Another S172 Question | Legal matters | Back Room Forum

What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks

Tue 4 Feb 2020 18:50

Another S172 Question - Bromptonaut

My daughter works for an arm of the NHS. As such, from time to time, she has a hire car for work travel arranged through a contract with a large and well known hire company.

She had a car booked from midday on 22 January to undertake a trip to an work site in SW England. For operational reasons the hire company delivered it to her home in NE Wales at around 10pm on the previous day - 21 January. It was left on road outside her house. She remembers being in bed and hearing the rental company guys outside and keys being dropped through her letterbox.

She left the car there until hire formally commenced and then drove to her destination and did whatever was needed. The car was then either returned or collected.

Today she has had a S172 from the North Wales Police requiring her to name the driver as vehicle was caught at 58 in a 50 by average speed camera at 21:56 on 21 January. Westbound and on obvious route from hire co site to her home. Obviously the initial notice has gone to the hire company and they've named her.

She's obliged to return the S172 and will do so with a suitable explanation as to why she cannot name the driver. She will also involve the contracts folks at work to take in up with hire company.

Is there anything else she should do and, given that those receiving S172 notices will, perhaps rightly, be hard bitten sceptics is there anything else she should do or be prepared for?

Edited by Bromptonaut on 04/02/2020 at 18:55

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 4 Feb 2020 20:02

Another S172 Question - Middleman

Yes she must respond to the S172 notice.

There are two classes of recipients of S172 notices: the “person keeping the vehicle“ and “any other person”. She should explain that she was not the person keeping the vehicle (it was hardly handed over to her properly and in any case the alleged offence took place before the car reached her house). As such she is not under an obligation to name the driver. Instead she has a duty to provide “…any information which it is in her power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.”

She needs to explain the situation exactly as you have and provide the hire company’s details. They will already have it as no doubt they received the NIP and S172 notice that caused them to name your daughter, but she should do so nonetheless.

These situations can sometimes have a habit of becoming a bit messy. You can understand it when the police get two recipients of S172 requests naming each other. I have seen one or two instances where the police prosecute both and leave the court to sort it out. Hopefully this won’t happen and common sense will prevail on the part of the hire people. Do let us know what happens.

Edited by Middleman on 04/02/2020 at 20:03

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 5 Feb 2020 14:48

Another S172 Question - Bromptonaut

Middleman, thank you for that very helpful response which I have passed on.

She has spoken to the contracts people at work and they have in turn advised the rental company of the facts.

My daughter will return the S172 stating that she was not the driver and she cannot name the person involved. She will however say believes him/her to be an employee of Bighire PLC at their Chester depot. She will go on to recite the timings of hire/delivery and recollection of hearing the car arrive and keys put through letterbox.

A copy of the documentation she was sent confirming the hire will be appended.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Wed 5 Feb 2020 21:49

Another S172 Question - HGV ~ P Valentine

I will try not to repeat, but agree with what you have been told before, I would however suggest additional stuff.

If the car has a sat nav, or the person who done the delivery did then it should be time and date stamped, so you could ask whomever needs to to check that, on the same vein if you have a camera that picked up the vehicle being delivered that is time and date stamped that is also good to be used.

it is clear from your explanation the del driver was doing the speeding and is trying to avoid the fine/points on their licence, if it can be proved that your daughter was somewhere else at the time then ask them to make a statement to that effect.

I have in the past been disappointed in the police to say the least, and have come to expect no common sense from them at all, or intelligence.

I wish you luck and hope it all works out for your daughter.

Can you come back and let us know how it turned out.

Edited by A Driver since 1988, HGV 2006 on 05/02/2020 at 21:52

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 6 Feb 2020 08:30

Another S172 Question - Bromptonaut

If the car has a sat nav, or the person who done the delivery did then it should be time and date stamped, so you could ask whomever needs to to check that, on the same vein if you have a camera that picked up the vehicle being delivered that is time and date stamped that is also good to be used.

The time is not in issue. It's crystal clear from the average speed sensing equipment.

it is clear from your explanation the del driver was doing the speeding and is trying to avoid the fine/points on their licence, if it can be proved that your daughter was somewhere else at the time then ask them to make a statement to that effect.

Probably cock up rather than conspiracy. I think the NIP went to company's main office, not the Chester depot. Having seen correspondence between NHS contracts people and hire co they seem to accept that they went for Pavlovian response of naming hirer.

