Slightly weird one...

[AMG-Al]

otherwise, you would have people running around accusing others of all sorts and getting away with it.

it was spx !!!

 

[219]

Well I sold my old car on 12th August, to a motor trader, and promptly sent the yellow slip to the DVLA who signed for said slip (send special delivery along with tax for a refund) on the 13th August.

I've just received - 20 days later - a Notice of Intended Prosecution due to the chap who bought it off me having been speeding.

Now, like a complete and utter retard I didn't make a copy of the yellow slip before sending it in to the DVLA, so I don't know the details of the buyer any longer - all I have is his first name, Mobile number, and email address.

I have two questions:

1. Is it normal for the DVLA to take this long to not update their records with the new keeper details?

2. Is there any way of me contacting the DVLA to find out the details entered on to the yellow slip that I signed and the motor trader filled in so that I can provide this information to the police?

Thanks in advance

It is a defence that you were no longer the registered keeper of the car at the time of the offence - simply return the s172 request stating this and that should be the end of the matter .

If you have documentation evidencing that you traded the vehicle in to a trader , and proof of receipt of the notification to DVLA , send photocopies of these in support - that will be the end of the matter .

It is not your responsibility to know who the new keeper is since you transferred the vehicle to a motor trader ( hence sending off the yellow slip and not the full document as required if you transfer directly to another owner ) , naming him will be sufficient . The authorities can either chase the trader for the new keeper's details or pursue DVLA for them .

 

[grober]

Think the problem is that the poster has proof that the post office delivered a "document" to the DVLA on said date. Unfortunately it could have contained a Tesco's shopping list. Without a copy of the contents [ always --always---always-- assume "officialdom " will lose any documents you send them] and without the name and address of the trader who bought it and a signed bill of sale as corroboration he's on a sticky wicket. My guess would be that if the offence occurred 20 days after the sale it's within the realms of possibility the trader himself was the driver at the time the offence was committed- hence the police wishing to trace them.

 

[flango]

Innocent until proven guilty applies to ALL UK law. DM is correct they have to prove it was you driving, there is no requirement for you to prove you were not. A simple return of the NIP saying car was sold on x date is enough, there is no liability on you to tell them who you sold it to, that is down to the police to chase with the DVLA you don't have to waste your time on it.

 

[anubis]

The offence was doing 65 in a 50 zone on the M4, jct 19-20, so it was an average speed camera zone - these don't take a picture of the driver do they?

I'll chase up the DVLA tomorrow as I've tracked the special delivery letter to them and they did indeed sign for it but that was nearly a month ago and I've had no cheque for the tax and of course now this so they've obviously left it on a pile somewhere...

Unfortunately I don't have a receipt of the change of ownership as I'm an absolute numpty...

I sure hope I can get a straight answer from the DVLA otherwise it looks like I'm going on a driver improvement course lol just what I need...

Thanks for the help / tips though guys

This exact thing happened to me in December last year. Same junction too. Sent the nip back saying I wasn't the driver and that the car had recently been sold, heard nothing since. DVLA will catch up with their records in time.

 

[izools]

Sweet,

DVLA have the details, sending off a V888 to obtain a copy of the yellow slip so that I can forward it to the bill

Thing is I've driven from Exeter to London at night time a few times, it's really really really easy to not get done for speeding - I don't understand how some people manage it.

It's not like I stick to the speed limit the whole distance either (let's be honest, sticking to 70 on the motorway is more often dangerous than sensible), I'm just not an idiot about it.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

Good to read that the OP has got this one sorted.

