Safe Speed Forums

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

be sure to put CERTAIN SECTIONS in bold at random when you reply

good idea. the exact quote that states that this is false which is a criminal offence. thanks to this very site, i have the exact offence which i have included in the covering letter to the SCP. i think the police and possibly traffic commissioner will receive a copy too.

i am hoping that someone will prosecute them for this after all, had i not contested it i would be looking at 3 points, 60 quid and a black mark against my name with the records held by the traffic commissioners office. the work is all done for the prosecuting authority. i can prove i wasnt driving that truck and i have a consultant as a witness who can state that he told tham i wasnt working there that day. what more evidence would they need to collect? i can give them it all on a plate

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Looking at that NIP, the date of the alleged offence is 11th August, but the NIP is dated 31st August. I thought that if proceedings were to be taken, the NIP had to be sent out within two weeks of the alleged offence. If so, can this NIP be rejected as a time-out? Of course, the law might be different in Scotland.

Go immediately to http://www.pepipoo.com/ I didn't find the people there to be too helpful, but there was a lot of useful data there, and plenty of instances in the success stories where prosecutions were dropped because they timed out.

Shouldn't this thread be in the "Help - I'm being Persecuted" forum?

i am clear hence i decided to poste it here. they cant prosecute me. i wasnt driving the vehicle. the issue for me is the fact that i want the vehicle operator prosecuted for knowingly supplying false information (my details) when they were well aware that i wasnt driving

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

I thought the police got those details from DVLA (or Scottish equivalent). They're not charging YOU, but merely asking you who was driving at the time. But it's clear I wasn't in on the beginning of this topic, so I'll shut up now.

my agency were asked for my details by pollocks. they were informed that i wasnt driving for them that day yet they still insisted that i was driving the wagon. they gave my details, i received the NIP and i am sending it back with a letter hoping that pollocks will now be prosecuted (courtesy copies going to police div hq and the local traffic commissioner) by the police. it is a criminal offence so surely they should pursue it instead of me

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder!!!

If a mistake has been made i am sure it would have been an honest mistake as the tacho will easily prove who the driver is and the company will have contacted the agency to get the details. It is of no benefit to the haulier to try and put forward the wrong name intentionally.
The agency you worked for is who you should be having a go at as they should not release your details unless they can prove it was you that was driving.

they were told, they still gave my name. that is not a mistake.

it still raises concerns over the management though when they dont know who is driving their wagons. something VOSA or the traffic commissioner may like to look into (they have been contacted) so they can ensure the company has a satisfactory reputation

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

the tale so far:

i have sent a letter to the SCP with the NIP (the back has been altered to avoid anyone signing for me) and i sent courtesy copies to both the traffic commissioner in edinburgh and the police div hq in livingston.

i have since had a phone call from my local nick as i dropped in earlier. apparently, the SCP have to investigate the name given to them. if it is found to be false or disputed, they then carry out an investigation which could result in a criminal offence being identified. as it stands just now, there is no offence committed. once that is established, they will either carry out the further action themselves or allocate it to the police to investigate and bring about any charges. apparently, i am jumping the gun by pushing for prosecution at this stage.

i will report back as things develop as i am sure there are a few members here who would be interested in the outcome

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

All they need to do is provide the tacho which the agency will have and will still be holding. So until the agency provides the evidence there is nothing the haulier can do so i think you are barking up the wrong tree and to be quite frank making a bit of a fool of yourself. If you are quite happy with the fact you were not driving all you have to do is say so and i am sure everybody involved would investigate but for some reason you seem to have it in for this company.To be honest i dont think the DVLA or traffic commissioner will be interested in your little tale which for your information actually happens quite a lot when 100's of vehicles and drivers are involved but thankfully is easy to prove and one which the authorities have a sympathetic view of..

This does not make it acceptible. Companies are obliged to exercise due dilligence in order to be able to identify who was driving any of their vehicles at a given time. Such a log should enable accurate data to be easily recovered. If a company cannot get this right, then it must be concluded that either their system is inadequate, or they are intentionally giving false information. Such incorrect data will result in serious inconvenience for the wrongly accused at the very least, with potentially more dire consequences for professional drivers, who's livelihood is at stake!

