If your the only one on the Ltd company or only employee as seems to the norm for a few on here , then how can you say it wasn’t you driving ?
If there’s no history of you employing Mr Foreigner then can’t see it being believed if suddenly it’s brought into play on occurrence of an offence looming ?
isn’t that where knowing and proving come into play ? . when I was working for a dude here in Ireland,then it was common for him to send back johnny foriegners name with a real suitable address if speeding tickets came in for the drivers he liked…if the address is suitable and exists,then its a case of prove it.suppose you started j foreigner esquire on Monday,you don’t hear from him till Thursday when someone tells you your trucks lying in a layby 400 miles away with no diesel in the tanks cos he sold it before vanishing back to cabbageland…stranger things happen,then 2 weeks later a ticket comes in for the driver…you’ve no cards for him,etc.so what can you do except bounce the ticket.the hard part is making sure that the address isn’t ficticious.it has to exist. couldn’t that happen in real life? just an example ive made up there,absolutely never been used a few times in the past . 
dieseldog999:
isn’t that where knowing and proving come into play ? . when I was working for a dude here in Ireland,then it was common for him to send back johnny foriegners name with a real suitable address if speeding tickets came in for the drivers he liked…if the address is suitable and exists,then its a case of prove it.suppose you started j foreigner esquire on Monday,you don’t hear from him till Thursday when someone tells you your trucks lying in a layby 400 miles away with no diesel in the tanks cos he sold it before vanishing back to cabbageland…stranger things happen,then 2 weeks later a ticket comes in for the driver…you’ve no cards for him,etc.so what can you do except bounce the ticket.the hard part is making sure that the address isn’t ficticious.it has to exist. couldn’t that happen in real life? just an example ive made up there,absolutely never been used a few times in the past .
The Irish Police are not exactly hard to fool, they created 50 shadow driving licences to carry the points for Prawo Jazdy which is the Polish for driving licence as their Plod were to stupid to realise that’s what it was even though the relevant countries spelling of the words driving licence appear in the same place on all EU licences
im in the north but the south is a class place to live if you want an easy life… 
tommy t:
ron9516:
No if it was a double manned vehicle without a tacho, the company would have to prove that it had a system in place to record who was driving at any particular time (eg Logbook) and that the system is checked and working, but on this particular occurrence the drivers failed to log the journey. Note that if is proved that the system was not robust enough or not checked regularly and action taken against offenders, then due diligence would have failed. Two drivers just saying we can’t remember who was driving at the time isn’t going to wash.Log book’s /record of times each driver was behind the wheel, lol sorry that may work in theory but there’s no way it would work in reality,seriously ,So what can they do if they are unable to ascertain prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court who the driver was then? not a lot would be my guess as it wouldn’t be in the public interest to waste resources and time on it, log books for driving a van,lol we aren’t part of the ussr yet to my knowlage
Separate offence:
At this time who was driving is to some point immaterial. You as an officer of the company have been charged under section 172 of the RTA for failing to supply the details of the driver.
Offering 2 names does not forfil your obligations so you are now running a section 4 defence. YOU must now prove that YOU have taken ALL reasonable steps and used due diligence to ascertain who the driver was at the time. The court will take into consideration if your system for recording who was driving at the time was robust enough. You may say asking the drivers to fill out a log sheet is inpractable in the real world, try telling that to a magistrate, who are hard wired to hate speeders & and the only thing they hate more than speeders, are people who turn up with half baked excuses why they can’t name driver.
We don’t live in the USSR but if you were to use this defence in court you would think we did.
no, not expecting drivers to fill in log books, but from a drivers point of view, it would not happen , so the system is going to fine the company? bring it on ,bollox is what that is, as the company did not drive the van, just like they did not drive a vehicle with defective tyres,for tyres ect it’s not the company who get the fine it’s the DRIVER !!b and that is who triggered the speed camera
From the companies POV we have supplied the name/s of who had custody and control of the vehicle on the date in question we cannot realistically be expexted to do more , after all this is a traffic(revenue generating offence) and not a murder enquiry
I think the point is being missed totally.
I think he is trying to say you have a sprinter 1t double manned no need for tacho or log book records etc.
the van gets flashed they send a NIP to the registered owner, then the company say there was 2 guys in the van etc. if details of said people are given no offence is committed.
however, if no details are given then the company will be held liable, but then in next breath who accepts the fine and points the company can take a fine but points hmm, a person has to be committing and offence a person behind a desk has done nothing unlawful so would be able to challenge if points was issued to them again another employee there details can not be used for purpose of a speeding fine because the company would be committing perjury.
discoman:
I think the point is being missed totally.I think he is trying to say you have a sprinter 1t double manned no need for tacho or log book records etc.
the van gets flashed they send a NIP to the registered owner, then the company say there was 2 guys in the van etc. if details of said people are given no offence is committed.
however, if no details are given then the company will be held liable, but then in next breath who accepts the fine and points the company can take a fine but points hmm, a person has to be committing and offence a person behind a desk has done nothing unlawful so would be able to challenge if points was issued to them again another employee there details can not be used for purpose of a speeding fine because the company would be committing perjury.
Nearly right.
In the eyes of the law failing to name the driver is an offence. You are guilty of the offence if you put up two (or more) names, because you have not named the driver.
You will then be charged under S172 of the road traffic act, you are guilty by not naming the driver. However the law allows a defence of reasonable diligence, it is down to you to prove that YOU have taken all reasonable steps to find out who was driving at the time.
Many have tried some have succeeded, many have failed.
Talk is cheap, legal representation is costly.
Remember telling porkies is conspiring to pervert the course of justice, which carries jail time. (Ask the Hamiltons)