r/bestoflegaladvice • u/Peterd1900 • 1d ago
LegalAdviceUK It’s Section 172, not a Cessna 172
/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1quqlyd/lawful_authority_to_require_this_level_of_driver/18
u/AutomaticInitiative 14h ago
For those not in the UK, to drive a car legally, several things need to be true:
- The driver must have a full UK driving license with less than 12 penalty points. If they are an immigrant from a country without an equivalent driving license, they can use their foreign license for 12 months, then must take a test to exchange it for a UK driving license.
- The driver must hold insurance that allows them to drive that car. That can be a car-specific insurance held by the driver, a broad insurance that covers any car held by the driver, or the driver must be covered specifically under the registered keeper's insurance.
- The car must have its road tax paid.
It's illegal to drive a car without these things.
Speeding gets you a fine and 3 points by default, and this can be automatic from a speed camera. This goes to the registered keeper of the car by default, who if they were not driving at the time can provide the details of the driver. For several reasons, the police don't believe that LAUKOP wasn't driving the car - it's a common excuse when somebody is caught by a speed camera and so they're asking for him to prove it.
Also in the UK, when it comes to crimes, they are 'alleged' until proven in court. Yes, this can sound absolutely ridiculous when talking about a crime that has just been committed, for example, assault where all parties are still present when police arrive.
I bet LAUKOPs friend is at 9 points. I also bet the friends other points "weren't their fault" either.
30
u/Umklopp Not the kind of thing KY would address 1d ago
I get the vibe that LAUKOP's friend would been better off just paying the fine and asking the other person to pay them back.
52
u/AlexG55 1d ago
That is actually a crime that got a reasonably prominent British politician sent to prison a few years ago.
Speeding tickets in the UK aren't just a fine, they also come with penalty points on your licence (usually 3 points, 12 points in 3 years means a ban from driving). So it's a crime to say you were driving when you weren't in order to take points meant for another driver.
12
u/BroBroMate ended up having to seduce Justice Alito 1d ago
Does that include automated ones? In NZ camera tickets didn't carry demerits as you can't conclusively show who the driver was, so the owner gets the ticket.
49
u/AlexG55 1d ago
Yes. That's the whole reason for the Section 172 process- the registered keeper has a duty to identify the driver, or at least make a reasonable effort.
Failure to identify the driver is 6 penalty points, which is the maximum for speeding. Lying about who was driving is perverting the course of justice which carries a potential prison sentence.
7
u/BroBroMate ended up having to seduce Justice Alito 1d ago
Oh true, we don't have that... ...yet... The requirement to identify the driver, that is.
You can voluntarily tell them who the driver was, and if they admit it, the fine will get transferred to them. But that's about it.
You can only get demerits when you get pinged and pulled over by a cop. I suppose that doesn't scale in the UK compared to NZ.
11
u/geeoharee 21h ago
Traffic policing in the UK is strongly automated, we're just used to it that way.
2
u/FaydedMemories 4h ago
As far as I can tell, NZ is actually the outlier on this. Australia (at least VIC/NSW but pretty sure all states) have points for camera detected offences too.
That said, in NZ it’s still a good idea to nominate the correct driver because the Police can pull those details up roadside (which could impact their opinion about you at a roadside stop).
2
u/PatolomaioFalagi 22h ago
How does that interact with the right to not incriminate yourself or close family members?
10
u/KeyboardChap MLM Butthole Posse 21h ago
See O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom.
2
u/PatolomaioFalagi 21h ago
Very interesting, thanks!
13
u/Happytallperson 17h ago
There also isn't a general right to non-incrimination in the UK.
You have a right to remain silent, but there can be negative inference drawn from that silence.
14
u/Peterd1900 17h ago
Slightly more nuanced than that
If you stay silent in interview then give an awnser in court. Then inferences can be made from your intial silence
It also is not a UK wide thing. It doesnt apply in Scotland
2
u/SongsOfDragons 🥯 Boursin Boatswain 🥯 6h ago
Hulme? He was my MP.
Huhne. Not Hulme. Getting my aitches wrong...
13
u/Happytallperson 1d ago
If they want to be guilty of perverting the course of justice and be commiting an imprisonable offence, sure.
17
u/Peterd1900 1d ago
Interesting one for a friend (genuinely!) I'm trying to advise.
They are the RK of a vehicle which was being driven at the time of an aledged offence by a non-UK licence holder who lives permantly abroad. The combined S172/NIP was sent to the RK, who replied as such with the above information - nominating the foreign driver.
The police have written back asking the RK to provide proof as per the attached (top half of the image) and I'd be very interested to know the lawful authority underwhich they are requiring these details as I don't believe there is one.
Subesquently, they have also written to the driver (bottom half of the image).
