Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Driving Without Due Care and Attention?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
I run a company that supplies left hand drive cars to British customers to order. We recently sourced in mainland Europe, collected back to the UK and registered a car on a customer's behalf.

My customer is a Brit who works away in Austria and comes back home to the UK once every month or so.

He sent us his licence and insurance covernote via DHL and we were able to register the car in his absence with our local DVLA office.

The car required a service and some work under warranty once registered and prior to delivery to our customer.

2 weeks later the car was ready to be delivered.

We employed our usual delivery driver from Berlin to collect the car directly the from the garage where the work had been done, and the same day he began the two day trip to Austria. This was last Monday.

On Friday my customer called me and said he had received a NIP from the Metropolitan Police in Sidcup.

It alleges an offence took place about an hour after the car was collected from the garage by the delivery driver. The offence alleged is driving without due care and attention.

I asked our driver who says he does remember a brief incident where someone "deliberately tried to cut me up" during a lane change. He was made aware by another driver that the driver who apparently did this was taking photographs of the car from behind it after the incident.
Sounds like this could be it then!

Clearly as the driver legitimately resides in Berlin (he drives for us casually under his own temporary insurance obtained in Germany), my customer will return the NIP stating that he as the registered keeper wasn't driving at the time, and he will provide the name of the delivery driver and his address in Berlin.

He has also stated on the NIP where directed to give advice about why the registered keeper wasn't driving "This was my new car being delivered to me by a delivery driver to my work address in Austria".

My concern is that, having read some of the posts in this forum about NIPs that are returned with foreign driver names and addresses, that all cases are viewed as fraudulent and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

What is likely to occur in this instance? Is my customer likely to be pursued or prosecuted?
I did notice from some of the replies that it's believed the Police will try to have the registered keeper for allowing the other party to driver without insurance if the person named by the registered keeper on the NIP is not named on their insurance policy.
Being a car delivery driver, our German friend has his own European trade cover for delivering cars which is obtained in Germany.

What happens if our driver doesn't respond to the NIP they send him in Germany.....If they actually do send one rather than treating this as just another fanciful tale!

Supposing the Police do send an NIP to Germany, what happens if he goes all shy and decides he doesn't want to play ball? Would the buck then pass back to our customer?

Presumably our driver would only be fined at worst anyway given that he doesn't have a UK licence? Or is this wrong?
Your customer will have to tell the truth. If the police believe it's "dodgy" then that's their problem and let them prove it - it's not, so they can't. He might be asked to prove the driver was insured, which doesn't sound like a problem.

It does raise an interesting point that I've been mulling over for a while - is a person outside of the UK required to respond to a s. 172 notice? I don't think they can be as the Act has a territorial extent limited to the UK only and as such a requirement can not be made extra-territorially. I don't have a firm answer though.
Fortunately I have a good relationship with my customer, but I had considered putting myself up for this rather than have him go through the wringer because the Police seem to believe everyone is a wrong-doer unless you can prove otherwise these days!
personal i think he should name you company as keeper of the vehicle at the time as he has no knowledge of who was driving at the time, that way you company can then name the delivery driver and if there's any come back your customer is protected from the hassle
Transit man
QUOTE (jobo @ Thu, 26 Mar 2009 - 16:03) *
personal i think he should name you company as keeper of the vehicle at the time as he has no knowledge of who was driving at the time, that way you company can then name the delivery driver and if there's any come back your customer is protected from the hassle

I agree, the owner would not know the particulars of the driver & should therefore just name your company as "the keeper" during the period of time in question. The police will then come to you whereupon you can answer honestly & inform them of the drivers details. slam dunk I would have thought.
QUOTE (weeblewobble @ Thu, 26 Mar 2009 - 15:50) *
but I had considered putting myself up for this

You enjoy prison?
In the current economic/political climate, 3 square meals a day for free, colour TV in your room and time away from the wife does have some appeal, but on reflection you have a point.

There's no provision for putting in company details; Driver only.

