Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Company heading into liquidation
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
docklander
Here is a mess for your comments please:

Registered keeper receives an NIP for 48 in a 40.

Registered keeper had lent car to Limited Co so they could move furniture.

Limited Co believes car was covered under fleet policy but not updated MID.

Registered keeper was insured on car.

Limited Co not sure on driver and also heading into liquidation. Limited Co sole director is spouse of registered keeper.

Registered keeper sold car one week later.

I believe worse case is registered keeper could receive points for allowing someone to drive without insurance and director could receive points for not being able to name driver.
Do you agree?
Suziboy
Other posters may have different opinions, but if RK is able to identify and name the driver on the S172 within the 28 days then I'd think there's a good chance that the lack of insurance would not come to light.
Gerfc1
When the Registered keeper nominates the driver.

Then the driver would receive S172 request to confirm if it is the driver or name the driver.

The Limited Co may be take to court and must show proof the steps the Limited Co done to identify driver. it is expected especially for limited Co to have a logbook showing date and time of driver using the vehicle.


I would expect the police to name the director of Limited Co personally as it was nominated by registered keeper, so points would be involved.

Registered keeper could be charged for allowing to driver to drive without insurance and the driver could be charged also.


The only way possible to name the driver honestly and see what happens.
docklander
QUOTE (Gerfc1 @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 17:41) *
When the Registered keeper nominates the driver.

Then the driver would receive S172 request to confirm if it is the driver or name the driver.

The Limited Co may be take to court and must show proof the steps the Limited Co done to identify driver. it is expected especially for limited Co to have a logbook showing date and time of driver using the vehicle.


I would expect the police to name the director of Limited Co personally as it was nominated by registered keeper, so points would be involved.

Registered keeper could be charged for allowing to driver to drive without insurance and the driver could be charged also.


The only way possible to name the driver honestly and see what happens.



That is pretty much what I thought but does the same still apply if the company goes into liquidation? Clearly they won't be able to recover a fine from a liquidated company but could the director still receive points post-liquidation?
TMC Towcester
Much depends on the CPS's vigour in pursuing it.

But if the Ltd company refuses to name the driver and subsequently ceases to exist.................there's no person to pursue?
andy_foster
The first issue legally is the RK obligation to name the driver. You appear to have inadvertently neglected to mention whether or not the RK knows who was driving.

From what you have told us, the RK might be on 9 points, have been caught speeding, and then 'retrospectively' lent the car to his wife('s company) in order to (try to) avoid admitting to being the driver and receiving a totting up ban. Or it might be far more complicated and honest.

If the former, you could both be looking at long prison sentences for perverting and conspiring to pervert (if perverting isn't so wide as to preclude any inchoate offences). If the latter, then the worst case scenario would seem to depend on the facts.
docklander
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 18:33) *
The first issue legally is the RK obligation to name the driver. You appear to have inadvertently neglected to mention whether or not the RK knows who was driving.

From what you have told us, the RK might be on 9 points, have been caught speeding, and then 'retrospectively' lent the car to his wife('s company) in order to (try to) avoid admitting to being the driver and receiving a totting up ban. Or it might be far more complicated and honest.

If the former, you could both be looking at long prison sentences for perverting and conspiring to pervert (if perverting isn't so wide as to preclude any inchoate offences). If the latter, then the worst case scenario would seem to depend on the facts.


The RK lent the car to the company and had no idea who was driving.
The RK has a clean license with 0 points.
blackcross
As there is a sole director would the CPS have the option of going after her, even after the company is dissolved?
TMC Towcester
QUOTE (docklander @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 19:10) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 18:33) *
The first issue legally is the RK obligation to name the driver. You appear to have inadvertently neglected to mention whether or not the RK knows who was driving.

From what you have told us, the RK might be on 9 points, have been caught speeding, and then 'retrospectively' lent the car to his wife('s company) in order to (try to) avoid admitting to being the driver and receiving a totting up ban. Or it might be far more complicated and honest.

If the former, you could both be looking at long prison sentences for perverting and conspiring to pervert (if perverting isn't so wide as to preclude any inchoate offences). If the latter, then the worst case scenario would seem to depend on the facts.


