NIP - speeding ticket when driver is not from UK
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Clive George on 19 Apr 2007 13:51 <dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177003066.699470.292420(a)p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 19 Apr, 17:52, "Clive George" <c...(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >> "SteveH" <s...(a)italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:1hwtvrz.88lgo01rafjzjN%steve(a)italiancar.co.uk... >> >> > <dot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> My original question still stands...where does the law state that I >> >> need to provide proof of insurance for a speeding ticket? Section 172 >> >> of Road Traffic Act 1988 talks about identifying the driver. I did >> >> that. Does it make any sense for me to call the number given on the >> >> letter to ask them? >> >> > Unless you're going to claim that he took the car without your consent, >> > it's your responsibility to ensure he had qdequate insurance. >> >> In case it isn't entirely clear, what's happening isn't that you're being >> asked to provide proof of insurance for a speeding ticket. You've >> identified >> a driver, and they're now asking a different question, viz were they >> insured. The rules as pointed out by SteveH above and by others elsewhere >> mean you have to be able to demonstrate that, irrespective of any >> speeding >> tickets etc. >> >> If you are confused, calling the number on the ticket is probably a good >> idea - but basically what they'll say is "you need to demonstrate he wa >> insured". >> >> Question for you : You obviously don't want to provide these insurance >> details. Is this because you're making a stand against the cameras/etc, >> because you don't have the details, or just can't be bothered? I ask, >> because the easiest think to do in your situation is to provide the >> requisite details should you have them. If you don't have them, you may >> have >> a problem. > > Thanks for clearing things up. You posted this before i completed my > previous post. > My arguments are partially based on this statement off a website that > seems to know enough to give drivers some support in situations like > this: > > --- > "My car was being driven by someone else at the time." You should > provide the police with the details of the driver and they will then > pursue them for the speeding offence. If the driver was visiting from > outside of the UK and especially outside of the EU, then experience > shows that they will not pursue the case outside of the UK.They may > write to you and try and get you to prove that this other person was > driving, but you only need to give them the name and address and don't > need to supply any more info. > --- > > 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. I'm afraid insurance isn't off the table. It's very relevant - they're now asking, with good reason, for the insurance details. They're allowed to do that - you've said "Mr X was driving my car", and the current rules mean you have to be sure that Mr X was insured to do that. Quoting stuff from a website aren't going to help your case - unless it's official. Which the one you're quoting isn't. Here's a direct question : Was your mate insured? If not, you're both breaking the law. You may wish to tell your mate that drawing attention to himself by getting a speeding ticket while driving uninsured is a poor move. The cheapest way for you to get out of it, provided you're not on 9 points, is to put yourself down as the driver for the speeding ticket and pay up (and get your mate to pay you the costs). This is illegal - but then, so is driving without insurance, and letting other people drive your car without insurance. However you'll probably get away with it, and 60 quid isn't really that much compared to a "no insurance" fine. If he was insured, just send the proof of insurance to the plod. End of story. This is the best thing to do. cheers, clive
From: James Grabowski on 19 Apr 2007 15:46 Clive George 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. > > Presumably this wasn't that long ago? How was your mate insured? "Any > driver" on your car's insurance, or some other means? If you don't know, > then you've screwed up - you need to know before letting him drive, and it's > your problem. An "any driver" policy is unlikely to cover him if he's from Canada as most have the stipulation of the drivers having to be permanent UK residents along with other requirements. -- James
From: NM on 19 Apr 2007 16:29 dotmoc(a)gmail.com wrote: > On 19 Apr, 17:41, s...(a)italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote: >> <dot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> My original question still stands...where does the law state that I >>> need to provide proof of insurance for a speeding ticket? Section 172 >>> of Road Traffic Act 1988 talks about identifying the driver. I did >>> that. Does it make any sense for me to call the number given on the >>> letter to ask them? >> Unless you're going to claim that he took the car without your consent, >> it's your responsibility to ensure he had qdequate insurance. >> -- >> SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'www.italiancar.co.uk- Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark >> Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL >> BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC # > > > this is a speeding issue, not whether he was insured or not. I > identified the driver...why is it expanding towards insurance. If they > want more details about the driver, they need to contact him, right? > It would seem to me that if you satisfied yourself the Canadian was insured to drive your vehicle then that's enough. AFAICS you are not required to keep a record of how and why you made that decision, your assertion that you did should suffice after all the onus is on the police to prove that you failed to do this and as you are not required to keep a record they have no proof. Also I am not aware of any regulations that require you to produce any documents at all in this case, you have complied with the law, that's it, end of story. A letter from you saying you were satisifed with the insurance arrangments and a letter from the Canadian confirming his cover should suffice, details need not be supplied. I had a similar thing, when I gave them the name of the Dutch driver and his Amsterdam address they wrote back demanding to know when he entered the country, where he stayed, how long he was here, how did he travel, I wrote back saying that I had complied with the law, I was not my brothers keeper, if the wanted this information then contact him at his home address, Never heard any more about it, that was over two years ago. I think it's the same mind set as the "Red Frightener"that debt collectors send out, freak you into paying.
From: Derek Geldard on 19 Apr 2007 16:52 On 19 Apr 2007 10:08:15 -0700, dotmoc(a)gmail.com wrote: > >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 More particularly I think perhaps it's a hint they're giving you a last opportunity to name yourself as the driver, (because you now realise you were mistaken when you completed "form A"), now that you know the investigation will go further if you persist in naming a foreigner. If you name a foreign driver the police will have a place, a time, (and a speed !) plus your witness statement and can ask you to show how he was insured to drive the vehicle. IANAL, and I'm not making any judgement here, that's just my reading of the correspondence. >so they can fine that person instead of having the hassle to contact the >canadian guy (which they probably wouldn't bother). I wouldn't bet on it nowadays, not that the 60 quid fine makes it worthwhile but there have been instances when brits have been given prison sentences for perverting the course of justice pulling similar scams. That's more like a worthwhile conviction in anybody's book, so they'd do the digging to unearth cases like these, to get convictions "Pour encourager les autres" and they can do that here. Note also that : "Any driver"and "Any car" policies are quite rare nowadays, if they are still available at all for the ordinary John Doe. When they were available they usually didn't cover foreign drivers who hadn't already been driving regularly in the UK for a period of years. If your Canadian driver had an "Any car" policy in Canada the Insurance Co wouldn't extend that cover to the UK, and even if they did the authorities in the UK wouldn't accept the cover they offer as meeting the requirements of the RTA. You can expect all these aspects to be scrutinised. How was the Canadian guy insured to drive your car? DG
From: Alan Holmes on 19 Apr 2007 17:02
<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. Alan > |