You are logged in as a guest. 
  Home Forums Home  Search our Forums Search our Forums    Log in to the Forums Log in to the Forums  register Register on the Forums  

 Forums ->  General Chat -> Chatterbox
Jump to page : FirstPrevious 1 2 Last
Format:  Go
BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
AuthorMessage
usermichele
Posted: 11 March 2007 12:04 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 


50005000500100100100100
Location: Rapido ..ask him what size


Hey Frank,

you keep records don't you so why would you worry ?.
userW3526602
Posted: 11 March 2007 7:24 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1079
1000252525
Location: Glynneath South Wales


Hi,

A speeding offence carries a maximum fine of £1000 and a minimum of 3 penalty points.....could well be disqualification.

Failing to identify the driver carries a maximum fine of £1000 and a MAXIMUM of 3 penalty points. Could make a difference if you already have 8 points. I know of a company that was fined £500 for failing to identify the driver.

There is nothing to say that the Registered Keeper has to have a driving licence. So what you are looking for is a ga-ga granny living in a council run care home.

Many years ago, somebody had his car registered in the name of his son....who was below the age of criminal responsibility. I don't know the outcome.

602
userDave Newell
Posted: 11 March 2007 7:30 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 


Forum master

Posts: 3580
20001000500252525
Location: Telford, Shropshire


W3526602 - 2007-03-11 7:24 AM

Hi,

A speeding offence carries a maximum fine of £1000 and a minimum of 3 penalty points.....could well be disqualification.

Failing to identify the driver carries a maximum fine of £1000 and a MAXIMUM of 3 penalty points. Could make a difference if you already have 8 points. I know of a company that was fined £500 for failing to identify the driver.

There is nothing to say that the Registered Keeper has to have a driving licence. So what you are looking for is a ga-ga granny living in a council run care home.

Many years ago, somebody had his car registered in the name of his son....who was below the age of criminal responsibility. I don't know the outcome.

602


Surely that's false declaration though. The name on the V5 is the registered keeper of the vehicle. If the name on the V5 is not the real keeper of the vehicle then that is false declaration.

D.

P.S. I'm still dying to know if Leah's friend is going to take this further or just roll over and accept it.
userSupertractorman
Posted: 11 March 2007 11:23 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 
Pops in from time to time

Posts: 118
100


Frank,

A simple system for companies who have numerous Drivers on vans etc, is to have a sheet in the vehicle where the Driver enters date, time and speedo reading of vehicle on collection. You then can prove you are keeping records of users.

David
userUsinmyknaus
Posted: 12 March 2007 5:38 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1237
100010010025
Location: Surrey. Knaus/Renault


Just to pick up on the mobile phone while driving issue. I get really angry about people driving while using a hand-held especially, because they are just not in control of their vehicle. I have good reason to be angry. For 6 years I have had a permanent disability and will be in constant pain for the rest of my life because a young man on the phone to his work place smashed into the back of the small car I was driving and wrote it off. The impact was so high my car came apart. I was braking for a queue of traffic ahead and was down to around 40 mph so you can imagine how fast he must have been going to do that kind of damage when his car hit mine. He said he hadn't seen me or the queue of traffic and had not braked at all.

The police said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him. They were in a hurry to get to another incident and just wanted to pack me off in an ambulance - mind you I did not look too good with spine and head injuries. Typically, the other driver was uninjured as he was driving a bigger and newer vehicle.

Now if that much damage and injury resulted from car on car, the mind boggles at what would happen with a lorry. Such "Professional" drivers should know better and the law should demand higher skill and levy greater responsibility accordingly.

Bob
userW3526602
Posted: 12 March 2007 8:27 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1079
1000252525
Location: Glynneath South Wales


Hi,

The Registered Keeper is the person DVLA go looking for. The RK need not be the owner. Strange that insurance companies are interested in the owner, while DVLA are interested in the keeper.

If the aforementioned gaga-granny is the OWNER, she can take out an insurance policy in her name, with you as the only named driver. This would be normal practice for somebody who doesn't/mustn't drive, so employs a chaufeur.

DVLA have told me that if I buy a car and give it to my son....I am the owner, he is the keeper. Cheeky ****!

602
userFrank Wilkinson
Posted: 12 March 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 


No one has yet proved to me that point that I trying to make, which is that the registered owner of the vehicle can not be prosecuted for the original offence. Someone has even offered me advice on keeping written records for my firm. Where did he even get the idea that I need advice on running my small fleet of about 14 vehicles?

Every car that we own is registered to the firm, which is a limited company. The keeper is no different. Even though a car may be driven and garaged by one of my staff who lives at a branch 100 miles away, the name on the V5 is the company's.

This is the point that I dispute, which by the way could never happen to me because we keep records and we know just who is driving a van or car at any time.

If an offence is committed by a driver, who cannot be identified and the owner of the vehicle cannot, or will not, provide evidence to who was driving, then the directors of the company cannot be prosecuted for the original offence.

They, or the company, can be prosecuted for not supplying the driver's name. They can be sued for compensation for any damages incurred, but they cannot be fined and have a licence endorsed for the original offence.

This would be contrary to all natural justice. If for some reason a company cannot supply the driver's name, possibly because the person driving the vehicle is lying and refusing to take responsibility for his actions, it cannot be right to endorse the licence of a director of the company.

Yes, the company must assist the police as much as possible. Yes, it must have insurance to compensate the victim but its directors are not responsible for the criminal actions of an employee unless they have in some way contributed to his actions.

A company is a separate body and if the company owns the vehicle, whom do the police prosecute? They prosecute the company, not individuals. And you cannot endorse the driving licence of a company! They only prosecute individual directors if there is a case of negligence by them, but they cannot prosecute a director on behalf of an employee.

