Number Plates Stolen Z4M Roadster

[AlanJ]

Yes I see what you mean, if the plates aren't reported stolen ANPR wouldn't pick it up. Anti -theft screws it is then

But why bother - so long as you can prove you weren't the perp in any offence that results, who cares if they nick your plates.....ok its an inconvenience, but if you stick 'em on with double sided at least they won't f*ck your bumper up trying to get them off....

There was a story on the news recently where a guy had his plates stolen and the car they went on was used in London. Didn't pay the congestion charge (of course) and he was prosecuted. He eventually got off after the schools CCTV showed his car was not in London, however it cost him hundreds to clear his name, was made to feel like a criminal and eventually had to have a new licence plate issued.

As an aside just how hard is it to actually prove your car was not in a given place at a given time. I bet it's pretty tough actually ???

Firstly report the theft of your plates to the police AS SOON AS YOU DISCOVER IT. Get the incident and crime number at the time of reporting and note the time you discovered and reported the theft. Every incident reported to the police will be given a unique identifying reference number and categorised according to the incident type (vehicle related, assault, theft etc). These are essential pieces of supporting evidence in case of future 'nonsense'.

If you subsequently receive an automatic penalty (speed, congestion charge etc) then immediately respond in writing to the issuing authority detailing the incident of the theft with appropriate times and police reference numbers. Automatic penalties have associated photographic evidence so it is relatively easy to eliminate your Z4 ‘number plates’ from a photograph of, for example, a Ford Mondeo etc. 99% of cases will quickly be resolved in this manner. And make a written note of where you were and who you were with at the time of the alleged offence for future reference if required. One would assume that you will have to replace the stolen plates so retain a copy of the receipt for the new plates, date/time of purchase and details of the supplier.

If you fail to respond promptly then you can expect problems as the failure to pay/court process will kick in. In my professional experience it is those people that fail to respond quickly, as above, that end up with issues that begin to cost in terms of court appearances and solicitors advice and fees. The maxim in English law is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ (with some very specific legal exceptions) and ‘guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt’. The UK automatic fixed penalty system does not bypass these principles but merely shortcuts a process and avoids court appearances for ‘minor’ (in terms of criminal responsibility) road traffic offences.

Of course you can help yourself by parking in public places that are well lit and frequented AND by changing to theft resistant number plates and fixings.

 

[cj10jeeper]

All perfectly sensible and valid advice Alan, which people should adopt.

In this instance the plates were used on an identical car. They had been reported as stolen, but of course the photographic evidence just showed a similar car. Of course he got off in the end, but the real problem was just as PVR notes the motoring authorities stance is guilty until proved innocent. If you've ever had a run in with the conjestion authority you'll know what I mean. Only when if finally went to court was video footage of his parked car accepted by someone. Stupid but that's UK authorities for you.

The interesting thing is it's actually very difficult to prove where your car is at any given time. I could probably prove where I am/was much of the time, but not my car.

Regardless for the victim it's still a lot of hassle reporting crimes, buying new plates, fending off each and every offence and worry associated with what next. Car used in robery, fuel drive off, ticket offences, congestion charge, etc. Even if new plates are assigned the value of the car drops as people want to know why a reg change.

All this leads me to think there is a clear choice between using a type of plate or bolt that wont come off and risking the damage, using a private plate that is rarely stolen or making them easily removable so no damage occurs and hope for the best/risk the consequences.

Thankfully this stuff is on the increase but there's more to worry about in life.

 

[pvr]

Would be interesting to know how many private plates are stolen (if at all).

 

[AlanJ]

All perfectly sensible and valid advice Alan, which people should adopt.

In this instance the plates were used on an identical car. They had been reported as stolen, but of course the photographic evidence just showed a similar car. Of course he got off in the end, but the real problem was just as PVR notes the motoring authorities stance is guilty until proved innocent. If you've ever had a run in with the conjestion authority you'll know what I mean. Only when if finally went to court was video footage of his parked car accepted by someone. Stupid but that's UK authorities for you.

The interesting thing is it's actually very difficult to prove where your car is at any given time. I could probably prove where I am/was much of the time, but not my car.

Regardless for the victim it's still a lot of hassle reporting crimes, buying new plates, fending off each and every offence and worry associated with what next. Car used in robery, fuel drive off, ticket offences, congestion charge, etc. Even if new plates are assigned the value of the car drops as people want to know why a reg change.

