Lent Van

by Jinxer Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:29 am

If I lent a van that wasn't registered to me but was insured by me to a friend or maybe family member and they crashed it into a bollard and run off and left it there, could I use the right to silence when the police come knocking at the door. I wouldn't mind being arrested, and I suppose the worse that could happen would to be done for failing to name the driver under section 172 of the road traffic act, or is their something else you could be done for.
Of course this is all hypothetical.

by Ausk Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:46 am

Not if you choose in implement your right to slience for all the time you are being questioned and if/when you are taken into custody.

If you are arrested and you invoke your right not to self incriminate, then you are in with a good chance of not being charged with anything.

I read recently "the goals are full of people who just could not keep their trap shut."

If you have to sign something to get out of custody, sign it 'under duress, without prejudice' then they cant use it anyway, but write it quickly, they might be watching out for that.

by **LionsShare** Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:42 am

IMO:

Always STATE "Any rights I exercise are my OWN inalienable & NOT ANY bestowed". Then keeep your gob shut!

by Tiggy Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:21 am

Depends who's claiming on your insurance, you'd have to give an explanation to your insurance company, either you say you were driving and then you get stuffed for the excess and possibly be charged with leaving the scene of an accident or you say someone else was driving, but then were they insured?

They may refuse the claim and you end up being liable for the damage caused and be charged with leaving the scene of an accident.

by pieintheskywhenIdie Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:55 am

If Jinxer wasn't driving in this hypothetical situation, how could he be charged with leaving the scene?

by Tiggy Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:21 am

pieintheskywhenIdie wrote:If Jinxer wasn't driving in this hypothetical situation, how could he be charged with leaving the scene?

An accident has occurred which has caused damage, the vehicle has been abandoned, the van hasn't been reported stolen and no one else has been named as being the driver and no explanation is forthcoming from the owner (owner is exercising their right to remain silent).

They will assume he was driving and charges for leaving the scene will probably be brought - they'll actually think he may have been drink driving, otherwise, why else would you abandon the vehicle and refuse to answer questions, that's the logic they apply.

by midnight Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:02 pm

No doubt the van would be recovered and impounded as it was left abandoned. Without a registered keeper who would they release the van to. They may release it to someone if they could prove that they owned it, but it would not surprise me if they refused on the grounds that they would only release it to the registered keeper.

by Jinxer Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:29 pm

Yes the van would of been recovered and it won't be claimed back. Letters and things would be in the van so it would be inevitable that the police will be in contact at some point. To make matters worse at the same time the van was crashed an ATM machine was being ripped out of a wall with a JCB digger in the next street. Even though my friend or family member wasn't involved in that I would expect to have a few questions thrown at me about it. Neither me nor my friend or family member have criminal records as such but have been questioned about things before and have had not guilty verdicts at Court a couple of times. All this is really when it boils down to it is a motoring offence, does anyone know if a motoring offence is proved beyond doubt or is it the same as civil where it's based on probabilities. Damage limitation is what I'm looking for in this scenario.
The only thing I can think they could do is summons me for failing to name the driver, I would of thought anything else without a confession would need a witness or some other evidence to put me at the scene, which they will never have because I wasn't there. I'm not going to lie to the police as that then could be charged as perverting the cause of justice which is a serious offence. I'm not going to tell them the truth either. Just trying to get my head round the worse case scenario of not saying nothing at all. I'm not even sure if motoring offences are arrest-able or not.

by midnight Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:56 pm

The police may have taken forensics from the van in the belief that it may be connected with the ATM. If your dab's or DNA turn up in the van then no doubt they will pop around for a chat with you. If it's the case that you were somewhere else when both the attack on the ATM took place and the van crashing and you can prove it without a doubt then you may have less to worry about. They will contact the previous registered keeper to see if he/she can shed any light on who they sold the van to. Also If you were ever stopped in this van by the police then they will be able to connect you to it that way.

by Jinxer Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:10 pm

Tiggy wrote:Depends who's claiming on your insurance, you'd have to give an explanation to your insurance company, either you say you were driving and then you get stuffed for the excess and possibly be charged with leaving the scene of an accident or you say someone else was driving, but then were they insured?

They may refuse the claim and you end up being liable for the damage caused and be charged with leaving the scene of an accident.

I wouldn't be bothered about the insurance implications at the moment that will be a separate issue. More concerned about what charges could be bought. It wasn't me who left the scene of the accident and would hope they would need more to prove it was than just the fact I have insurance in place on the van and maybe a few letters and some personal stuff in it. I mean it could of been stolen their could be a host of other reasons, I suppose what I'm getting at is it my place lawfully not morally to have to help the Police do there job and what if any are the consequences of refusing to help them.
The one time I did help the police when I was younger got me arrested for murder and I swore then no matter what happened in the future I would never volunteer information to the Police again. I've never murdered anyone by the way I found the guy dead at the side of the road when I was out running in the middle of the night boxing training.

by Jinxer Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:22 pm

midnight wrote:The police may have taken forensics from the van in the belief that it may be connected with the ATM. If your dab's or DNA turn up in the van then no doubt they will pop around for a chat with you. If it's the case that you were somewhere else when both the attack on the ATM took place and the van crashing and you can prove it without a doubt then you may have less to worry about. They will contact the previous registered keeper to see if he/she can shed any light on who they sold the van to. Also If you were ever stopped in this van by the police then they will be able to connect you to it that way.

