Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wasnt driving..Advice please
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Hi, ive read through the 'please read first' posts but havent found anything that quite fits my circumstances.

1. Was the offence in England or Scotland England
2. The name of the Constabulary west mids
3. Date of the offence 12.08.05
4. Date of the NIP within 14 days
5. Date you received the NIP as above
6. Was the NIP addressed to you? yes
7. Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? first
8. Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? If not then what is your relationship with the vehicle? i am registered keeper
9. Do you hold a UK or foreign driving licence. UK
10. How many current points do you have? 3 (they expire this month i think)
11. Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out.  Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons. below..

Story so far..
Ive received an NIP alleging I was caught by a fixed Gatso in Birmingham. I wasnt driving and didnt have the car at the time of the offense. I have signed and returned the NIP stating I was not the driver.
I then received a letter asking for the drivers details. I replied explaining I did not have the car on the date the alledged offense occured and that I couldnt be sure who was driving. I requested a copy of the photo evidense in order to help me identify the driver.
I then received another letter in reply asking for more detailed information. I replied, gave them the name of someone who may possibly have been driving (I do not know the address for this person) and again requested the photo evidence as it still had not been given. I sent my reply recorded delivery.

I can not see I am falling foul of S172 as i have provided them with a name of a possible driver... i have requested the photo evidence on two occasions which shows diligence in trying to asertain the definate indentity of the driver.
(also i want the photo evidence as for all i know it may not have been my car caught by the speed camera.. I only have the word of the central ticket office.. the photo can rule out any possibility that my plate could have been cloned.. should i state this in my next reply?)

Should I be asking for proof of camera calibration/proof of legitimate siting (4 death at that location etcetc..) at this stage or not as i wasnt driving?

What else should I be doing/looking at please?
What exactly do you mean when you say that you "didn't have the car at the time of the offence"?
The photos from a gatso are unlikely to help, but there is always a chance.

If you know the persons name, why dont you know their address, as you are the RK ?  

Are you in the habit of letting your car be used by people you hardly know?

I wouldnt bother with cloned plate, stick with asking for photos and provide the name and address of the likely driver/s
i dont have an address for this person..
the car was with this guy for two days while he fitted an install (its a showcar) he collected and returned the car 2 days later. (i can prove i booked this time off work as i was going to be without transport) Its a chap i met at a few of the shows this year up and down the country.. he builds show cars... he not a business or anything, he works from home.

surely the pics from the gatso will 1) confirm it was actually my car not just my reg cloned and 2) i may be able to tell from the pic whether it was the person i have named as possibly driving or someone else that helped him with the work.

(I can also show receipts for the thousands of pounds worth of equipment i purchased shortly before these dates in preparation for this work being carried out)
(I have digital pics of the completed install on my pc taken the day after i got the car back, which will be dated showing the work took place on these dates)
Do you have a phone number for this guy, if so phone him and get his address or pass his telephone details onto the police.
no.. if i had a phone number i would have thought of that by now!  icon_wink.gif
I'm struggling to understand this. Are you telling me that you have lent your car, which has been fitted with equipment costing thousands of pounds, to somebody that you barely know and don't even know where he lives? This is an astonishingly level of trust that you seldom see nowadays. The police may find your story difficult to believe as a result.
sorry no.. i didnt lend the car.. this happened while this person was fitting the install, it was the guy who fittted it (or possibly someone that was helping him) that set off the camera.
sorry no.. i didnt lend the car..

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) - you were the owner and RK of the car. A person who you've met at car shows had your car, with your knowledge and permission (IOW you lent it) for a couple of days to do some work on it. He collected it from you and returned it to you.
You know his name, but not his address and have no phone number for him, or other means of contacting him.

As it stands, that story lacks credibility. I'm not saying it's not true, but the onus is for you to prove it (on the balance of probabilities), not for the prosecution to disprove it.

QUOTE ([url=
S.172(4) RTA 1988[/url]]
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

You need to be able to (1) show (convince the court) that (2) you didn't know who was driving (or the full details of the bloke who you lent your car to) and (3) you couldn't with reasonable diligence find out who was driving (or his full details).

If your story is true, you need to lay a paper trail A.S.A.P., giving as much credible information and detail as you can, and make (and log) every conceivable effort to track this bloke down.
This seems a bit disjointed - is this the time line/what happened

You decide to get an ICE install in your car for use at shows

You go round a number of shows and see the same person at more than one of them and find out he does installs in his spare time at a reasonabe price for a good quality job

Next time you see him you ask him to do one for you and he agrees

You arrange a time for him to collect your car from your home

He collects your car, you have no idea where he lives or how to contact him. You do not know his name either.

He then delivers your car back to you at your home two days later, presumably at an agreed time otherwise you would need to stay in all day for two days

You then get a NIP dated for sometime in that two day period between the time he picked the car up and returned it

You were on holiday from work for these two days

I assume he wanted paying cash in hand

Putting on 'magistrate' type hat there is no way that you are going to be believed by the mags unless you can provide some sort of solid proof that you did not have the car and this guy that you say exists did. This is going to be seen as a scam to try and get off a speeding charge/fine.

Did you get some sort of written quote or receipt for the work done - if not I think you are going to be on pretty sticky ground.

Certainly at this stage I would ask for the photos to try and help to identify the driver. As it is a GATSO I think it is unlikely they will help but you never know - it might have been a bit like the photo in this article.