WRT the law relating to responsibility for speeding fines, I found the following from a solicitor:

Before a court hearing, the defendant is entitled to see copies of all the evidence, such as photographs, which would be used by the prosecution to prove its case.
Following an apparent speed camera offence, the police have 14 days thereafter in which to send a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) to the registered keeper of the vehicle. This is usually sent by standard post and, if it fails to arrive in time, the case may not proceed, however if the prosecution procedures have been correctly followed, a defence based on that alone may not succeed.
As part of the NIP, the registered keeper will be asked to name who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. The penalty for failing to give the information is a fine and three points on the keeper's licence.
There are two defences available to anyone failing to provide information: one is reasonable diligence' i.e. that the vehicle keeper has been reasonably diligent in trying to discover the identity of the driver and the other is for the keeper to have more than the statutory 28 days to notify the authorities of the driver if he or she is away for more than that time.

So in the OP's case, had it not already been satisfactorily resolved, he would have been cleared of responsibility anyway because he didn't know who the driver was and would have been reasonably diligent in providing as much information as possible for the police to determine who it was.

 

[izools]

... and would have been reasonably diligent in providing as much information as possible for the police to determine who it was.

I even have a photo of the chap

... Just not his name

 

[E55BOF]

No, only Truvelo are car front facing. Gatsos, gantries etc. are all of the rear of the car

The yellow gantry-mounted average speed cameras do not detect a vehicle at all; they only detect the number plate. They can do it either from in front or behind. If you drive without number plates, you can safely ignore them, but having no plates on your car may lead to other problems...

I've always thought Truvelos were very un-English; at least with Gatso cameras, you have a sporting chance of seeing the damn thing and slowing down in time...

 

[markjay]

With parking offences the respoibiliy lies with the registered keeper not the driver, but then parking offences were de-criminalised some years ago.

 

[martyz]

Speed camera? Photo evidence should prove it was not you.

The offence was doing 65 in a 50 zone on the M4, jct 19-20, so it was an average speed camera zone - these don't take a picture of the driver do they?

No, only Truvelo are car front facing. Gatsos, gantries etc. are all of the rear of the car.

I even have a photo of the chap

Who took it?

 

[tonyc280]

Exactly the same thing happened to me for my post Merc Vectra. All the paper work was done properly then 15 days later i get a speeding fine. Then a red light camera fine then a parking summons then another speeding fine. These were all fines the week after i had sold the car. You wont believe how many letters and anger and heart attacks i had in defending myself. I even went to the police and made two statements to say i had sold my car the week before and showed them all the letters. Its the last time i ever sell a car and not keep the new owners details. Lessons learned.

 

[rf065]

Innocent until proven guilty applies to ALL UK law.

I would argue that if given a fixed penalty notice by the police, it is then up to you to prove your innocence or you will be found guilty in court without the police having to prove anything other than saying they saw you commit the offence. If you cannot provide proof of your innocence, you will not win.

Russ

 

[cinek]

I would argue that if given a fixed penalty notice by the police, it is then up to you to prove your innocence or you will be found guilty in court without the police having to prove anything other than saying they saw you commit the offence. If you cannot provide proof of your innocence, you will not win.

Russ

Not at all.

By all means, you can provide any mitigating circumstances you can genuinely back up with evidence, but...

Police will need to provide a full report on the events proceeding to the offence, what were they doing, what equipment they used, when was it calibrated, what legislation was breached, etc.

One of most commonly used 'tricks' by motor lawyers, is to quote TSRGD ( traffic signs regulations and general directions 2002). This can help getting off speeding, parking, overtaking, etc. offences if you know what to use and when.

 

[rf065]

Police will need to provide a full report on the events proceeding to the offence, what were they doing, what equipment they used, when was it calibrated, what legislation was breached, etc.

Not if they say you were using a phone while driving, no equipment needed, only their opinion, even when mistaken.

Russ

 

[cinek]

Not if they say you were using a phone while driving, no equipment needed, only their opinion, even when mistaken.

Russ

Well,they do represent and enforce the law, so of course their word will carry more weight than the one of a ordinary citizen.

It still doesn't change the fact, that in criminal law it will always be down to prosecution to prove the guilt beyond any, reasonable doubt.

Civil cases, well, thats where all no win no fee b*******t originate from. Burden of proof, existing precedents and tort of negligence will decide which way the case will sway.