NIP - speeding ticket when driver is not from UK
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: NM on 20 Apr 2007 16:21 Trust No One� wrote: > "SteveH" <steve(a)italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1hwtxjp.1qfy4zf1qpvrulN%steve(a)italiancar.co.uk... >> <dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Looking at that, i dont see why i need to go any further in providing >>> information. If this was an insurance case where there was a traffic >>> accident, it would make sense for me to provide the insurance cover >>> information. But in this case insurance is off the table...it's about >>> speeding, and since they have the name and address of the driver at >>> the time, they can contact them and pursue the issue that way. >> Argh! >> >> You may, or may not, have allowed an uninsured driver to drive your car. >> That is an offence in UK lawn, hence why they're chasing you for it. If >> they secure a prosecution for said offence, it'll attract a penalty >> similar to that of driving without insurance yourself. This is not good, >> as insurance companies tend not to like people with convictions for >> driving without insurance or allowing other people to drive their cars >> without it. >> >> You don't have to be very bright to understand this, but it appears >> that, in this case, we're dealing with someone who is as dim as a 5W >> light bulb. > > Actually I think the OP is being extremely smart by keeping his cards to his > chest and not admitting on a very public newsgroup to allowing his Canadian > friend to drive his motor without proper insurance! It is not beyond the > bounds of possibility that the Old Bill reads the newsgroup. > > Assuming the OP did allow his Canadian friend to drive his car without > proper insurance, isn't he being forced to incriminate himself by filling > out this second form? Shouldn't it be down to the Police to prove that the > OP committed the offence rather than the OP gifting them a conviction? > > Suggest the OP maintains his silence and seeks proper legal advice. > > Exactly, nobody should be convicted from their own mouth.
From: PC Paul on 20 Apr 2007 16:24 Steve Firth wrote: > > They can start by asking the owner to confirm his insurance status. If > it turns out he is insured "any driver" and the insurers have made a > mistake entering data into the database, that's an end to it as far as > the owner is concerned. If the owner does not carry appropriate > insurance then they have to ask the driver. If the driver was > uninsured then the owner also faces charges. > Just to try and move this on a little, *if* the OP says the Canadian said he had valid insurance and he trusted him, and if that is a valid defence, then what can the Police do if the Canadian turns round and says he didn't (or even says that he did but refuses to prove it?) It's not like we have an extradition policy with Canada that works like the one we have with the US, is it. (The one where there's not enough evidence for us to even bring charges, but there is apprently enough to extradite to a place where the prosecuting DA has said something along the lines of 'he'll burn for this' and he faces a 45 year sentence...)
From: NM on 20 Apr 2007 16:22 Alan Holmes wrote: > " cupra" <NOcupra.sSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:58rjfrF2i3mj3U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Alan Holmes wrote: >>> " cupra" <NOcupra.sSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:58r4laF2hqnvaU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> Alan Holmes wrote: >>>>> <dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:1177002495.685498.72370(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> no, i'm not worried...just frustrated that I'm pretty sure i have >>>>>> the law on my side, to some extent, yet i don't know it THAT well >>>>>> to argue my points to the police, and they'll just run over me just >>>>>> like they do to other people who just decide to accept the fine and >>>>>> move on. I didn't make up the canadian story. It's true, and I >>>>>> think i still >>>>>> can specify a different person because i got "form B" which is >>>>>> basically a duplicate of the original form where i need to fill in >>>>>> details of the driver at the time the offence and "should the >>>>>> particulars entered relate to the driver previously named..." to >>>>>> provide the insurance details for them. So looking at that, I think >>>>>> they're just giving me another chance to give a british driver name >>>>>> so they can fine that person instead of having the hassle to >>>>>> contact the canadian guy (which they probably wouldn't bother). >>>>>> As you can see...playing the law......and those that know it well >>>>>> have the upper hand, in this case the police...and it just seems >>>>>> like they can play it well because they also have the strong >>>>>> ability to threaten you with legal action, even though they might >>>>>> not actually have a strong case. >>>>>> >>>>>> it's just frustration...that's all...not worry. >>>>> Did you ask to see the 'evidence', this is vital. >>>> No it's not. >>> Why? >> Because he's not the driver. > > So he has absolutely no reason to be worried or communicate with the police > force any more? > Or any requirement to do so.
From: NM on 20 Apr 2007 16:30 Clive George wrote: > "Alan Holmes" <alan_holmes(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:%a7Wh.1801$V7.972(a)newsfe7-gui.ntli.net... > >>> THAT ARTICLE WAS FOR A SPEEDING FINE. THEY'RE AFTER INSURANCE. >> >> Then they need to pursue the driver, not the car owner! > > You do realise the car owner has also committed an offence by not > ensuring the person he lent it to was insured, don't you? It's been > mentioned several times in this thread already... > What evidence is there that he didn't check and satisfy himself, why would he need to keep a record of this. "X showed me his insurance paperwork, I was satisfied he had cover, no I didn't write down the details, if you are really concerned officer I have already provided his address in Canada perhaps you should get your Canadian colleagues to go around to his house and check if you feel an offense may have been committed. I'm not a part time detective that's your job."
From: NM on 20 Apr 2007 16:32
Clive George wrote: > "Alan Holmes" <alan_holmes(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:%a7Wh.1801$V7.972(a)newsfe7-gui.ntli.net... > >>> THAT ARTICLE WAS FOR A SPEEDING FINE. THEY'RE AFTER INSURANCE. >> >> Then they need to pursue the driver, not the car owner! > > You do realise the car owner has also committed an offence by not > ensuring the person he lent it to was insured, don't you? It's been > mentioned several times in this thread already... Only if you can prove he didn't, he says he did, he's not required to prove this. |