The RK lent the car to the company and had no idea who was driving.
The RK has a clean license with 0 points.


But it wasn't lent to a company/ It was lent to an individual as there was only one at the company. If the driver or RK thinks this is a wizard wheeze to get off a simple low cost speeding ticket they may get a surprise...........
dp7
Was there an actual agreement to 'lend' the vehicle to the company, or was it a completely informal arrangement? How many people work for the company, and how many of those might have been expected to drive the vehicle?
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 20:11) *
But it wasn't lent to a company/ It was lent to an individual as there was only one at the company. If the driver or RK thinks this is a wizard wheeze to get off a simple low cost speeding ticket they may get a surprise...........

If there was a payment by the limited company to cover fuel/hire or whatever then logically it is lent to that company just the same as any other hire or lease vehicle.

If it was done as a freebie to help out a mate... maybe less clear. It would depend on what was agreed, e.g. "Yeah you can borrow my van John" vs "Yeah you can borrow my van to use for your company, as long as it's covered on your fleet insurance".
docklander
QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 20:11) *
QUOTE (docklander @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 19:10) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 18:33) *
The first issue legally is the RK obligation to name the driver. You appear to have inadvertently neglected to mention whether or not the RK knows who was driving.

From what you have told us, the RK might be on 9 points, have been caught speeding, and then 'retrospectively' lent the car to his wife('s company) in order to (try to) avoid admitting to being the driver and receiving a totting up ban. Or it might be far more complicated and honest.

If the former, you could both be looking at long prison sentences for perverting and conspiring to pervert (if perverting isn't so wide as to preclude any inchoate offences). If the latter, then the worst case scenario would seem to depend on the facts.


The RK lent the car to the company and had no idea who was driving.
The RK has a clean license with 0 points.


But it wasn't lent to a company/ It was lent to an individual as there was only one at the company. If the driver or RK thinks this is a wizard wheeze to get off a simple low cost speeding ticket they may get a surprise...........



It was lent to a limited company, established 10 years with a physical office, fleet insurance and 5 employees.
TMC Towcester
QUOTE (docklander @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 06:58) *
QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 20:11) *
QUOTE (docklander @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 19:10) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 18:33) *
The first issue legally is the RK obligation to name the driver. You appear to have inadvertently neglected to mention whether or not the RK knows who was driving.

From what you have told us, the RK might be on 9 points, have been caught speeding, and then 'retrospectively' lent the car to his wife('s company) in order to (try to) avoid admitting to being the driver and receiving a totting up ban. Or it might be far more complicated and honest.

If the former, you could both be looking at long prison sentences for perverting and conspiring to pervert (if perverting isn't so wide as to preclude any inchoate offences). If the latter, then the worst case scenario would seem to depend on the facts.


The RK lent the car to the company and had no idea who was driving.
The RK has a clean license with 0 points.


But it wasn't lent to a company/ It was lent to an individual as there was only one at the company. If the driver or RK thinks this is a wizard wheeze to get off a simple low cost speeding ticket they may get a surprise...........



It was lent to a limited company, established 10 years with a physical office, fleet insurance and 5 employees.


Timing might have a bearing? If this was only a matter of days ago and 5 employees have all vaporised and the company dissolved since?
The Rookie
QUOTE (docklander @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 17:06) *
Limited Co believes car was covered under fleet policy but not updated MID.

Short term changes are rarely added to the MID, the MID reflects whether insurance is in place or not, it doesn't establish whether it is or not. The insurance company may or may not have have to be notified depending on the terms of the insurance.

What seems to be a private individual lending a vehicle to a limited company would be unusual to say the least.

It raises a number of questions that you may not want to answer on here but may end up answering in court if the driver isn't identified.
1. Why?
2. Is the RK also connected with the company, if not what lead the company to the keeper to borrow it.
3. If the RK is connected to the company, then that leads us in to a lot of potential issues if the Police suspect the RK is 'playing silly buggers'. Your one line replies which fail to answer the questions asked and implied don't give me much confidence.

If the RK lent the car, he either leant it to 'the company' (in which case he simply names the company and lets them sort it out, liquidation isn't relevant to the RK) or to an individual as the temporary keeper (in which case he simply names the keeper).
dp7
QUOTE (docklander @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 06:58) *
It was lent to a limited company, established 10 years with a physical office, fleet insurance and 5 employees.


