NIP - speeding ticket when driver is not from UK
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Roger Mills on 20 Apr 2007 10:26 In an earlier contribution to this discussion, SteveH <steve(a)italiancar.co.uk> wrote: > Roger Mills <watt.tyler(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >>> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/EndorsementsAndDisqual >>> ifications/DG_10022425 >>> >> >> But IN14 isn't listed in the reference, the only IN one being IN10. >> Where is IN14 described? > > Read the bottom of the page. The 4 replaces the 0 on the end of the > offence if you are found guilty of allowing someone else to commit the > offence. Fair enough. At first sight, that appeared to be part of the UT50 description - but I guess it applies to everything. -- Cheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
From: Roger Mills on 20 Apr 2007 10:28 In an earlier contribution to this discussion, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Alan Holmes <alan_holmes(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>> 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. > > He's already said that someone else was driving at the time. So by > what stretch of the imagination do you come to the conclusion that he > has the right to see the evidence that may be used in the prosecution > of someone else? > > Do you regularly write to courts asking to see the evidence of any > prosecutions that your neighbours may be facing, for example? But it was *his* vehicle - regardless of who was driving. Doesn't that make a difference? -- Cheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
From: Steve Firth on 20 Apr 2007 10:43 Roger Mills <watt.tyler(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > In an earlier contribution to this discussion, > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > Alan Holmes <alan_holmes(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >>> 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. > > > > He's already said that someone else was driving at the time. So by > > what stretch of the imagination do you come to the conclusion that he > > has the right to see the evidence that may be used in the prosecution > > of someone else? > > > > Do you regularly write to courts asking to see the evidence of any > > prosecutions that your neighbours may be facing, for example? > > But it was *his* vehicle - regardless of who was driving. Doesn't that make > a difference? Not to my mind. After all he isn't accused of speeding since he says it was someone else driving. The only issues left are does he allege that the vehicle was taken without consent, and if it wasn't was the vehicle insured at the time? There's also (not raised in this instance) a question about the validity of the driving licence of the driver. AFACIT once the owner has declared that he was not driving the vehicle then the evidence isn't to do with him.
From: Trust No One� on 20 Apr 2007 12:14 "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. -- Peter <X-Files fan>
From: Conor on 20 Apr 2007 12:44
In article <58s77mF2i8sq0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Trust No One� says... > > "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? > I think you'll find they already have. I take it you are aware that the Police can simply check the insurers database? I reckon they've had the "my friend from a foreign land was driving" excuse trotted out that much that they've decided to take such cases to a whole new level in order to stamp it out. The easiest way would be to query the insurance database, see the vehicle was only insured for X to drive then ask for proof. Obviously the car was in use and the owner claims it wasn't him so as allowing a car you own to be used without insurance is an offence, they ask for proof the driver was insured. -- Conor Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak......... |