We're going to try and draft up a response over the weekend.

It's occurred to me subsequently that I need to check whether the hire co used S172 to name D as driver or whether they assert keeper liability transferred to the hirer via the Road Traffic Offenders Act.

I'll keep this thread updated.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 6 Feb 2020 09:22

Another S172 Question - concrete

The timing is the key to all this I think. The car not being in her possession at the time of the offence proves her innocence. However the hire company driver may not tell the truth. I do think though that he will have completed the paperwork to reflect a delivery time. This should be accurate because at the time he had no knowledge of his/her offence. All part of life's complications which are a test of endurance sometimes. I am sure she will win through and the truth will out.

My daughter recently had a run in with the Dartford Crossing administration. Despite having an account, and being a serving police officer they insisted she hadn't paid. What a muddle that was. Life can be so distracting at times, but all part of the rich pattern.

Good luck. Concrete

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 6 Feb 2020 22:43

Another S172 Question - Miniman777

Surely there is at least one ANPR camera on the route driven by the delivery driver and therefore pinpoint his position in relation to the speeds camera? If the employee is passing this off to the hirer, then that is a breach of trust and in theory a disclipinary matter for the car hire company.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 6 Feb 2020 22:56

Another S172 Question - bathtub tom

ANPR cameras probably wouldn't identify the driver.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Thu 6 Feb 2020 23:00

Another S172 Question - Middleman

Surely there is at least one ANPR camera on the route driven by the delivery driver and therefore pinpoint his position in relation to the speeds camera? If the employee is passing this off to the hirer, then that is a breach of trust and in theory a disclipinary matter for the car hire company.

Very true. But a bit academic to the question. Brompton's daughter simply has to provide any information she has which might lead to the identification of the driver. There is no way, that I can see, that she can be considered to be "the person keeping the vehicle" as it was simply dumped outside her front door. She cannot be responsible for knowing who was driving at the time of the offence in those circumstances. The ball needs to be put back into the hire company's court.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 7 Feb 2020 10:28

Another S172 Question - Bromptonaut

Middleman,

Speeding appears to be a fixed penalty offence under Part III and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. In that case can Bighire PLC use Section 66 to put the hirer (ie my daughter) into the shoes of the owner?

I'm inclined to think they can and we are drafting a reply to the S172 notice including a clear statement that no hire agreement was in place at date time of offence. She can then go on to spell out details of the hire, the delivery etc, and append a copy of the hire agreement.

She then states that she cannot name the driver but that to best of her knowledge/belief it would be the person who delivered the car as the location/timings tally.

I'd be grateful for any observations.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 7 Feb 2020 11:19

Another S172 Question - Middleman

In that case can Bighire PLC use Section 66 to put the hirer (ie my daughter) into the shoes of the owner?

Section 66:

Hired vehicles.

(1)This section applies where—

(a)a notice to owner has been served on a vehicle-hire firm,

The hire company has not received a "notice to owner". They have received a S172 request for information and this is sent to either the Registered Keeper (usually in the first instance) or somebody else who is nominated and who becomes either the "person keeping the vehicle" or "any other person", depending on the circumstances they are in. Ownership does not come into it. The responsibility your daughter has is under S172 RTA and what responsibility she has rests on which of the two classes of recipients she is. As a last resort she may need a court to rule on that point but common sense should prevail before then.

S66 (and the preceeding sections to which it applies) refers to "Fixed Penalty Notices" (FPNs). Speeding, when dealt with by way of a Fixed Penalty does not involve an FPN. It concludes with a "Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty". In fact S66 needs to be read in conjunction with the previous sections (from 61 onwards). S 61 says this:

Where on any occasion a constable or a vehicle examiner has reason to believe in the case of any stationary vehicle that a fixed penalty offence is being or has on that occasion been committed in respect of it, he may fix a fixed penalty notice in respect of the offence to the vehicle unless the offence appears to him to involve obligatory endorsement.

So you can see that the sections refer to Fixed Penalty notices being affixed to stationary vehicles (for parking or construction & use type offences) and is anyway not applicable to offences which carry an obligatory endorsement (which both speeding and S172 offences do).

You don't need to get involved with the statements that are required by S66. Your daughter needs to major of the fact that she was not the person keeping the vehicle, does not therefore have to provide the driver's details (which she obviously cannot anyway) and that she simply provides all the "information that is in her power to give that may lead to the identification of the driver".