As per my previous post - what evidence could you provide to show that it was actually lent to 'the company', as opposed to an individual (presumably the RK's spouse) who happens to work for/own the company? Was there a formal agreement? Was any payment made to RK for allowing the company to use the car?

Given there are only five employees in total (were all of them permitted use of the car?) it doesn't seem like it'd take too much reasonable diligence for the company to determine who was driving.
BertB
QUOTE (docklander @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 07:58) *
It was lent to a limited company, established 10 years with a physical office, fleet insurance and 5 employees.


So if it is wasn't the RK's spouse, we have already eliminated one person from the list. As it was lent with a specific purpose in mind

QUOTE (docklander @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 18:06) *
Registered keeper had lent car to Limited Co so they could move furniture.


So who moved the furniture?
mickR
the who moved the furniture point is very valid unless all 4 of them did it. So if the company is being/has been dissolved then i presume the other 4 employees are now ex employees. if this is the case and Co director (wife) contacts them to ask "were you driving" whats to stop the ex employees saying sorry but you can FRO. If this happens would the due diligence of the Co director have been fulfilled?
Manx_Tom
Concerning the speeding offence, if the RK identifies the limited company, then won't that be more likely to raise the eyebrows of the police and possibly attract further unwanted and unneccesary* attention to the whole incident?

When the RK lent the vehicle to "the company", presumably they handed the keys over to a natural person (most likely his wife but could have been one of the other four employees of the company) and it is that individual (not the company) whom the RK is legally obliged to identify? It then becomes that person's problem.

Assuming the vehicle was genuinely lent to the company, isn't that what should happen?


*Unneccesary so far as the uncertain insurance status goes and even more unneccesary - and suspicious looking - if the RK or his wife happen to be on 9 points. And naming a company in the throes of liquidation won't make it any easier...
Logician
QUOTE (docklander @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 19:27) *
That is pretty much what I thought but does the same still apply if the company goes into liquidation? Clearly they won't be able to recover a fine from a liquidated company but could the director still receive points post-liquidation?


Bear in mind s.172(5) RTA 1988:
Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

So the fine could possibly be recovered from the director if proceeded against under that provision, but the director could not receive points. However, the police might well think this is all nonsense, this is just between the husband and wife, and issue a s.172 notice to the wife as well as, or instead of, to the company, if they realise the full circumstances.
disgrunt
Surely the thing to do is:
OP names the company
The company director (OP’s spouse) names the employee who was given the keys.
If Ex employee wants to say it was it was one of the others, that’s their issue?

Of course if company is in (insolvent) liquidation post might go to liquidator first so chances of a time out occurring increase..
Logician
QUOTE (disgrunt @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 14:53) *
The company director (OP’s spouse) names the employee who was given the keys.


It is a bit of an assumption that an employee was given the keys.


IanJohnsonWS14
QUOTE (docklander @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 18:06) *
............

I believe worse case is registered keeper could receive points for allowing someone to drive without insurance and director could receive points for not being able to name driver.
Do you agree?


I presume you are talking about a voluntary liquidation, there are timescales set out in the Companies Acts for this and it doesn't happen overnight. You have to advertise in the Gazette to give people the company may owe money to a chance to recover it.

If it is an insolvency then the Administrator will control timing, not the directors - and it could take years.
disgrunt
QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 14:11) *
QUOTE (disgrunt @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 14:53) *
The company director (OP’s spouse) names the employee who was given the keys.


It is a bit of an assumption that an employee was given the keys.


Cars don’t drive themselves.
OP’s spouse - can I borrow your car today, the company needs to shift some furniture
OP - of course
OP’s spouse gets to work. “Logician, here is a car. You and Bob shift that furniture “

Obviously, the other option is OP’s spouse was driving, knows this but is looking for a clever ruse to avoid the ticket.
Korting
Does the same occur if the vehicle was hired from a hire company under the companies name?
dp7
QUOTE (Korting @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 16:43) *
Does the same occur if the vehicle was hired from a hire company under the companies name?