Just take the practical application. One of my staff commits a traffic offence. For whatever reason, we are unable to prove which of two people was driving on that day. If the police can prosecute an individual, whom do they prosecute? A director? There may be six directors, whom do they choose? The company secretary? Is it fair that the company secretary who may not even be a shareholder is prosecuted, whilst the directors who own the firm get off? Of course not.

I stick to my original assertion, which is, that a director of a company cannot be prosecuted for the original offence and cannot have his licence endorsed for a crime that he has not committed.

If anyone can tell me different I would love to see case law or the statute concerned.

And finally, I'll give you an example of why the finest record keeping may not help.

I employ a new van driver to do deliveries to my shops. As always I send him out with an existing driver to learn the route and to get used to the handling of the large van. Some days or weeks after the date I am asked to provide the name of the driver as the vehicle was caught in a speed trap. Both deny that they were driving the van at that precise point. One may be lying but they simply may not remember!

Now whom do the police prosecute? They will not prosecute both because they cannot punish two people for an offence that can only have been committed by one. I cannot supply the driver's name because it could have been either of them.

Can you believe for one second that the police would prosecute me and endorse my licence? Nonsense!



Edited by Frank Wilkinson 2007-03-12 9:07 AM
usermichele
Posted: 12 March 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 


50005000500100100100100
Location: Rapido ..ask him what size


michele - 2007-03-10 10:39 PM

Ok the whole judicial system is to keep 90% of the people , me and you in check.

So long as the average person has something to lose then the system works ,

Mr and Mrs average keep the show alive.

We insure ourselves, we obey the law in general and all goes well.

The other 10 % do exactly as they wish. They come to notice of the police and are then put before the judicial system , which does absolutely nothing!

They therefore continue as before , each time they come to notice they are given yet another chance.

This keeps solicitors in brand new top of the range BM's and merc's.

judges earn in excess of £100,000 a year......and insurance companies keep putting up the premiums..............

How ever if a burglar was arrested and then bailed from court, if he then committed another burglary whilst on bail, then the insurance company should pay out the house owner and then sue the court !

The government would then very quickly tell the courts to refuse bail.

This will never happen.

The driver should have been arrested to ensure he did not evade prosecution , he should have gone immediately to court. Even if he failed to return later, he would not get back in to the UK with out detection due to the new computerised passports, whereby hopefully he would be wanted on warrant for non appearance.

But once again, racial , domestic and street crime are the governments targets. They are not worried about traffic offences that do not earn revenue, such as gatso cameras

But dont worry I'm sure that the people at the home office that advise the government have our interests at heart, unfortunately they also would not recognise a burglar if he s**t in their back pocket, and as for travelling on the tube in the east end of london after dark they would piss their pants if asked to sort out the drunken yobs.

last person out the country please turn off the lights.........

PS sue/claim against tescos or whoever was operating the vehicle.

Frank how can we get our hands on case law ..............sorry not even if we needed it. My husband speaks from experience someone will take the wrap for it probably your company sec . I know it fly's in the face of belief
but as above . Sorry the systems crap but you or your company are not foreign you see ...Here endeth the sermon you know the rest...

Ps like my new LOGO...

Edited by michele 2007-03-12 9:33 AM
userFrank Wilkinson
Posted: 12 March 2007 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 


Once again Michele, you miss the point. Of course I know that in many cases, the company will be punished - but not for the original offence. And I am adamant that in the example that I give no one would be punished. There are many cases where the police have dropped speeding prosecutions because they could not identify the driver.

What if it is a husband and wife? Three weeks after being caught in a speed trap they cannot remember who was driving at that precise time as they shared driving on a long journey.

No one will be prosecuted unless the police can produce hard evidence as to who was behind the wheel. If the vehicle had caused damage then they can insist on the vehicle's owner (which may be either the husband or the wife) paying for the damage, either themselves or through their insurers but that is  a completely different issue.

I repeat what is a basic tenet of common law. You cannot prosecute someone for something that they have clearly not done. You can, as I said, prosecute them for a separate offence such as witholding evidence or for negligence in not ensuring that their vehicle was roadworthy or their employee was not properly trained, but you cannot prosecute them for the original driving offence.

userMike Chapman
Posted: 12 March 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 
A posting machine

Posts: 360
1001001002525


At the risk of Frank quoting SOTBO at me he is absolutely correct.

The Director or any other member of staff of the company such as the Transport Manager cannot be charged with the traffic offence only for a separate offence of witholding evidence, perverting the cause of justice etc.

As an acting fleet manager I was in this very situation with a company vehicle used as a pool car. We had to question the drivers as to who was driving at the time and all denied it. The case of careless driving was dropped with a caution as to the companies records and control of vehicles and drivers.

Remember that vehicles fitted with Tachograph or any form of Black-box control should enable the company to establish the driver.

Regards,

Mike.
usermichele
Posted: 12 March 2007 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 


50005000500100100100100
Location: Rapido ..ask him what size


well what can I say the LAW IS AN ASS ALWAYS HAS BEEN ....
They make it up as they go along ....where we are my hubby has gone to court with a few of these and that is what has happened ........
I say no more and stand corrected ............
userW3526602
Posted: 12 March 2007 4:12 PM
Subject: RE: BEWARE! supermarket lorries :-(((
 
Epic contributor

Posts: 1079
1000252525
Location: Glynneath South Wales


Hi,

They can prosecute a company for failing to identify the driver, and fine up to £1000. But they cannot endorce a companies driving licence.

602
Jump to page : FirstPrevious 1 2 Last
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread
Jump to forum :


(Delete all cookies set by this site)(Return to Homepage)

Any problems? Contact the administrator