AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Avoiding endorsement

6th February 1997
Page 40
Page 40, 6th February 1997 — Avoiding endorsement
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

One of my vehicles broke down so I had to hire a truck from a rental company.

An hour later I was stopped by police who found a bulge on the inside of one of the rear tyres. They wanted to give me a fixed penalty ticket for having a defective tyre but I told them it was not my truck and would not accept it. They said I would be prosecuted in court.

Am I liable for the tyre defect and is my licence likely to be endorsed ?

A Even though you did not

own the vehicle and had diil. en it for only a short time, you were the user of the vehicle and responsible for its condition. The police would not have to prove that you knew of the defect, simply that you were driving a vehicle which had a defective tyre.

A defective-tyre prosecution would be brought under Section 41A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and conviction carries discretionary disqualification and compulsory licence endorsement.

However, Section 48o1 the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 states these must not be ordered by a court if a person "proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the facts of the case were such that the offence would be committed".

If prosecuted, you should go to court and explain you did not know of the bulge and had no reason to suspect it was there. In the circumstances of this case you could tell the court you were morally blameless for the offence and ask for an absolute discharge—that is no fine.

The Section 48 provision does not apply to a fixed penalty ticket because endorsement is automatic with no court appearance involved.

Tags

Organisations: UN Court

comments powered by Disqus