You would expect that a vehicle hired from a hire company would be under a formal agreement, and that the company hiring the vehicle would have a system in place to track who was driving the vehicle at any given time. From the details the OP has posted so far, it seems that the latter didn't occur, and it's unclear whether the former did.
docklander
QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 07:03) *
QUOTE (docklander @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 06:58) *
QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 20:11) *
QUOTE (docklander @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 19:10) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 18:33) *
The first issue legally is the RK obligation to name the driver. You appear to have inadvertently neglected to mention whether or not the RK knows who was driving.

From what you have told us, the RK might be on 9 points, have been caught speeding, and then 'retrospectively' lent the car to his wife('s company) in order to (try to) avoid admitting to being the driver and receiving a totting up ban. Or it might be far more complicated and honest.

If the former, you could both be looking at long prison sentences for perverting and conspiring to pervert (if perverting isn't so wide as to preclude any inchoate offences). If the latter, then the worst case scenario would seem to depend on the facts.


The RK lent the car to the company and had no idea who was driving.
The RK has a clean license with 0 points.


But it wasn't lent to a company/ It was lent to an individual as there was only one at the company. If the driver or RK thinks this is a wizard wheeze to get off a simple low cost speeding ticket they may get a surprise...........





It was lent to a limited company, established 10 years with a physical office, fleet insurance and 5 employees.


Timing might have a bearing? If this was only a matter of days ago and 5 employees have all vaporised and the company dissolved since?


No one has vaporised. All 5 employees remain on the payroll and the company has not yet been dissolved, but looks very much like it is heading into liquidation.



There was a simple one pager agreement lending the car to the Ltd Co. Keys were left in the office and not handed to an individual.

RK is an employee of the ltd co.

As it stands the RK is inclined to just take the points as the painful fact appears that by telling the truth they could actually be in more trouble!
The Rookie
Which would be perverting the course of justice and carries a real risk of jail time. That would be phenomenally stupid.
Manx_Tom
I don't suppose that the three remaining company employees (after accounting for both the RK and his wife who is the sole director of the company) happen to be children of the RK and his wife, do they? Or other family members?

It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to for the RK (an employee of the company) and his wife (the sole director of the company and acting on its behalf, presumably) to enter into some sort of formal written agreement concerning the loan of the car specifically for the purpose of moving some furniture, and then to leave the keys in the office to be picked up anonymously by one of the other three employees. (Or four other employees as presumably the RK doesn't also know if his wife was driving it or not... ).

It all sounds a bit unlikely really...

As already pointed out, the RK can't name himself if he knows he wasn't driving. If the RK really doesn't know who the driver was, then presumably he either refuses to name anyone (and he almost certainly then ends up with a fail to identify conviction) or simply names the company - and keeps his fingers crossed that that doesn't open a whole new can of worms that he might prefer to avoid.

Has the RK already asked for photos "to help identify the driver"? If he hasn't, does he still have enough time left to do so?



notmeatloaf
QUOTE (Manx_Tom @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 23:25) *
It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to for the RK (an employee of the company) and his wife (the sole director of the company and acting on its behalf, presumably) to enter into some sort of formal written agreement concerning the loan of the car specifically for the purpose of moving some furniture, and then to leave the keys in the office to be picked up anonymously by one of the other three employees. (Or four other employees as presumably the RK doesn't also know if his wife was driving it or not... ).

It all sounds a bit unlikely really...

Clearly you have never run a small company where it's fairly common for personal vehicles to be used temporarily for work purposes.

Either way, Pepipoo rules are that OPs are taken at face value. Strongly implying that the OP is lying isn't helpful.
docklander
QUOTE (Manx_Tom @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 23:25) *
I don't suppose that the three remaining company employees (after accounting for both the RK and his wife who is the sole director of the company) happen to be children of the RK and his wife, do they? Or other family members?

It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to for the RK (an employee of the company) and his wife (the sole director of the company and acting on its behalf, presumably) to enter into some sort of formal written agreement concerning the loan of the car specifically for the purpose of moving some furniture, and then to leave the keys in the office to be picked up anonymously by one of the other three employees. (Or four other employees as presumably the RK doesn't also know if his wife was driving it or not... ).