BOB999, do you, perchance, work for said company? If not, why the venom?

This is incorrect advice. The 14 day rule only applies to the first NIP that is sent out, ie the one to the registered keeper, in this case that would be Pollocks. Pollocks then have 28 days to respond and (I think) the SCP then have a further 28 days to get another NIP out. This can drag on and on if there is a long chain (eg. Lease company -> Large corporate -> Sales Rep -> Sales Rep's 19yr old son who doesn't even live with them)


It's not random if you look at it. The parts in bold (with two obvious exceptions) are the actual offence details (ie the bits that will be different on each NIP) The rest of it is standard text.

how is it venemous to look at both sides of the argument ????

[quote="BOB999
The agency you worked for is who you should be having a go at as they should not release your details unless they can prove it was you that was driving.[/quote]

they wont get off unscathed either. the guy in question wasnt in yesterday but i will be dropping in today on my way to work. im leaving soon anyway so i have nothing to lose. i have nothing to gain from speaking to pollocks directly but i do want to know why my details were given to them by the agency. regardless of the answer, i am still leaving though. that was always going to happen. its just a matter of which of 2 companies i choose to work for

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

ok, good luck i am sure you will not have an issue proving your innocence (i agree you should'nt have to) but lets hope it was just a genuine mistake

if it had been genuine then i would let it be at that but the fact that my agency told them that i wasnt there that day throws that into serious dispute. i would be investigating the details of the data protection act if i thought i could gain from it but i would assume that i would need to get my own solicitor and i cant afford that. if i really wanted to push the boat out i would be looking into things like deframation of character (traffic commissioner would have been informed if i was found guilty) but i think that is going too far. im not looking for compensation, merely teaching someone a lesson. no matter how big you think you are, there will always be someone who can stand up to you.

i wish i could find a way to get at tesco cos i REALLY despise them hence i wont work for them at all no matter how much they are offering. other companies are the same. one client i wont work for are paying £27k or thereabouts but i wouldnt touch them. the difference is they havent tried to pin anything on me. i just dont like working for them therefore the only necessary action is to say no (******* chance) to any shift offered there. simple. the difference in the case of this thread is that the company have actually done something to me hence an attempt at retaliation is reasonable in my mind. prior to this i had said i wouldnt work there. i did one day and when i accepted it i did state that i wouldnt go back. it was a favour and this is what happens

i think an appropriate similarity would be a street fight. if someone walks up and smacks you in the mouth for no reason, you dont just hit them back, you put them on the deck. this is the same thing. self defence

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

reading this reply it does seem clearer to me that the agency is the one to blame especially if you have not actually phoned the company to get their side of the story. For all you know the agency might not have told Pollock it was not you...i find it had to see what Pollock would gain from this?

If you have never worked at Pollock before why is there so much hate towards them as wheni have dealt with them there have never been any issues and they have a lot of long standing drivers/staff which normally means the company is ok?

i know people who have worked for them and i have heard things from drivers too (although they are not always an accurate source of information) which is my main concern.

where the agency are concerned, i will get to the bottom of it this afternoon. im working 10 minutes from their office so i will go and see them face to face (i like eye to eye contact) to find out why they gave my details out. i cant see an excuse there as they know that over the past ten weeks or so, i have worked exclusively for one client apart from one day and that was the only day i have ever worked at pollocks which was 2 days before this ticket and even then they tried to say i took too long to do the run (my tacho proved i went to the destination and back). it is possible that they are trying to find an excuse to get rid of my agency (that type of thing happens a lot) in which case it may be against the agency rather than me but even then, i wont be used as an excuse when i did nothing wrong. i dont give reasons to get banned which is why i am never short of work. admittedly, they didnt get the same level of service that some other clients would receive from me but i still did my job and thats what i am there to do. i dropped the load, i picked up the backload, i got back safe and sound and they have been nothing but grief since. is it any wonder im bitter (not including the stories i have heard) with them?

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

so it all comes from stories from poor disgruntled drivers lol..unbelievable!!! Good luck with the agency this afternoon i look forward to seeing the outcome of this one