speed camera

[dachse]

My wife is disabled and gets a car from Motability. It is registered in her name although she cannot drive and both me and our son are authorised drivers. She has recently received a speed camera fine notification and is being asked to state who was driving at the time. The trouble is we don't know whether it was me or my son as we both drove along that road within minutes. The road is a one way road and i was driving the first time through, I picked him up and he drove as he was dropping me off later. We then went round the one way system again, neither of us noticed a flash. So where do we stand, we genuinely dont know who was driving and the authorities are threatening court action if my wife does not say who was driving. Any advice?????

[jocasta]

If you cant specify who was driving the registered keeper will get the fine and points. How many people do you think use that excuse ? (not saying you are being dishonest, but other people are). I would say that its probably best for one of you to own up, have a think about who pays the least insurance, less NCB to lose etc etc.

btw, you could try to fight this in court but there are no guarantees and even if you win, you may still have to pay costs..

sorry!

[dachse]

OK so let them fine the registered keeper, as for the points, she doesn't have a licence as she is registered blind!!!

[homer75]

If you don't know who was driving don't just roll over to this one. Your wife should reply just inside the deadline stating that she does not know who was driving. Check out this website and you will find good information www.safespeed.org.uk

Good luck

[homer75]

PS check here too www.pepipoo.com

[jake-the-peg]

They should be able to send you a copy of the picture taken by the camera. Depending on the conditions this may help you distiguish who was driving.

You should call or write to them explain this and ask for a copy of the picture. It show that you are making reasonable efforts to discover who was driving at the time.

I don't know if the law has changed on this one but I believe that they can't fine you if you genuinely don't know who was driving. However if they feel that you're trying it on you can get a fine of up to �1,000

[JudgeJ]

Your wife should respond to this request and put forward the argument you have outlined. The Chief Constable’s office will have to take a view and will almost certainly proceed to lay information for a summons to be issued under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The same outcome will occur if your wife does not respond to the request at all.

The case will be heard in the magistrates’ court for the area where the alleged speeding offence took place. She can choose not to attend or even to respond to the summons – in which case the prosecution evidence will be heard in her absence. She will almost certainly be convicted. If she is will be liable to a fine and three penalty points. As you say, the matter of points is academic to her, so she may choose this option.

Alternatively she can choose to attend court and argue that she cannot supply the details for the reason that you have outlined. As Jake said, your wife should not be convicted if she can show that she genuinely did not know who was driving. However, the burden of proof shifts to her to show this. The magistrates will listen to her evidence and decide accordingly. I would say that she has a good chance that they will find in her favour, but the services of a solicitor may be a worthwhile investment (she will not be entitled to legal aid).

On a wider note, your wife should not be the registered keeper of this vehicle. The registered keeper should be the person who keeps it and uses it most. (The question of ownership does not arise). This is to avoid precisely the sort of situation you describe. Either you or your son should become the registered keeper, but this will mean, of course, that one of you will receive any similar requests for driver information in the future, and will be open to prosecution if you fail to respond.

[kempie]

JudgeJ - you write that the 'registered keeper should be the person who keeps (the car) and uses it most' but you should have made clear that this is your opinion and is not supported by legislation, which is inadvertently implied since it follows your explanation of legal procedure.

[JudgeJ]

Well, kempie, you’re quite right. That is my opinion. However, I feel it must be enshrined in law somewhere (probably within the Vehicle Excise & Registration Act, 1994) but I must say I cannot find it. If it were not stated, it would have to be determined case by case. The alternative would be that we could all register our vehicles in other people’s names!

[kempie]

There is no compunction for the Registered Keeper of a vehicle to be a licensed driver or have anything to do with the vehicle other than to accept liability for the legalities e.g. registration, VED (SORN), MOT etc.

In an ideal world there should be a direct link between keeper and driver however the law allows this loophole to exist and if everybody were to exploit it, i.e. register an unlicensed keeper, drivers could avoid points for speeding.

[dachse]

Thanks to all for their suggestions. I am going to see the actual picture to see if I can determine who was driving but they have already sent me a scanned copy and it does not look very helpful.

The car is registered in my wifes name by Motability as she is entitled to it through her disability (wheelchair user and partially sighted). It would not be allowed to be registered in anyone elses name under the Motability scheme.

[dachse]

Actually the question of who the car is registered to is irrelevant in this case. If it was in my name and I received the notice I would still not be certain whether it was me or my son driving when we both drove past the same camera in the car a few minutes apart. (read my original post)

[kempie]

dachse - I did read your original post and fully understand the situation you describe, however I was establishing for the benefit of JudgeJ that there is currently no law which specifies the link between driver/owner/registered keeper which he feels must exist.

[dachse]

Yeah Kempie, thanks mate. My comments were probably more aimed at judgej.

[ccollins108]

I know this posting is way after the event so, if you're reading this Dachse, has anything happened? The first posting by Jocasta was COMPLETETLY wrong, by the way. They cannot just prosecute the registered keeper, if you don't know who was driving. If you (or anyone else) has been caught on a Gatso camera, which is not capable of identifying the driver then, essentially, they cannot prosecute you. ONLY the person who was driving and, hence, committed the offence can be prosecuted.

As a result, you can give this information to the authorities - that you honestly don't know - The only thing to beware of is that this approach has been used as a 'ruse', in the past, by people to 'get off', so you could still be taken to court, in which case you could be at a judge's mercy - I don't have any direct experience of what happens after this point.

In order to prevent a case from reaching this point, I have, in the past, provided the details of a driver from overseas, knowing that this cannot/will not be pursued by the police, firstly, because they cannot prove otherwise and, secondly, they no jurisdiction outside of this country.