It all sounds a bit unlikely really...

As already pointed out, the RK can't name himself if he knows he wasn't driving. If the RK really doesn't know who the driver was, then presumably he either refuses to name anyone (and he almost certainly then ends up with a fail to identify conviction) or simply names the company - and keeps his fingers crossed that that doesn't open a whole new can of worms that he might prefer to avoid.

Has the RK already asked for photos "to help identify the driver"? If he hasn't, does he still have enough time left to do so?


The photos are all of the rear of the vehicle.

QUOTE (Manx_Tom @ Fri, 10 Dec 2021 - 23:25) *
I don't suppose that the three remaining company employees (after accounting for both the RK and his wife who is the sole director of the company) happen to be children of the RK and his wife, do they? Or other family members?

It seems an awful lot of trouble to go to for the RK (an employee of the company) and his wife (the sole director of the company and acting on its behalf, presumably) to enter into some sort of formal written agreement concerning the loan of the car specifically for the purpose of moving some furniture, and then to leave the keys in the office to be picked up anonymously by one of the other three employees. (Or four other employees as presumably the RK doesn't also know if his wife was driving it or not... ).

It all sounds a bit unlikely really...

As already pointed out, the RK can't name himself if he knows he wasn't driving. If the RK really doesn't know who the driver was, then presumably he either refuses to name anyone (and he almost certainly then ends up with a fail to identify conviction) or simply names the company - and keeps his fingers crossed that that doesn't open a whole new can of worms that he might prefer to avoid.

Has the RK already asked for photos "to help identify the driver"? If he hasn't, does he still have enough time left to do so?


No, the other employees are not related. The vehicle in question is a large MPV, hence why it was used.
The Rookie
Some people seem hung up on a family link, read back, it was merely an example from AF of differences that now everyone seems to assume to be true.
TMC Towcester
Thus with only 5 employees, the OP has a signed agreement with the company and thus (presumably) the company had an authorised signature to the agreement. I'd anme the person on that agreement which is giving the information in your power to give? The company then needs to identify who id the furniture removal which is simple due to the low number of potential driver (4) and the recent time. Two may have been involved but it (presumably) wasn't far, it'll not be hard to identify who drove.

Give the information in your power to give? Struggling to believe (and so may Mags) that no-one can identify who drove on a one-off a few days prior from a choice of 4, but that's not your concern as the RK, not the person keeping at the time.
dp7
QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 08:56) *
the OP has a signed agreement with the company and thus (presumably) the company had an authorised signature to the agreement. I'd anme the person on that agreement which is giving the information in your power to give?


That sounds like the most sensible option to me. It’s obviously not directly the RK’s concern at that point, but if the company is genuinely unable to definitively name the driver, I’d suggest that they really need to get their ducks in a row to demonstrate what reasonable diligence they’ve shown to try and identify them.
mickR
wouldnt it stir the pot if the RK (hubby) names Co Dir. on agreement (wifey) who then names driver as employee No1 (hubby)
surely not rolleyes.gif
copper's nark
Just to stick my two penn'th worth in. 48mph in a 40 limit is driver awareness course territory. And just like the UK entry in Eurovision - Nul points although still costs around £100.
The proviso is that the driver hasn't been on the course within the last three years. The police take a cut of the fee for the course but get nothing for a FPN or a court appearance. The RK is legally obliged to make efforts to name the driver and that is tested in the courts if there is no name put forward.
The Rookie
QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 12:54) *
wouldnt it stir the pot if the RK (hubby) names Co Dir. on agreement (wifey) who then names driver as employee No1 (hubby)
surely not rolleyes.gif

Nope….read where the wife bit came from, not the OP…….
mickR
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 19:01) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 11 Dec 2021 - 12:54) *
wouldnt it stir the pot if the RK (hubby) names Co Dir. on agreement (wifey) who then names driver as employee No1 (hubby)
surely not rolleyes.gif

Nope….read where the wife bit came from, not the OP…….


really? why dont you read the op for starters.

QUOTE (docklander @ Thu, 9 Dec 2021 - 17:06) *
Limited Co not sure on driver and also heading into liquidation. Limited Co sole director is spouse of registered keeper.

