Company failing to name / nominate driver, quotes image
"Very professional and expert advice, I would most definitely recommend to any one that needs professional help.

I am very proud of Patterson Law, due to the amount of effort they put not only in my case but every case they have in hand.

One of a kind, and i think that there is only one company in the whole of England that has such expertise on motoring Law.

The future is bright, the future is Patterson Law...."

Company failing to name / nominate driver, image 1 Company failing to name / nominate driver, image 2
This website is optimised to work with the most recent version of your browser software. make sure your browser is always updated to view the internet as it's supposed to be seen. Internet Explorer | Firefox

Company failing to name / nominate driver

 

Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988.

The road traffic offence of failing to name / nominate the driver of a vehicle at the time of an alleged offence can be alleged against a company as well as against an invidual.

This normally happens if the vehicle is a company car and the company is the registered owner at the DVLA.

If the company is asked to name the driver at the time of an alleged road traffic offence and the company fails in its duty to do so then the company can be summonsed to court. The company will face a hefty fine unless it can defend the allegation.

Penalty Points

If a company is summonsed to court for this offence then there is no risk of penalty points unless an individual within the company is being held personally responsible.

The prosecution can try and show that the failure to name the driver was due to the negligence or conivence of an idvidual within the company - for example the company secretary or a director.

Company defences to failing to name the driver

The company can defend the allegation if the company can show on the balance of probabilities that it did not receive the request for driver identity in the first place. s.172(7)(b) RTA 1988.

The company can defend the allegation if it can show on the balanace of probabilities that it has used reasonable diligence to fgure out who was driving at the time of the alleged offence.

The company is only allowed to rely on this road traffic defence if it can show that it was reasonable in the circumstances for the company not to have kept records of who was driving the vehicle at the time !

Therefore....

If you run a company and want to be able to rely on the reasonable diligence defence (if you are ever unable to name the driver) make sure you have a good system of record keeping in place and all your employees know about the system. Otherwise if the company is unable to name the driver you will not be able to use this defence.

The law in relation to individuals who are asked to name the driver is difference see here for further guidance in that respect.

The law in relation to s.172 is very complex. We suggest that you ask a question if you have been sent a request to name the driver and you are having difficulties with your response.

 

 

 

 

 

Ask a Free Question

If you have a court hearing date call 01626 359800

Latest News View all news

Page 1 of 11  > >>

Dec 23, 2011
Category: General
Posted by: patterson
This case represents our toughest battle to date. It was a battle at every stage involving Magistrates, District Judges, Court Clerks, Cps lawyers and Crown Court Judges. The argument was all about whether a road was public or private.
Oct 26, 2011
Category: General
Posted by: patterson
"I'm so proud of my team. They continue to go from strengh to strengh in terms of their skill and expertise in winning cases on behalf of out clients..." Emma Patterson, Principal Solicitor
Mar 10, 2011
Category: General
Posted by: patterson

This article relates to a recent victory at court. The case does not set a precedent - but it shows that if handled with care it is possible to avoid points in a no insurance case where no one else was at fault.

Read on......