Section 172 and company cars
Discussion
Near enough correct.
A company cannot have points imposed because it does not have a licence or driving record.
It depends what you mean by "severe" but the maximum penalty for the offence is fine of £1,000. If the Company pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity it will be entitled to a one third discount, making the maximum £667. It will also pay a "victim surcharge" of 40% of the fine and prosecution costs of about £90, so the maximum total will be around £1,028.
However, you should also s172(5):
"Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
So action against an individual is not restricted to "The Company Secretary"
A company cannot have points imposed because it does not have a licence or driving record.
It depends what you mean by "severe" but the maximum penalty for the offence is fine of £1,000. If the Company pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity it will be entitled to a one third discount, making the maximum £667. It will also pay a "victim surcharge" of 40% of the fine and prosecution costs of about £90, so the maximum total will be around £1,028.
However, you should also s172(5):
"Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
So action against an individual is not restricted to "The Company Secretary"
JagLad said:
"Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
So action against an individual is not restricted to "The Company Secretary"
agtlaw said:
Have you ever prosecuted or defended a company secretary or company director who was prosecuted pursuant to an offence contrary to s.172(5)?
Why do you ask? I was simply pointing out (as others had) that a prosecution of that nature is possible. Whether I've ever been party to one is surely neither here nor there. If you were asked for advice along similar lines to this OP, would you not point out that possibility, whilst perhaps adding that such prosecutions are rare? fridaypassion said:
agtlaw vs google search
I think my money is on the qualified and highly respected lawyer
My post was not based on a Google search. It is information within my knowledge (though I admit I did cut and paste the exact wording of the legislation).I think my money is on the qualified and highly respected lawyer
Edited by JagLad on Sunday 4th August 19:12
So, as someone with little knowledge of the relevant law, would it be feasible to create a LTD company and use it to provide me a company car registered to said company, and then when caught speeding just pay up for a £666 fine + costs each time I'm caught?
I'm assuming that's a loophole they wouldn't continue to wear? Or are people frequently able to get away with that?
I'm assuming that's a loophole they wouldn't continue to wear? Or are people frequently able to get away with that?
spookly said:
So, as someone with little knowledge of the relevant law, would it be feasible to create a LTD company and use it to provide me a company car registered to said company, and then when caught speeding just pay up for a £666 fine + costs each time I'm caught?
I'm assuming that's a loophole they wouldn't continue to wear? Or are people frequently able to get away with that?
Sometimes but it doesn't always work as the police may perform a Companies House search and serve a notice on the director(s). Then if there is no reply then prosecute the director(s) pursuant to s.172(3). Not s.172(5) as googled above.I'm assuming that's a loophole they wouldn't continue to wear? Or are people frequently able to get away with that?
cashmax said:
spookly said:
So, as someone with little knowledge of the relevant law, would it be feasible to create a LTD company and use it to provide me a company car registered to said company, and then when caught speeding just pay up for a £666 fine + costs each time I'm caught?
I'm assuming that's a loophole they wouldn't continue to wear? Or are people frequently able to get away with that?
Kinda what I wondered really. A friend of mine asked me what he was liable get for 49 in a 40 and showed me the NIP, in which they are asking his company to identify the driver (he is self employed) Clearly, he should be hoping for a course, but it got me wondering that having the car registered under a business name would provide an option if required if things got sticky - perhaps the same offence if the driver was on 9 points for example.I'm assuming that's a loophole they wouldn't continue to wear? Or are people frequently able to get away with that?
agtlaw said:
Knowledge gained from internet forums?
No.But so what if it was? There was nothing incorrect in what I posted and it was relevant to the op's question, so I really don't know why you are making such an issue of it. All you had to add was something like "but it doesn't happen very often" or whatever you feel appropriate.
agtlaw said:
I’m asking whether you’re qualified to give legal advice.
Why? I made no claims to that effect. Is responding to posts on this board restricted to those qualified to give legal advice because it doesn't seem like it to me?JagLad said:
Why? I made no claims to that effect. Is responding to posts on this board restricted to those qualified to give legal advice because it doesn't seem like it to me?
Because credibility matters. It's obvious that you're not a legal professional. I didn't need to ask. Walts are welcome too.
agtlaw said:
JagLad said:
Why? I made no claims to that effect. Is responding to posts on this board restricted to those qualified to give legal advice because it doesn't seem like it to me?
Because credibility matters. It's obvious that you're not a legal professional. I didn't need to ask. Walts are welcome too.
If you check this JagLad fella's post history, he seems just to post in Speed, Plod & the Law, with his quasi-legal advice.
I'm wondering if this is Ten-Pence-Short/Allergic to Cheese surfacing again? When he originally reappeared after his incarceration, he changed his username and started posting as if he was a legal professional. He was quickly called out and identified and he scurried off. I wonder...?
agtlaw said:
spookly said:
So, as someone with little knowledge of the relevant law, would it be feasible to create a LTD company and use it to provide me a company car registered to said company, and then when caught speeding just pay up for a £666 fine + costs each time I'm caught?
I'm assuming that's a loophole they wouldn't continue to wear? Or are people frequently able to get away with that?
Sometimes but it doesn't always work as the police may perform a Companies House search and serve a notice on the director(s). Then if there is no reply then prosecute the director(s) pursuant to s.172(3). Not s.172(5) as googled above.I'm assuming that's a loophole they wouldn't continue to wear? Or are people frequently able to get away with that?
agtlaw said:
Because credibility maters. It's obvious that you're not a legal professional. I didn't need to ask.
As I said, I never claimed to be. So what made you ask if you didn't need to? I really cannot fathom your motive. Is it an attempt to embarrass me by suggesting you've uncovered a false claim - one which I've never made? Very strange, IMHO.I think people seeking legal advice on forums such as this would be hard pushed to find one that is frequented only by qualified legal professionals. If that is your only measure of credibility it seems you are suggesting that you and your fellow Learned Friends are the only people credible enough to dispense advice on here. That would make this a very lonely place.
People posting questions must be prepared to sort out what is credible and what is not. Those posting answers must be prepared for (and should welcome) the information they provide being challenged or corrected - especially by qualified legal professionals. I think that's how it's supposed to work, anyway. Simply suggesting that a poster is not credible because they are not a member of the legal profession doesn't appear to do much for the forum's diversity or reputation.
Sebring440 said:
If you check this JagLad fella's post history, he seems just to post in Speed, Plod & the Law, with his quasi-legal advice.
There is nothing "quasi-legal" about anything I have posted. If questions are asked about the law, it seems fairly likely that the law might be mentioned. It doesn't make it "quasi-legal" unless you apply that description to any reasonably lucid text. Whilst legal professionals will (hopefully) have far better knowledge and understanding of the law than most people, they do not hold a monopoly on it. There are many basic motoring legal problems on which many people can offer reasonably sound advice. This forum is better off than some as it has the benefit of a qualified legal professional who is willing to step in to correct any misinformation. As above, if only legal professionals are entitled to respond, perhaps the forum's owners could make that clear and the rest of us can save our time.Sebring440 said:
I'm wondering if this is Ten-Pence-Short/Allergic to Cheese surfacing again? When he originally reappeared after his incarceration, he changed his username and started posting as if he was a legal professional. He was quickly called out and identified and he scurried off. I wonder...?
I've absolutely no idea who or what you are talking about. As I am not posting as a legal professional, I have nothing to be "called out" about and so have no need to scurry off. So you need wonder no further.Meanwhile, none of this nonsense is doing anything for the OP and his (presumably) hypothetical question.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff