How to avoid a ticket

kirkie · Regular Visitor Joined: Aug 07, 2006 Posts: 93

So if that is the case you have got a TWOC Taking Wihout The Owners Consent and you should have reported this....

Taking a conveyance without the consent of the owner or other lawful authority for his or another's use or knowing that a conveyance has been taken, drives it or allows himself to be carried in or on it.
Conveyance: constructed or adapted for the carriage of a person by land, air or water

Consent: Tricking someone into giving consent does not negate the consent but exceeding the consent does constitute an offence.

Power of Arrest from Schedule 1a of PACE

Skippy · Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:19 am Post subject:

kirkie · Regular Visitor Joined: Aug 07, 2006 Posts: 93

So if all of them applied you would know who was driving....

Lets just say that I know that the owner/keeper would get the ticket.... Wink

neil01 · Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:13 pm Post subject:

I believe that here are several legitimate reasons for not knowing who was driving the car.

Many domestic vehicles are shared. I very much doubt if a court would deem it a reasonable requirement to keep a log for everyone to enter all the vehicles movements and drivers. When I was living at home, we had two cars in the drive (one behind the other) and you took whichever was nearest the road. Even though going to different destinations, they could often be travelling along the same stretch of road at similar times. I do not think that this situation would be at all unique, it is not amongst my family or friends.

Few people would be able to remember every single movement of the vehicle several weeks, or even months ago.

If driving on a long journey, it is often likely that the driving was being shared - do you always remember exactly when the changeover was made - and on some journeys, even where?

What about the situation where the registered keeper is away, and the 'other' drivers refuse to say who was driving.

While I do not dispute the accuracy of the 'law' quoted, wasn't it this law which was under review as possibly being illegal itself?

I am not 100% sure here, or even if it has been resolved yet, and if so, what the outcome was.

While not disputing that lying about who was driving may get you into trouble (even more trouble than the original offence), I think that there are numerous situations where 'not knowing' would be more than reasonable. Even more reasonable, the longer the delay between the offence, and being initially asked for details about who was driving becomes.

What happened to innocent until proved guilty, and can a spouse be forced to testify?

kirkie · Regular Visitor Joined: Aug 07, 2006 Posts: 93

As the registered owner/keeper of the car you are required by law to provide the full name, address and date of birth of the driver at the time of the alleged offence. Failure to do so could result in proceedings against you for failing to supply the information as required under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

It is also your responsibility to prove that a valid certificate of insurance covered the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence being discovered.

Always consult a solicitor for more specific advice.

neil01 · Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:41 pm Post subject:

Crad · Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:17 pm Post subject:

Just to throw one more bone of contention into this debate; what if your car has been cloned? This has happened to a colleague of mine (genuine cloning and not an excuse), they receive regular NIPS through the post and each time have to go through a long-winded process of explaining this to the police. To date they have never been prosecuted.

Surely this must question the credibility of relying on photographic evidence alone? I would have thought the onus would be on the police to prove that it was the registered keepers vehicle prior to any identification of driver.

neil01 · Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:56 am Post subject:

I know what you mean crad. Apparrently, since the introduction of the London congestion charging, 'cloning' has increased considerably. Wheras before a simple 'false' plate could be used, with current technology, this can be flagged up immediately, so something which appears genuine to the system must be used.

I think it is about time that the authorities realised that this technology also has costs for people who are the victims of cloning, and the authorities should bear some responsibility - as an absolute minimum covering all costs involved with issuing a new number plate and any other costs involved as a result. The rediculous thing is, that if the 'Genuine' vehicle was rquickly emoved from the system, the same technology could be used to track the clone(s) - or is that too obvious?

At the moment, you get the feeling that they think that you should be grateful because they believe you and cancel the ticket - anyone else would have been sued for the false accusation!

mini1400 · Lifetime Member Joined: Jul 11, 2005 Posts: 32

Skippy · Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:06 pm Post subject:

There is no specific legal requirement that you keep a log of who was driving just that you use "reasonable diligence" to identify the owner - RTA section 172(4). Reasonable diligence may include keeping a log (if the vehicle was a fleet or hire car for example) but probably wouldn't be expected for a private car.

If you share the driving (as in the case of Christine and Neil Hamilton) and you can convince the court that you used "reasonable diligence" to determine who was driving and can't determine who was then you have a defense under section 172(4).

Indeed, if there is doubt then why should you allow yourself be bullied into confessing to an offense which you may not have comitted?

Bear in mind that if the court finds that you were lying then you could be guilty of perjury which is far more serious than speeding.
_________________
Gone fishing!

Skippy · Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject:

Anita · Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:16 am Post subject:

	PocketGPS
	Web