The Rookie
Thanks, I read the damn thread twice and didn’t see that.
mickR
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 12 Dec 2021 - 12:15) *
Thanks, I read the damn thread twice and didn’t see that.

to be fair i saw it the first time i read it but then took 3 reads to find it again lol.
roythebus
Speaking from personal experience, any correspondence to name the driver should be made to the Company Secretary who may or may not be a director. It is the company ( bit of paper) as a separate entity that is liable to name the driver nd should have a record of who was driving. Failure to do so could lead to the company secretary or the director(s) footing the bill hich could be in excess of £1000 but Eurovision Norway, nil points.

The courts take a dim view of companies that don't keep records of who was driving, hence the heavier financial penalty. With the company likely to go pop, this could take several months for a letter to get to the secretary via the liquidator or whoever deals with that side of it. But remember there is the insurance side. Did the fleet policy cover any vehicle in the company's charge and any driver employed by the company?

My own case was many years ago, basically my car (registered in my name) was insured via the company fleet policy for the usual SDP and for use in connection with the company's business, any driver. It got a ticket one day when I was out driving a bus, non of the 20 or so drivers admitted taking the car out. Mags were about to drop the case when the prosecutor said I was lying. Why? Who in their right mind would let any driver drive their luxury car without asking? It was one of 2 cars owned by staff by covered on the firm's fleet policy. the other was my son's Land Rover. I had my suspicions who was actually driving but couldn't prove it. Case dismissed.
NewJudge
QUOTE (roythebus @ Wed, 15 Dec 2021 - 20:15) *
Mags were about to drop the case ...

I don't know what you really mean, roy, but Magistrates' cannot "drop" a case.
TonyS
Personally I'd name the person who signed or produced the agreement to borrow the car. Let them worry about naming the actual driver, presumably if they arranged the loan so that "someone" could move some furniture, they should know who "someone" was.
peodude
I've had experience where a Ltd Co. lent a van to another Ltd Co. for a week and got a speeding ticket. They didn't know who the driver was so they just named the other Ltd Co. and never heard anything more.
TryOut
QUOTE (roythebus @ Wed, 15 Dec 2021 - 20:15) *
Speaking from personal experience, any correspondence to name the driver should be made to the Company Secretary who may or may not be a director. It is the company ( bit of paper) as a separate entity that is liable to name the driver nd should have a record of who was driving. Failure to do so could lead to the company secretary or the director(s) footing the bill hich could be in excess of £1000 but Eurovision Norway, nil points.

The courts take a dim view of companies that don't keep records of who was driving, hence the heavier financial penalty. With the company likely to go pop, this could take several months for a letter to get to the secretary via the liquidator or whoever deals with that side of it. But remember there is the insurance side. Did the fleet policy cover any vehicle in the company's charge and any driver employed by the company?

My own case was many years ago, basically my car (registered in my name) was insured via the company fleet policy for the usual SDP and for use in connection with the company's business, any driver. It got a ticket one day when I was out driving a bus, non of the 20 or so drivers admitted taking the car out. Mags were about to drop the case when the prosecutor said I was lying. Why? Who in their right mind would let any driver drive their luxury car without asking? It was one of 2 cars owned by staff by covered on the firm's fleet policy. the other was my son's Land Rover. I had my suspicions who was actually driving but couldn't prove it. Case dismissed.

It’s amazing how the courts can screw-up.
If you had your suspicions and don’t provide names you are guilty and should have been declared as such.

QUOTE (peodude @ Thu, 16 Dec 2021 - 13:59) *
I've had experience where a Ltd Co. lent a van to another Ltd Co. for a week and got a speeding ticket. They didn't know who the driver was so they just named the other Ltd Co. and never heard anything more.

A little bit of digging should have resulted in all directors of both companies receiving their own s172. Still, the ruse worked on that occasion.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (TryOut @ Thu, 16 Dec 2021 - 17:20) *
It’s amazing how the courts can screw-up.
If you had your suspicions and don’t provide names you are guilty and should have been declared as such.

You seem to have problems reading.

The poster named a limited company which had access to the car. Unless specifically prohibited on the S172 form, a limited company can be named as " information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give".

S172s can be addressed to companies.

