"Who was driving your car - - - - (half a year ago)"

[supermick]

I got a letter from them asking who was driving my car about six months earlier.

 

 

I replied that,

after such a long time,

 

 

I hadn't a clue.

 

 

In my absence,

they took me to court,

 

 

gave me 6 points and a fine of over £700.

 

 

=== Are they allowed to wait such a long time before asking?

[Aretnap]

There is no time limit on an s172 requirement, so yes they are allowed to wait as long as they like before asking. However there's a defence available if it was not possible, with reasonable diligence, for you to identify the driver. Whether or not that's the case is something you'd have to convince the court of - but certainly it's a lot more believable if you claim not to remember who was driving six months after the event rather than a few days after the event.

 

That said, having been charged, you would still have to enter a not guilty plea, and then turn up in court to argue your point, in order to avoid conviction. So did you enter a plea by post, and why didn't you go to court?

[supermick]

There is no time limit on an s172 requirement, so yes they are allowed to wait as long as they like before asking. However there's a defence available if it was not possible, with reasonable diligence, for you to identify the driver. Whether or not that's the case is something you'd have to convince the court of - but certainly it's a lot more believable if you claim not to remember who was driving six months after the event rather than a few days after the event.

 

That said, having been charged, you would still have to enter a not guilty plea, and then turn up in court to argue your point, in order to avoid conviction. So did you enter a plea by post, and why didn't you go to court?

 

I didn't know what was going on. I sent an explanatory letter explaining that I thought I had been cloned twice before. (Cloners are only successful if they behave and don't attract attention, so it is surprising). This may or may not have been shown in court. They allege that the vehicle was doing 37 mph in a 30 zone. i believe that a 10% tolerance on measuring equipment is allowed (is this so?). This means that the speed camera could have been inaccurate and the car could have been doing 33.3mph

[Aretnap]

Doing 33.3mph would still be an offence. The original reason for the 10%+2 "tolerance" was to allow for inaccuracy of older speed detection equipment, so there was no doubt that those people charged were really exceeding the 30 limit. However you haven't been convicted of speeding, you've been convicted of failing to identify the driver. So whether or not your car was actually speeding is irrelevant at this point.

 

Very little court time is spent dealing with people who don't turn up - the bottom line is that if you don;t appear you'll be convicted in your absence, probably on the nod. The fact that you were sent a requirement to identify the driver and didn't unambiguously provide a name in response is enough to convict you, in the absence of someone to put a case for the defence.

 

Your options now are essentially (1) take it on the chin or (2) appeal to the Crown Court, if you're still within the 21 day window since the conviction to do so. Appealing will cost you a few hundred pounds more if you lose, so whether it's worthwhile depends on whether or not you have a strong case. If several people use your car regularly, there was no particular reason for the journey to be memorable (was it close to home, or a few hundred miles away on a place you've only visited once, alone?), and there's no other way you could have worked out who was driving then you have a fighting chance of getting it overturned. On the other hand if you're the only person who uses the car and the only reason you think it might not have been you is that you have a vague worry that your registration might have been cloned, it's probably a long shot.

[supermick]

Yes, but doesn't the 10% tolerance applies to all speed measuring gear and that includes the car's speedometer?

[Aretnap]

No.

[CrappoMan]

No.

Correct.

 

A speedo must never show less than the actual speed, and must never show more than 110% of actual speed + 6.25mph. It's contained in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/25/schedule/3/made

 

That means that if you were actually doing 37mph, your speedo could have indicated anywhere from 37 to 47mph.

 

The margin of error is never in your favour.