Supertractorman Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Frank, The registered keeper of the vehicle as Michelle says is liable. It is so much easier to find the Driver of trucks due to Tachographs, and we had a harder job looking after the Mechanics van, as anybody used to jump in it, but with a little bit of research we normally found the culprit. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frank Wilkinson Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 michele - 2007-03-10 6:56 PM Frank, Apparently if the Vehicle is reg to a company or a private person they have an obligation under law to name the driver at the time of offence. It is very unusal, but this is maybe the only occasion that the court will convict a person who they know may have not committed an offence (being the driving matter), but if the registered keeper or in a company either the transport or admin officer refuses or cannot give a good reason not to be able to supply the driver details then the court will convict them. Poor record keeping will possibly default to the registered keeper. Records lost in a flood/fire etc would be accepted by the court. They would actually have to accept this as they must prove that the registered keeper is either protecting the actual driver or driving themselves. Bottom line if it was that easy we would all lend them to a mate called frank and we don't know his last name at the pub. hope this helps..........................Malcolm ;-) Yes, but I revert back to my original theme, which you haven't made clear. Can they convict the company secretary of the original offence and endorse his licence if he clearly was not driving?And what if the responsible person at the company does not hold a driver's licence? The whole point is, that you should not be able to convict someone of a driving offence if he was not driving. Convict him of not supplying the evidence and witholding the information yes, I'm all in favour of that, but to convict him for a crime he cannot possibly have commited flies against every tenet of the justice system and of his Human Rights.I say again, I would like to see relevent case law because up to now I have heard nothing of this and as the responsible person in a couple of companies I have not been advised by my trade associations or anyone else that I could possibly lose my own licence because of offences committed by my employees.I know that I have to keep records and supply information to the police but that is completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Sorry frank do not know the case law but as you appreciate there wouldn't be a single coviction in the country for any offence for example fail to stop accident. It seems unfair but if you wake in the morning to find that someone has driven into your camper van and luckily your neighbour has taken the registration . On finding out that the registred keeper is a company do we care who was driving it? ,all we want is someone to pay you wouldn't give a toss if the company secretary had a licenece or not all you would care about is your vehicle . SOoo....... sorry don't know the case law but it defaults to the registered keeper it has got to be fair because they have given permission for the person to drive that van. Ok your sec let's say does not hold a licenec the court might not impose penalty point's but they most probably would fine them, there must be a standard procedure elsewise everyone would reg there car's to there 86 year old mother who hasn't driven since 1968..... Ethel Smith here I come. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Hi again Leah, you might have missed my question so I'll repeat it, is your friend going to take this further? I certainly would. I'd want a written explanation from the area chief constable as to why this driver was let off after causing such a major accident. I'd then be on to my MP and my EMP. D. ----- Don't bash the flash, use the cruise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Hey Frank, you keep records don't you so why would you worry ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertractorman Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usinmyknaus Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frank Wilkinson Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frank Wilkinson Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Chapman Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.