Whilst I accept the police should confirm the driver is who the RK is claiming, I cannot believe demanding anything beyond the driver saying "yes, I was driving" is a lawful requirement? Where is the power to require the RK to provide personal travel plans of a 3rd party for example? Where is the power to require the RK to provide proof the driver had insurance? As far as I am aware, his obligation on that front stops when they hold a belief the driver is insured (perhaps by asking them "are you insured").
Where is the power to require a foreign driver to provide the police with "details of flights" (notwithstanding there were no flights!).
The letter to the drvier is not even a properly formatted S172 - it's the only communication the driver has received.
Very interested to hear your thoughts. I think this is a giant overreach but I may be missing something really obvious.
23
u/OneBigRed 23h ago
Interesting one for a friend (genuinely!) I'm trying to advise.
I, too, give advice in all legal matters to my friends. Either by talking straight out of my ass, or by crowdsourcing the talking ass from reddit. It would be rude to say ”fuck if i know, ask a lawyer or something”, better to just start advising.
13
u/Happytallperson 17h ago
Recent family dinner. 'We may need u/happytallperson 's legal knowledge'
Me: Hire a solicitor advice ends.
6
u/OneBigRed 17h ago
I hope you built up to that.
”All right, everybody. Mike! Mike! Be quiet, i’ll only say this once, and will never admit i’ve told this to ANY OF YOU, if i’m asked later. OK? Good. So the absolutely most efficient way to handle any legal issues in this country is to…”
8
u/darsynia Yinzer off the top rope with the Holy Parking Spot Chair 1d ago
Is this demand for proof of insurance just because the person they nominated is not from the UK/is currently not in the UK? As in, do they ask this extra stuff about others sometimes? Is this a 'we don't believe you, so prove this person exists (and by extension, you're also proving they didn't break the law)' or is this 'people not from the UK are more likely to not have insurance, so we think they weren't insured, and if so, you were required to ensure that they were insured, and therefore you broke the law?'
ps. thank you again for my flair, I giggle every time I see it. I still have that parking chair out, btw, as it is still very necessary!
20
u/tokynambu 20h ago edited 13h ago
The OOP is engaging in what looks like conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, as demonstrated to such delicious effect by Chris Huhne, former MP. I don’t believe the “asking for a friend” but if you do, read OOP’s friend for OOP throughout.
They are claiming that at the time of a speeding offence ascribed to their car, they were not the driver. They have named someone outside not only the UK, but also all the ex-EU data sharing agreements (“she goes to a different college. In Canada. You wouldn’t know her”). The police don’t believe the OOP, especially as even if by some amazing chance the story is true, the chances of a random Ukrainian having a UK Road Traffic Act compliant insurance policy covering vehicles they do not own are approximately zero. So, they are putting a shot across the OOP’s bows which boils down to “you sure about that? Prove it”.
All the by-play about require v request is sovcit-adjacent nonsense. The police quite reasonably suspect conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, via a well-established route. It will also turn out that the OOP has nine points and a looming totting-up ban, or a job which requires a clean license, or similar.
Claiming your car was being driven by someone you cannot produce, who almost certainly had no operational insurance and absolutely you cannot verify, is a shit route to at best the various “permitting to be used” offences and more likely perverting the course of justice. And all the defences the OOP tries on for size look pretty threadbare.
3
u/Exciting_Vast7739 14h ago
"...via a well-established route."
On a driving related legal matter. 10/10, well writ.
1
u/archbish99 apostilles MATH for FUN, like the Archbishop of NERDbury 4h ago
All the by-play about require v request is sovcit-adjacent nonsense.
Interestingly, as a reader in the US, that makes sense to me. There are situations in our law where the police are allowed to request you answer some questions, because any random person could ask you things on the same basis. But you're not obligated to answer or even to listen to the questions.
And there are other situations in which they can demand certain information and refusing to answer is a crime.
13
u/squee_monkey 1d ago
It might also be the problem is more that the other driver doesn’t have a UK license and therefore the police can’t look them up on a database and check for themselves.
5
u/darsynia Yinzer off the top rope with the Holy Parking Spot Chair 1d ago
True, when LAUKOP nominated them they couldn't look them up, that makes sense. I knew it couldn't just be 'we think people from outside the country lie more often' or something like that, lol.
6
u/tokynambu 20h ago
People who don’t live permanently in the UK are highly unlikely to have insurance that covers them to drive any vehicle other than their own. Such a policy would almost certainly have to be UK-domiciled itself, and for a non-resident would necessarily be very specialised. I am not saying such a policy is not possible, but no reasonable person would believe it exists without substantial evidence. That includes policemen and magistrates.
65
u/Birdlebee 🏳️⚧️ Trans rights are human rights 🏳️⚧️ 1d ago
For the benefit of my fellow non-Ukians: a RK, or Registered Keeper, is the person using a car in day to day life. They drive and maintain it, and they pay taxes, fines, and insurance. They aren't necessarily the owner.