Also, does anyone know if the BiB will accept scanned copies of their NIP back or does it have to be originals? I ask as the NiP was sent to my guy's UK address. Someone there has scanned and emailed it to him in Austria. He is then going to scan and email the signed form back again so that it can be printed and posted back from the UK.
he can do the whole thing in a letter provideed he includes all required details

As he was not the keeper of the vehicle at the time he can name ano as the keeper of the vehicle irrespective of whether ita a person or a company
Thanks for the replies. In the event, I've just had the driver himself sign, complete, scan and email the NIP in my customer's name back to me from Germany.

Just printed it and will mail it today.

Does that all sound OK?

Presumably the driver will now receive a new NIP at his address in Berlin in his name - Is this correct?

What is likely to happen? Fixed Penalty Notice, fine or court date?

Any help gratefully received!

Thanks biggrin.gif
If the form was addressed to your customer then your customer must complete it, naming the driver. The driver can not complete a form not addressed to him.
Then the form I am looking at is not clear. If completing Section B which is specifically for adding the details of the driver if different to the registered keeper, it asks for:

(and I have spaced this as it appears on the form)
Full Name of Driver

Address of Driver
Date of Birth

Then directly below, but also in section B, it asks for "Signature of person to whom this form is addressed"

So if the addressee on the form and the actual driver of the car were the same person would they be required to sign the same section twice?
Just to clarify the above email, the registered keeper (my customer) has already signed the form where it says "Signature of person to whom this form is addressed".
As long as the person to whom the form is addressed signs it then it's fine.
A couple of weeks ago I posted a topic concerning a casual driver my firm uses for delivering left hand drive cars to our clients in Europe.

In short, a customer had a received an NIP alleging "Driving Without Due Care And Attention". At the time stated in the NIP the the customer was in Austria and our casual driver was driving the vehicle - In fact he was on his way to the Eurotunnel to drive to Austria and deliver it.

The NIP was completed and returned stating our delivery driver's name and address in Berlin. He is a German national with a German licence and arranges his own insurance.

I had expected that he would receive an NIP for the same offence of "Driving Without Due Care and Attention".

However, he called me this morning from Germany to say that he had instead received a letter from the Police with 963 on it somewhere, and a separate form on which the box for "Failing to Stop Following a Collision" (or similar) has a cross in it!!!

The option for "Driving Without Due Care and Attention" this time did NOT have a cross in it.

Can they change the alleged offence like this? Is it a mistake? On their multiple choice form "Driving Without Due Care" is Directly below "Failing To Stop."

Something's definitely not right here.

As an additional piece of info, whilst he acknowledges that there was a brief "low speed" fracas with a driver who apparently cut him up where they "dodged for position for a few seconds", he states categorically that there was NO collision. Apparently not even words or hand gestures were exchanged.

I actually saw the car (which was absolutely brand new) later that day when I met him at the Eurotunnel, and the usual final pre-departure inspection revealed absolutely no damage anywhere.

It sounds like he is being set up by whoever has presumably complained to the Police? Or could this be a mistake with the forms?

Any ideas how to deal with:

1. The alleged offence changing from Driving Without Due Care and Attention to Failing to Stop from one form to another?

2. And the whole business of someone alleging a collision when from what I have seen of the car and the fact that the driver was up front about the original incident when I asked, it appears there was no collision???

Remembering this guy is based in Germany and has a German licence it seems he has a number of options:

1. Write a letter and send it along with the COMPLETED form stating he has no knowledge of any collision.

2. Send back a letter with an UNCOMPLETED form asking why the alleged offence has changed since the last NIP sent to the previous owner.

3. He's also suggested he simply ignores the whole thing given they can't whip his licence off him. My concern would be that this would drop my customer in it, although, as the delivery driver was driving the car at the time, how can the Police pursue my customer?

Which of the above would be your choice - Or do you have any suggestions of your own?

My firm favourite is number 1: Complete the form as much as he can admitting he was driving the car (thereby confirming he is real and lives where he says he does) and accompanies it with a letter stating that he has no knowledge of any collision.

Any assistance most gratefully received.

Thank you.
can you supply some more info on the letter please
Thanks Jobo.

Alleged offence took plate March 16th. The NIP arrived with the registered keep (our customer) within 14 days - It was returned within due time bearing the delivery driver's name and address and that delivery driver has received this latest letter at his address in Berlin below dated 7th April, received yesterday.

He has dictated it over the phone to me so it's as accurate as I could be!

Nowhere in this particular letter he has received does it state any "Intention of Prosecution". It alleges an offence took place but that's it.

Letter states:

"Dear *
As you were shown as the registered keeper of the above vehicle I hereby require you to complete the enclosed form 963 "requirement for name and address of driver on behalf of the commissioner of police and return it within 28 days".

Failure to do so will rendure you liable to prosecution under section 172 (3) of the road traffic act 1988 and schedule 2 to the road traffic offenders act 1988 (as amended).

If you were the driver of the above vehicle on the date in questions or if you are responsible for insuring the vehicle please forward copies of your driving licence and insurance details together with the form 963 in the prepaid evelope provided.

If you have any enquiries regarding the above please contact me etc....



One point:

* The German delivery driver to whom this letter is addressed is NOT nor has he EVER been the registered keeper of the car, yet the opening paragraph says he was!!! Is this letter inaccurate? Have they sent the wrong one?


The letter overleaf states:

"Form 963

Requirement for name and address of driver

Section 112 of the road traffic act 1984
section 172 RTA 1988 as ammended by section 21 RTA 1991

7th April 2009

Dear Mr. *
Vehicle registration number ***

The driver of this vehicle is alleged to have committed an offence described overleaf at place, date and time.

On behalf of the commissioner of police I hereby require you to complete part B C or D of this form.

You must do this by law and you should return the form within 28 days.

Please note:
A: if you own the vehicle please fill in section B or C overleaf
B: if it is a company owned vehicle, fill in nominated driver details in section B overleaf
C: if you no longer own the vehicle please fill in section D overleaf"

More Points:

1. The delivery driver (to whom this form and the accompanying letter is addressed) cannot complete Section A as he does not own the vehicle and never has.
2. He cannot complete section B as it is not and never was a company owned vehicle. It belongs to a private person.
3. He Cannot complete section D as to no longer own the vehicle he needs to have owned it in the first place.

The form overleaf of that last one is worded in such a way that SPECIFICALLY ONLY the REGISTERED KEEPER can complete it either stating he himself was the driver, or nominating a driver who was not the registered keeper and giving a reason why he was driving (borrowed, hired etc.).

As stated in my previous post, the offence stated on the original NIP sent to my customer (the registered keeper) had the box crossed pertaining to driving without due care.
This latest letter and forms received by the delivery driver has the box crossed for failing to stop after an accident. The box for driving without due care is this time NOT crossed.


I don't want to draw attention away from trying to get answers to the questions asked in my last post today just above Jobo's, but can someone help me with the specifics of the above too? It all sounds like they have sent this chap the wrong form.

My motivation in all of this is to stop my customer (the registered keeper) being pursued, so we're trying to find the right way for the driver to respond.

theres all sorts of issues with 172 requests not being legal outside the uk

but if you just want it to go away, then ask the driver to reply by letter, quoting all info required, confirming that he was the driver at the time, that way all argument are between him and the cps and do not concern your customer at all
Not as simple as that - I don't want to chuck this in his lap as his English is not fantastic, hence some answers to the questions asked in my last two posts today from someone who knows would be much appreciated please.

Thanks anyway Jobo.

Anyone else?
fine don't believe me then

when ''someone who knows'' tells you the same thing hope you take time to apologise

way back i told you to get the owner to name your company as the keeper so you could manage the situation , but you decided to ignore that as well, which is why your now in this predicament.

non of the above has any relivance, he either replies or he doesn't, if he dosent then it may bounce back to your customer, if he does then its between him and the cps
I appreciate your comments, but he is and will continue to deal with this.