All this leads me to think there is a clear choice between using a type of plate or bolt that wont come off and risking the damage, using a private plate that is rarely stolen or making them easily removable so no damage occurs and hope for the best/risk the consequences.

Thankfully this stuff is on the increase but there's more to worry about in life.

Agreed - all you can do is mitigate against such an event by taking reasonable precautions (think thats what my Dad said to me when I was about 13..... )

 

[lacroupade]

Sadly I can only think of two inflammatory things to say this morning, as my stay-at-home daughter is in hospital about to give birth, and the idea of being a grandad at my tender age (!) is doing my head in!

First thing is, Phil did start his post above with the fatal introduction "There was a story on the news...", and we all know that, unless they embellish it left right and centre, it isn't a news story. I mean its quite possible the chap in that case hadn't reported his plates stolen for example, but that wouldn't make a good news story would it (at this point CJ will shoot me down in flames with the full story LOL, so my depression will just deepen in anticipation ).

Second point is that "innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental principle of English law, doesn't matter whether its motoring or anything else. So I would say that if you've reported the fact that your plates were pinched, the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case more convincingly than usual, but prove it they must - there is NO automatic assumption of guilt without the appropriate evidence of your personal involvement.

Now wheres my zimmer frame???? ldman:

 

[sammyz]

A few years ago my boss was visited by the boys in blue, his car had apparently been used in a robbery in Scotland! They had CCTV showing the car (focus) which was the same year, model as his.

He had to provide evidence from his Chief Exec that he was in Liverpool on the day at meetings and that his car was with him. Freaked him out and he sold the car shortly afterwards as he feared further problems. Profeessional thieves wouldn't bother stealing the plates as then the Police would be alerted, noting the reg number of an identical car to the one you steal in a different area of the country then getting plates made up is a clever way of avoiding ANPR.

 

[pvr]

S- there is NO automatic assumption of guilt without the appropriate evidence of your personal involvement.

Right grandad, I am afraid I don't agree with that. In motoring law you ARE guilty by default. Also, the basic English law was thrown out by the European Court of Justice a few years ago and the Government got their way that you had to self incriminate.

How can you be innocent until proven guilty if an automated camera takes a picture of a car, you have to admit that you were driving (so self incriminate) and you are guilty by default. If you don't know who was driving, you are yet again guilty of another offence carrying even more penalties - so where is the innocent until proven guilty there?

 

[lacroupade]

Ah ya young fecker!!! Wheres me stick??? :lol:

First off, when you say 'basic english law', I take it you mean 'common law'? If so, thats not true.....the principles of common law remain fully in force.

As to the issue of 'self incrimination', thats a bit of a red herring - firstly, self-incrimination = confession of guilt essentially....the fuss about so-called human rights was just an abortive effort to try and avoid being obliged to do so if you HAD been driving, a bit like pleading the fifth amendment. So picture+self incrimination = confession=guilty, no argument.

Its more difficult when you name an alternate driver that can't be contacted because, guess what, they emigrated or went back abroad....there have been cases where the named party has copped the nark, complained to the UK police and the driver has then been rightly done for perjury (there was one just recently), and I know at least one driver with a friend in Australia who he has named three times so far, who never replies so the speeding case has been dropped each time for lack of evidence. The police do have to prove their case in these things, whatever people think, why do you think they want more forward facing cameras??

The only one I don't know about would be the "no idea who was driving guv" defence.....I suspect you'd have to have to have a really good argument in court for that one, but a widely used pool car with poor recording of use would be a good example where the owner of the vehicle (often a company) would probably escape prosecution.

Your turn... :wink:

 

[AlanJ]

Ah ya young fecker!!! Wheres me stick??? :lol:

First off, when you say 'basic english law', I take it you mean 'common law'? If so, thats not true.....the principles of common law remain fully in force.

As to the issue of 'self incrimination', thats a bit of a red herring - firstly, self-incrimination = confession of guilt essentially....the fuss about so-called human rights was just an abortive effort to try and avoid being obliged to do so if you HAD been driving, a bit like pleading the fifth amendment. So picture+self incrimination = confession=guilty, no argument.