There will be no doubt they will be able to connect me to the van, that will be a foregone conclusion as I have the insurance on it and personal affects in it. Their is no way they could place me at the scene as I wasn't their, I wouldn't be able to prove I wasn't their though but I think they have to prove I was not me prove I wasn't. The friend or family member who would have been driving may have to worry about the forensic side of things, but I'm not going to deny nor admit owning the van. Well that's the way I'm thinking at the moment. Unless I could be placed at the scene I am thinking all other evidence is circumstantial and not beyond reasonable doubt.
A civil case from the council for the cost of the damage would be a different thing as that would be based on probabilities. A bit like the OJ Simpson case but not on the same scale. Well that's my thoughts at the minute. What does anyone else think and don't hold back I got thick skin.

by Guest Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:22 pm

Hi Jinxer

If the vehicle isn't registered to you, and the registered keeper doesn't identify you as the driver, then you can't be charged without credible eye witness accounts that you were at the scene.

Doesn't matter you had insurance or not if someone else was driving - doesn't make it your responsibility.

They will contact the registered keeper and ask them for details of who was driving at the time.

Because of the ATM incident they will contact you - you weren't there and it's their responsibility to prove you were, you don't have to help them at all.

'Not my vehicle constable, and i wasn't driving it at the time. i now invoke my right to the presumption of innocence and my right to silence'

Then schtum. And, as they say, schtum some more.

Cheers!

by Jinxer Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:08 pm

iamani wrote:Hi Jinxer

If the vehicle isn't registered to you, and the registered keeper doesn't identify you as the driver, then you can't be charged without credible eye witness accounts that you were at the scene.

Doesn't matter you had insurance or not if someone else was driving - doesn't make it your responsibility.

They will contact the registered keeper and ask them for details of who was driving at the time.

Because of the ATM incident they will contact you - you weren't there and it's their responsibility to prove you were, you don't have to help them at all.

'Not my vehicle constable, and i wasn't driving it at the time. i now invoke my right to the presumption of innocence and my right to silence'

Then schtum. And, as they say, schtum some more.

Cheers!

That's my thoughts as well, only difference for me is I won't confirm nor deny owning the van. The van won't be registered to any keeper and if they go to the old keeper who it used to be registered to they wouldn't know where it went. The insurance and maybe some letters is what will tie the van to me. I suppose there could be cctv on one of the shops nearby, but that won't show me and how far would an over stretched police go to for a non injury accident. I think the biggest thing that would be hard to get around is if they send one of them nip things asking who the driver was, I'll just hope they don't think of that and want to arrest me instead.
Note to oneself don't let the 16 year old work experience lad know where the keys are left for your van lol.
Of course this is all hypothetical and is just me thinking of scenarios to keep the forum chatting.

by **assassin** Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:43 am

They will assume he was driving and charges for leaving the scene will probably be brought - they'll actually think he may have been drink driving, otherwise, why else would you abandon the vehicle and refuse to answer questions, that's the logic they apply.

What is that legal maxim non assumpsit.

If you say nothing they can do nothing, and by nothing I mean nothing: they can assume all they like but they cannot charge anyone if they say nothing and refuse to give any other details such as finger prints, DNA, or photographs then all the po-lice have is assumption and you cannot act on assumption and they know it.

by Jinxer Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:23 am

My son was charged once for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, when he refused to answer his question's after an alleged kidnap (which is another long story that I think I spoke about on the old site) anyway we used Rice v Connolly when at Court and the prosecution offered no evidence and the case was dismissed.
My thinking is Rice v Connolly could be good for this situation to. The ruling stated that although we all have a morale duty to answer Police questions there is no lawful duty to answer them. Or words to that affect. So I think that could apply in this case and then if arrested a refusal to an interview and right to silence, I would just stay asleep in a cell and not even bother with a taped interview and see how long they could keep me for.
The worry is still whether section 172 road traffic act could apply. Anyone who's clever at reading legislation want to have a read for me and tell me if it would apply and how.

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:14 am

Hi Jinxer

While we're waiting for someone clever.......

i'm tempted to ask who receives the road tax demands, but never mind.

There is no way they can use this section on you unless you incriminate yourself as the keeper of the vehicle.