If I choose to assist him in his efforts to understand what appear to be some anomalies (or downright mistakes) in the paperwork that has been sent, and thereby help a casual worker (and friend) not needlessly incriminate himself for something he insists he hasn't done, whilst also protecting my client (also a friend) then that is frankly my business.

Further, if I take the time to ask some questions in a thread, perhaps whoever wishes to answer them would answer them. Those who simply want to add their tuppence worth rather than actually reply directly to those questions asked could perhaps find a thread other than this one!

No offence intended - Just sick of seeing people post direct questions in threads and get anything but a direct reply to their questions! blink.gif
captain swoop
Sometimes there are no quick direct answers, situations are complicated.
Wow. That's so helpful. Thank you. blink.gif

If someone reads the first two posts I left today (Sunday) they will notice there are some quite direct questions to which I am after answers from someone who has a proper understanding of the regarding "172s" and "963s" as it looks like a mistake has been made in what has been sent by the BiB.
If someone can help I would be much appreciative. If you can't, what is the point in wasting your time responding. Sorry, but this is getting ridiculous!

Thanks in advance.

A normally rarely riled, me. sad.gif

your doing your best to alienating every one who tries to help

so il try again so you can insult me again, rarely are people who get free advice quite so ungrateful !

there's no legal onus on your friend to return the 172 as the rta doesn't apply outside of these shores, they could however catch up with him on one of his visits, and this may get them to hassle your customer ,

there is no requirement to serve him with an nip, therefore the alleged offence is, at this stage is irrelevant, as they didn't need to state it any way, they may have made a mistake, they may have changed their mind, who knows, he could ring and ask ?,

There is a real difficulty in them changing offences to something other than what is on the original nip, unless there has been an accident or other RTA offences for which an nip is not required, like say a failure to stop.

so if it has come to their attention since the original nip, that a collision is alleged and a subsequent failure to stop, they can issue him with a 172 request just for that an without going through he whole nip to the rk requirements
all of this is conjecture and makes no difference unless or until a summons is served on someone, and the actual offence is declared

the forms are notoriously inapplicable to lots of situation, there is no need to to use it provided all the detail are included in a letter.

so to go back to my original answer , he could not reply, he could fill in the form or he could write a letter,everything else is irrelevant at this stage.

someone who know more will be along to tell me and you were Im wrong
Jobo has been on the money throughout.
The change in alleged offence is irrelevent if an accident has taken place.
It hasn't, so it's not, but the police don't know that yet. Indeed, it seems likley that they have been told that there was an accident.
The driver could ignore this, but if he does, they will almost certainly get back to the owner / RK to prove insurance, and that the driver had a licence (and all sorts of other guff which they don't have authority to ask).
They've got a U.K. address for him, so they can pursue him with relative ease.
You don't have to tell them why the RK wasn't driving under S172, that's bulls*it.
Although, it could be relevent, depending upon the terms of the driver's insurance policy.
So, again as Jobo has said, the driver needs to write a letter, as the form isn't applicable. You can compose for him, but he still has to understand it, and sign it.
Something like this;
It must be 100% accurate, though, so check what I have written.
The Officer in Charge,
[Return office and address as per the forms]

Dear Sir,
NIP / S172 reference XXXX

I refer to the above numbered notice.
As the defective design of the form makes it impossible to use it, I am responding by this letter.
1) I confirm that I was the driver of the vehicle AB 123 CDE at the time, date and location alleged therein, i.e. [time, date and location].
2) My details are;
Address etc.
3) I deny that any accident took place, and should this matter come to court, I will provide (a) witness(es) to the fact that the car was undamaged.
4) Please find enclosed copies of my driving licence and of relevent motor insurance cover.

Yours faithfully,

I. Victim

And no scanning e-mails back and forth. As he was the driver, his has to be an original signed paper copy.
Thanks very much to you both for your last two posts. They fully answer the questions I have and explain clearly and in detail why he needs to write a letter rather than complete the enclosed forms.

Comments re my attitude; Can you really not see how much more helpful and detailed these last two comments to my posts on Sunday have been compared to the first three replies left???

Thanks again.
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 © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.