It does seem that you are extraordinarily trusting for these days in letting someone drive off with your car not knowing where it is going or how to contact the person - I wouldn't do it even with an old banger given the amount of grief that can result as you are finding out.
its really didnt seem a problem at the time... he left his car at my place when he took mine for two days so there really was no issue about trust. (his car is newer than mine so it wasnt as if i wouldnt see him again)

As pointed out the law states the drivers identity must be provided.. i have done that to the best of my knowledge? Not knowing where someone lives is not stated...

While it may be hard to prove, I do have lots of evidence which support what im saying.. like drawing a large sum of cash on the day my car was returned to pay him with etc..
As i mentioned I have before and after photos on my PC... (which will be dated). I used a local leather retrimming firm to cover the install after i got the car back.. they can vouch that this install was fitted on the days stated... I have all the bills for 5-6000 pounds worth of audio that i supplied this guy to fit.

If the court is not going to satisfied with the facts which are that i did not have my car and was not driving then ill be damned if im going to be their cashpoint and just hand over the money for someone else.
Since his car was on your drive, did you note what it was?  Its registration number? Anything particularly distinctive about it?
Any witnesses to any of this?
i know the make and model yeah.. and it is quite a distictive car.. (there is no reason why i would have noted his registration so no i have no idea what it is. It is one of the new style plates, so not very old)

witness to what sorry? That the work was carried out on these dates? Yes, the retrimmers were aware of it as they were waiting for the car to return to complete their work.. (the retrimmer had already done a complete leather retrim on the car and were waiting for the car to return to trim the install to match)
Also as i mentioned I told my employer i need this time off as i was going to be without transport..
there are many things that support it... too many in fact to be coincidental or planned.
i have a whole series of photos that were hosted online and saved to my pc when i got the car back. The date of hosting and saving will be retrievable.
This should give you an idea of the extent of this install.
Forget trying to convince us. If you are charged with failing to furnish the driver's details, you will need to convince the court.

Your communications with the scammers should be the paper trail to prove reasonable diligence.
other than requesting the photo from the speed camera for the third time.. there's very little in terms of paper trails i can do tho.
All i can do is show that the car was as stated away having this work done.

reasonable diligence as i can see it.. ive given the drivers name as i know it.. ive asked for the photo evidence to help identify him, not much else i can or could of done under the circumstances... i dont see that makes me guilty of something i wasnt there to do?
I can see i may be better off forgetting trying to point out i wasnt the driver and instead concentrate on checking out technicalities.. was the camera legally sited, 4 serious accidents in last 3 yrs etc..
I think you NEED to find this guy ASAP and get his address.
And I hope your not gonna be BOMMIN_DA_BASE around my neck of the woods in that oversized gettoblaster.

The technicalities or otherwise of the speeding allegation have virtually nothing to do with defending a S172 failure allegation. The police only have to show that it was your vehicle involved in the alleged offence - that, as I understand, is a fact that is not disputed.

So, as the keeper of the car, it will come down to reasonable diligence. You have been asked to provide the address of the driver; you are unable to do so. You will have to persuade a court that this is reasonable. Or find out the address and give it to the police.
Normally, advice here is to keep contact with the Scammers to an absolute minimum.

However, in your case, I think that you may be the exception that proves the rule. smile.gif

I think that you need to write again to the scammers and provide all the detail that you have provided us plus any detail that you have of the guy who had your car at the time - name, car make/model and colour etc.

The problem is that you have demonstrated a level of trust that is far, far higher than most people these days and unfortunately unbelievably so to the Police/Court.
Lance: At the moment i do not accept it was even my car involved... until i get photo evidence to prove my number plate has not been cloned
I was asked for the drivers name, ive given that. I didnt think the law states the address is mandatory too? (that surely is unreasonable? are we expected to right down someones address if say we take someone on a test drive to sell a car for instance?)

Patdavies: what are scammers?? do you mean the tax collectors aka westmercia police?
Lance: At the moment i do not accept it was even my car involved... until i get photo evidence to prove my number plate has not been cloned

The problem you have is the issue of credability. If you push the "assume it's a cloned plate until proven otherwise", the magistrates will simply not believe the rest of your story.

I was asked for the drivers name, ive given that. I didnt think the law states the address is mandatory too? (that surely is unreasonable? are we expected to right down someones address if say we take someone on a test drive to sell a car for instance?)

The law requires that you provide any reasonably requested information, relating to the driver's identity. If you cannot do this, the onus is on you to prove that you couldn't, and that it was not reasonably practicable to do so with reasonable diligence. You are not required to do anything that you cannot with reasonable diligence do, but you must prove your story and that the failure was reasonable.

If you were selling the car, and someone took a short test-drive, providing that you can provide evidence of the car being advertised for sale at the time, there is a good chance that the court would believe you.
The more unusual your story is, the more you need to prove.

If you want to try to convince the magistrates that th law says different to that, they will disbelieve the rest of your story, and hit you with a big fine.

If you appear to be anything other than enthusiastic to assist the police in their enquieries, to the best of your abilities, the magistrates will believe that you were either the driver, or are protecting the driver, and hit you with a big fine.

If your story is true, it is a particularly unusal set of circumstances, which will at best stretch the credulity of the court.
civil engineer
I would start with a brief summary of your story then the following

a description of the driver's own car

his name

I would do internet seaches

I would list all the shows that you saw him at

any receipts you may have

statements from witnesses who know you didn't have your car for two days

any other documents, press cuttings etc etc that may help you identify him. An afternoon's work tops.

then send it all off to scammers with a final sentence asking what further efforts you can make to exercise reasonable dilligence!
The Rookie
Have you tried looking him up on the BT online directory enquiries? Any screen shots would help you show due dilligence! Have you tried a google or Yahoo search for his all helps!

thats good advice thanks.. ill do that
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.