In this case the company didn't respond properly to the S172. So the company committed the offence, not the poster.

If there was a requirement to give all and every conceivable information, including suspected drivers, this could have been included as part of S172. It isn't, and additionally there is not sufficient space on the form to include "suspicions" and police discourage such responses so the forms can be read by ANPR

So suggesting the poster is guilty is brainless. If you provide the information requested on a form, and it is correct, you have complied with S172. Some nonsense idea that you should provide information the police would want you to provide is dumb beyond belief.
The Rookie
NML, can I suggest you read S172, while I agree with your first point, your second point is incorrect, noting the ruling in Flegg for example.

And it’s OCR not ANPR.
TryOut
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 17 Dec 2021 - 04:03) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Thu, 16 Dec 2021 - 17:20) *
It’s amazing how the courts can screw-up.
If you had your suspicions and don’t provide names you are guilty and should have been declared as such.

You seem to have problems reading.

The poster named a limited company which had access to the car. Unless specifically prohibited on the S172 form, a limited company can be named as " information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give".

S172s can be addressed to companies.

In this case the company didn't respond properly to the S172. So the company committed the offence, not the poster.

If there was a requirement to give all and every conceivable information, including suspected drivers, this could have been included as part of S172. It isn't, and additionally there is not sufficient space on the form to include "suspicions" and police discourage such responses so the forms can be read by ANPR

So suggesting the poster is guilty is brainless. If you provide the information requested on a form, and it is correct, you have complied with S172. Some nonsense idea that you should provide information the police would want you to provide is dumb beyond belief.

Trouble reading or not reading at all!

From S172 RTA:
(2)Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a)the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police or the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force, and

(b)any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.



So the company, if that was the entity being represented above was guilty as from reading the post, appeared in court after giving no information rather than the information about the “suspicion”.

All you need to do is read the parts of the law upon which you comment.

My point made above stands; the police could send out an s172 to named directors when the company returns either nothing or an equivocal response. See s172 (2)(b). It makes the requirement personal and prevents the unintended creation of a shield by incorporation of a company.

The Rookie
QUOTE (TryOut @ Fri, 17 Dec 2021 - 08:18) *
no information rather than the information about the “suspicion”.

That depends on the nature of the suspicion really, if it's merely a hunch I would dispute that that is relevant information, if it's 'this person nearly always drives it and no-one else does' then it is.

I would imagine the prosecution and magistrates were presented with more detail we you have via the trial (we just have the summary) and came to their conclusions based on that.
TryOut
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 17 Dec 2021 - 08:38) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Fri, 17 Dec 2021 - 08:18) *
no information rather than the information about the “suspicion”.

That depends on the nature of the suspicion really, if it's merely a hunch I would dispute that that is relevant information, if it's 'this person nearly always drives it and no-one else does' then it is.

I would imagine the prosecution and magistrates were presented with more detail we you have via the trial (we just have the summary) and came to their conclusions based on that.

While it is described as "...a hunch..." about the possibility of who was driving, that person in the company knows the information about who could possibly have access to or drive the vehicle. I agree it is "...a hunch..." but it is based upon that person's knowledge of the company, its employees, in this case probably a co-director, and who has access to that vehicle as part of their job or even occasional personal use. The hunch is based upon the exact type of information that is described in the law.

The poster from the company had a "hunch" because of their knowledge of the company, the vehicle and its normal use. You are of course entitled to your opinion on this, but it reads to me that your opinion is based upon what your personal desire is for the interpretation, not the literal interpretation. The literal interpretation being the first interpretation that should be made when reading and interpreting the law. There is more to S172, of course, but the words about what is to be provided are not really ambiguous, especially the words "...any information...".

You could of course take it to the high court where they can agree with your unnecessary 4th-stage interpretation of the word "any" and "such" and make them "specific".
roythebus
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Wed, 15 Dec 2021 - 20:26) *
QUOTE (roythebus @ Wed, 15 Dec 2021 - 20:15) *
Mags were about to drop the case ...

I don't know what you really mean, roy, but Magistrates' cannot "drop" a case.
What i meant was that the mags were about to find me not guilty or no case to answer of failing to provide driver's details having apparently made their minds up I was telling the truth.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.