Hope this helps.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 7 Feb 2020 13:30

Another S172 Question - HGV ~ P Valentine

I think once your daughter fills in the form and states she was in bed at the time it was delivered, and directs them to go to the hire company, giving name, address and phone number of this company, clearly stating it was the person who delivered it that was speeding it should go away, but keep records, if they made this mistake then they might make another, also I think that perhaps the driver who delivered it might be trying it on.

It might be worth going to the company and getting angry with them face to face, or calling them and telling them what happened, in either case to see if they will accept it was their driver and not your daughter.

Good Luck.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 7 Feb 2020 13:39

Another S172 Question - Middleman

It might be worth going to the company and getting angry with them face to face, or calling them and telling them what happened,

Whilst always bearing in mind that it is the police that your daughter needs to convince of her case, not the hire company. You could go round and knock seven bells out of the boss of the hire company, but the S172 notice will still be in your daughter's in tray when you get back.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 7 Feb 2020 15:32

Another S172 Question - concrete

If it is true that no hire agreement was in place then your daughter cannot be identified as 'the keeper' for the purpose of the NPI. However the timing is the key. If the paperwork states that the hire begun at 10pm or when the vehicle was delivered and the keys handed over, then that should be later than the actual offence. Ergo it cannot possibly be your daughter. It seems that you are having to do the leg work here for the police. If the paperwork is accurate then the police should act on that after your daughter has replied with all the information available to her. The timing is the only proof she has that she had not taken charge of the vehicle before the time of the offence. The police should really be investigating this properly as they have access to all ANPR cameras in the surrounding area. North Wales police have a reputation for pursuing traffic offences. In my view over zealously, but that is a huge focus for them, so they should be keen to solve this mystery. Good luck.

Cheers Concrete

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 7 Feb 2020 18:11

Another S172 Question - Miniman777

Hence my previous comment on APNR. I know it won’t identify driver but will, if a succession of cameras are checked, show a time line around the moment of the offence which was prior to drop off time.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 7 Feb 2020 18:46

Another S172 Question - Middleman

To cover all the bases the OP's daughter should consider her responsibilities if (and it's a big "if") it is considered she is indeed "the person keeping the vehicle". In that event she has an obligation to "...give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police." However, there is a statutory defence if charged with failing to do so. This says "A person shall not be guilty of an offence....if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."

So, to cover that eventuality I suggest, Bromptonaut, that your daughter contacts the hire company and asks for the details of the driver who delivered the car. If they decline then that's really all the diligence she can exercise.

All the above regarding ANPR cameras etc.is all well and good, but the OP's daughter does not have access to that material and it would be beyond "reasonable diligence" to expect her to obtain it. And even if she did, such images will not identify the driver to her even if the photographs were exceedingly and unusually revealing. All she will see is somebody's face but she would have no idea who the driver is.

Edited by Middleman on 07/02/2020 at 18:49

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Sun 9 Feb 2020 15:30

Another S172 Question - HGV ~ P Valentine

It is annoying having to do the work of the police, and in an ideal world you would not have to, but from a personal point of view only, I do not trust them. ( I did once )

All valid points from the other advice you have been given, but you might have to be proactive on this matter, if for no other reason then just so you can feel you have done something to help her ( I hope you don't find that comment offensive in any way as I am sure you have already done all you can )

PLEASE come back and tell us how it worked out, I sometimes hire vehicles and this could happen to anyone.

Edited by A Driver since 1988, HGV 2006 on 09/02/2020 at 15:32

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Fri 2 Oct 2020 11:24

Another S172 Question - Bromptonaut

Just remembered this thread and asked my daughter if she ever heard any more after returning the S172. She says she had an acknowledgment to the effect they were looking into it but heard nothing more.

Given the facts were clear cut I'd imagine the focus went back to the hire company and its employee.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Mon 5 Oct 2020 15:41

Another S172 Question - concrete

Good result for her Bromptonaut. Looks like the hire company were either trying to shift blame onto your daughter in the expectation she would cave in and pay up or they were too bone idle to examine the paperwork properly, otherwise they would have seen it must have been their driver who committed the offence. Given the timings it could not have been anyone else. The fact North Wales police focus on driving offences they seem to have come up with the correct result.

Cheers Concrete

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Tue 6 Oct 2020 17:23

Another S172 Question - Middleman

Correct result. Thanks for letting us know.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Ask Honest John

Sell Your Car

Real MPG

Fuel Calculator