If the police show up don't claim more than your given name and ask if they are there to accuse you of an indictable offence. If they say yes, ask them who the victim is, and why they haven't just arrested you already. If they say no then advise them you will only deal with the matter when presented in the form of correspondence.

If it's an indictment the police are looking for a man. If it is a summary/commercial offence they are looking for a paper person, which is why it's dealt with via correspondence.

Cheers!

by Jinxer Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:44 am

My other vehicles I pay the tax at the Post Office using new keepers supplement (green slip). But I have a funny feeling this one was paid for monthly out of a friends bank account.
To be fair if the Police do turn up at my address I don't never answer my door unless by appointment and it would be very rare that I would be at the house anyway. So the first I would know if they come for me would be if one of the neighbours told me or they leave one of them pink cards. The only thing I can think of is 172 rta. I can't think of anything else that would cause bother, I do like to try to cover all bases.

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:58 am

Hi Jinxer

If road tax is being paid then there is a current registered keeper. If the police can't deal with that entity for whatever reason then they will seek out whomever is paying the tax and insurance. If they are confident at playing the name game and share your nonchalance at the prospect of maintaining silence in a cell, and don't incriminate themselves, the police can't attach the label of 'keeper'. This renders sec 172 inapplicable (imo ).

Cheers!

by Jinxer Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:26 am

No I pay road tax all the time at the Post Office, the vehicles are taken out of the previous keepers name using the yellow trade part of the v5. That effectively leaves the vehicle with no registered keeper, but they can still be taxed at a Post Office or paid monthly direct debit out of any bank. The only thing is when you sell the vehicle and it has say 4 months tax left then that gets lost you don't get no refund, hence why some that are for sale are done monthly so as not to lose as much.
I don't like how they use the word keeper and not registered keeper in the act. Could they deduce that I was the keeper as I have the insurance on it. Rendering me then to be liable to a £1000 fine and 6 penalty points for not filling in the form.

by pieintheskywhenIdie Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:11 am

Where the word "Keeper" is used it can mean a person other than the Registered Keeper. One to be aware of is that it's also illegal to "cause or permit" someone to use the vehicle uninsured. Shouldn't be a problem if the van was insured for any driver of course.

by Ausk Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:40 am

pieintheskywhenIdie wrote:Where the word "Keeper" is used it can mean a person other than the Registered Keeper. One to be aware of is that it's also illegal to "cause or permit" someone to use the vehicle uninsured. Shouldn't be a problem if the van was insured for any driver of course.

What happens if those who are going to come and take it, prang it? Very Happy

by pitano1 Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:36 am

top tip.
NEVER....drive.
When asked anything about your driving.

The answer should ALWAYS be...I`m exercising my
RIGHT
TO TRAVEL.=no R.T.....ACT.
regards
pitano

by **assassin** Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:47 pm

iamani wrote:Hi Jinxer

While we're waiting for someone clever.......

i'm tempted to ask who receives the road tax demands, but never mind.

There is no way they can use this section on you unless you incriminate yourself as the keeper of the vehicle.

If the police show up don't claim more than your given name and ask if they are there to accuse you of an indictable offence. If they say yes, ask them who the victim is, and why they haven't just arrested you already. If they say no then advise them you will only deal with the matter when presented in the form of correspondence.

If it's an indictment the police are looking for a man. If it is a summary/commercial offence they are looking for a paper person, which is why it's dealt with via correspondence.

Cheers!

If you choose a route of saying nothing, you say nothing, again you are falling to the trap of self incrimination by speaking and giving your name which gives them enough to charge you with; remember back to basics, everything centres around the legal name.

If you choose a route of saying nothing, you say nothing, again you are falling to the trap of self incrimination by speaking and giving your name which gives them enough to charge you with; remember back to basics, everything centres around the legal name.

by Guest Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Hi

assassin - a constable can arrest you for an indictable offence whether you give your name or not (if there is a credible witness). Summary offences are dealt with by the police officer, who can only arrest you with your consent - which is assumed when you furnish the officers with your FULL legal name, address and d.o.b.

Your given name is your christian name, which does not incriminate you in legal/commercial matters so is fine to give - just don't give it in answer to a request for your name. Instead, initiate the interaction by introducing yourself with your christian name.

.....and i'm sure you know all this.

Cheers!

by **Society of the Spectacle** Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:37 pm

Ausk wrote:Not if you choose in implement your right to slience for all the time you are being questioned and if/when you are taken into custody.

If you are arrested and you invoke your right not to self incriminate, then you are in with a good chance of not being charged with anything.

I read recently "the goals are full of people who just could not keep their trap shut."

If you have to sign something to get out of custody, sign it 'under duress, without prejudice' then they cant use it anyway, but write it quickly, they might be watching out for that.

An Easy to remember TIP,

V.C Vi Coactus,
which is latin for Under Duress,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi_coactus

by Sponsored content

Lent Van

Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van

Re: Lent Van