Getting someone else to take your points

[SpikeyBush]

I think we're all aware of the current high profile case of this nature. Here's an idea which will reduce the opportunity to commit this kind of perjury.

If John Smith receives a fixed penalty for his C-Class getting caught by a GATSO, then whoever he nominates as the driver at the time of the offence has to prove that they were insured. Otherwise they get done for driving without insurance and John Smith gets done for aiding and abetting driving without insurance. Make aiding and abetting subject to four points as opposed to the three for speeding and the incentive will disappear for some.

OK so getting your spouse / daughter / grandad to take the points may still work as often they are on your policy or covered any vehicle on their own policy, but it will put an end to hard-up students who have little more than a bicycle and a packet of rizlas claiming to be the driver of an A8 or S-Class that was going like a bat out of hell up Piccadilly.

[Buenchico]

As I understand it, 'routine' fixed penalty matters don't involve any enquiries into insurance cover. It's only when the 'authorities' start to get suspicious, about who the real driver of the vehicle was, that such enquiries are made. At that stage, those involved have got far more serious worries than either fines or penalty points:
http://www.timesonlin...me/article2017307.ece

Chris

[ABerrant]

Aiding and abetting (more properly "causing or permitting") the uninsured use of a vehicle is regarded in law as being as serious as using a motor vehicle without insurance and already has a guideline penalty of 6-8 points.

Perverting the course of justice is a far more serious offence (it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment).

[hc4361]

Very hard to prove who was driving when the photo doesn't make it obvious though.

The named driver proving they were insured at the time is a great idea.

[Hopkirk]

..... and who is going to pay for all the extra admin costs?

I doubt that that nice Mr Cameron will be happy for the tax payer to pay.

[DaveWoolhouse]

If you look on the NIP for speeding, there is a line which says the insurance details will be checked. If anyone wants a pic of this, I will gladly send one. The wording suggests that further action will be taken if subsequent enquiries reveal the nominated driver was not insured at the time. One point though, the nominated driver has to admit to, or be found guilty of, the speeding pffence in order for the other charges to be brought - ie: no insurance, no license, no MOT. No tax however, remains the responsibilty of the registered keeper, not the driver. In no tax cases, the driver would be charged under sec. 165 of the RTA, in light of the fact his/her insurance is void due to there being no RFL.
Hope this helps?

[Berkshirelad]

All this means is that whoever is nominates needs "driving other cars" cover on their own insurance. Whether or not they are named on yours is immaterial.

[SpikeyBush]

So if I get photographed driving like my hair is on fire and pay some old bum on the street to say he was driving, in the real world is anyone going to check that the person I declared as the offender was actually insured, or are they just going to take the money and run? If it is the latter, it kind of shows where their priorities lie.