Safe Speed Forums

Hi

A friend of mine who was kind enough to allow a door to door car washman take her car for a valet for an hour has since realised that the car valet may have also cost her 3 points and a fine. The idiot got flashed doing 55 in a 40 zone.

My friend says that she took the persons name, address and business card and kept this. She has visited the address on the business car which is a house and the landlord says that 'mr x' was a tenant before he bought the house and no longer lives there and does not have any info on him. She has asked for this to be put into a letter which she also has.

Under s172 of prividing name and address of driver if she provides the info she has is she covered? Or will she have to find the person?

Also does she have to prove that the person was insured or will she get done for allowing someone to drive without insurance? She says that he said he was covered as a trader.

Thanks

First only supply the details that the sec 172 ask for and that is the name and address of the driver that was driving it at the time of the offence. After you have supplied this information and sent it back wait to see what this generates,then you can supply all that you know about the enquiries that you have made to date.
ie made enquiries at place of residence
Letter from landlady / lord to say they exist and lived there etc
That you enquired prior to valeter taking vehicle stating that he had a traders policy to cover him etc.
It would also be prudent if you were somewhere that day that you can provide details of that can vouch for you either a work colleague /boss etc or somewehere that has a record of your attendance.
This I feel should be sufficient for you to prove that you have should due diligence in identifying the driver but has gone out of your control.
Hope this helps you or your friend to sort it out
Stephen

Assuming the story is true, then I would say that all the friend needs to do is fill in the details of the driver and send the s172 notice back. If she has identified the driver then her legal obligation is complete - she has no need to actually track them down, surely that's the job of the Police?

However, should the case later come to court, convincing the Magistrate that this is really what happened might not be quite that simple. It would seem to be rather suspicious that someone would happily and freely lend their car to a "door to door washman" for them to take away and valet. Also mighty convenient that not only were they the one to speed through the camera, but later found to be untraceable.

The part of the account that seems most difficult to digest is the notion that in the fortnight or so it took for the s172 notice to come through, not only has the driver left his rented accommodation, but the property itself has also been sold on to a new landlord.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Innocent until proven guilty...if only!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You are assuming he would change his cards directly after moving, if for instance the phone number was a mobile it is unlikely that incorrect address details would loose him any business. Also if he was sure he could not be traced from the address on the card would it not make him more likely/happy to ignore speed cameras?

No proof either way though.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

The way I read it was that the driver hasn't lived at the property for quite some time, yet gave that address as his current one (for some reason...maybe so that he couldn't be found there, but could still produce "proof" of living there) when asked by the OP.

To the OP: no-one is saying that your friend is lying, but the fact is that people do sometimes pretend that someone else was driving when they are caught speeding. If your friend is thinking of doing this, please advise her that if she is found to be lying, it is very likely that she will get something like 4 months in prison for perverting the course of justice. Whatever one might think of speed cameras, and however much contempt one might wish to treat them with, it's not worth risking that. Simply filling in the S172 form incorrectly, and doing so knowingly, is all that it takes.

Whether or not someone else was driving, it's worth your friend trying PePiPoo. They help a lot more people than we do.

Assuming your friend is telling the truth, this is one of the ways in which the camera system is incredibly unfair on the motorist. Your friend may well get a lot of hassle over this and be treated like a criminal by the authorities, despite having done nothing wrong. She may even be convicted. That's the sort of thing that we've come to expect, and is one reason why I find it hard to believe that those who claim that they are completely happy with every aspect of camera enforcement aren't just anti-motorist (rather than "pro-justice" or "pro-safety").

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)