigate and will leave no stone uncovered in finding out the truth! Scary stuff huh?!

Legislation does not require you to be Hercule Poirot and do the scammers job for them. The letter you have composed (and modified by mr archer icon_wink.gif ) is perfectly sufficient to keep the wolves from the door.

Keep us up to speed with any developments.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.