Its more difficult when you name an alternate driver that can't be contacted because, guess what, they emigrated or went back abroad....there have been cases where the named party has copped the nark, complained to the UK police and the driver has then been rightly done for perjury (there was one just recently), and I know at least one driver with a friend in Australia who he has named three times so far, who never replies so the speeding case has been dropped each time for lack of evidence. The police do have to prove their case in these things, whatever people think, why do you think they want more forward facing cameras??

The only one I don't know about would be the "no idea who was driving guv" defence.....I suspect you'd have to have to have a really good argument in court for that one, but a widely used pool car with poor recording of use would be a good example where the owner of the vehicle (often a company) would probably escape prosecution.

Your turn... :wink:

The keeper of a vehicle has a legal obligation, under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act (UK Law), to provide the name of the person who was driving their vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence. If the keeper cannot remember who was driving their vehicle, they may be liable to prosecution.

If the keeper writes to the Constabulary concerned and requests a copy of the photographic evidence, "in order to help them to identify the driver", they will probably get one of the following responses:
• They will be provided with a copy of the photographic evidence - or;
• The Constabulary may write back and state that "the photographic evidence is not intended to identify the driver, it is simply a means of identifying the offending vehicle".

If the Constabulary makes the above statement, or if the evidence that they provide proves to be inconclusive, the keeper may still guilty of an offence unless they discharge their legal obligation under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 by:
• Providing the name of the driver, or;
• By providing a list of possible drivers.
If the keeper fails to name the driver, they may be liable to prosecution and the punishment could be worse than for the original offence offence, i.e. 6 points, a fine and costs.

This is what Section 172, 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

"A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was".
The key here is "with reasonable diligence", and it is up to a court to decide whether or not the register keeper has shown reasonable diligence. For a ‘private’ vehicle it would be difficult to state you did not know who was driving at the time of an alleged offence. For business vehicles in a ‘vehicle pool’ this may be easier but its very rare for this defence to succeed.

I hope this makes sense but as ever do not use my text and reasoning as a basis for a defence – TAKE INDEPENDENT ADVICE.

Lacroupade is quite correct in his legal argument that namimg 'falsely' a driver who has mysteriously emigrated or left the country leads you into a different league of offences - that of perjury/attempting tp pervert the course of justice. These are deemed serious matters by the court and a finding of guilt usually means a short holiday at Her Majestys Pleasure - BE WARNED!

 

[cj10jeeper]

You can have all the legal rights in the world, but this is the sort of stuff going on here:
If you search there are at least 10 pages of articles, so it's common.
Seems most are stolen to use to then steal petrol, some in crime, some as souvenirs?? and many for car cloning.

Lacroupade - don't make me find the original case I referred to as it will only depress you. Go visit your daughter and get some of that laughing gas


(Taken from the local BBC website.)
Wake-up call with a difference

"I jumped out of bed, looked out of the window and there was someone pointing a gun at me - it puts the fear of God in you."
John Cahill
John Cahill became a victim of car cloning, but it wasn't a parking fine that landed on his doorstep, it was an armed police squad.

John's car had supposedly been used as a getaway vehicle in an armed robbery, making John the prime suspect.

With the house surrounded by armed officers, John was eventually escorted to the police station.

John was released after five hours when police confirmed his alibi.

They now knew that another cloned car was out on the road.

 

[pvr]

Your turn... :wink:

Ok, let's make the most straight forward case here:

1. I am the registered keeper of the car, so I get the NIP.
2. I reply to ths S172 request stating that I do not know who was driving.
3. In court, I offer no explanation why I did not know who was driving, so my assumption here is that the prosecution needs to prove who was driving, right?

The guaranteed result here is that I would end up with 6 points.

So does that not mean that I was guilty until proven innocent? (i.e. until I named someone including myself).

Are you not a grandad yet?

 

[AlanJ]

Not 'lacroupade' but thought this might help.......hinder or confuse

As the registered keeper of a vehicle you have several legal responsibilities: excise licence, insurance and annual test (if required) – if using on a road and not SORN (UK – Statutory Off Road Notification). You also have a legal responsibility as a keeper to know who is driving or using your vehicle on a road at all times. In the case of transport companies, fleet managers etc systems must be in place to record details of users of ‘fleet’ vehicles so that in the event of an ‘incident’ the driver can quickly be traced.

If an incident occurs whereby you are required in law to identify the driver then failure to do so is an offence UNLESS you can show a valid reason why you could not with all due diligence identify the driver. The offence you are charged with is failing to identify the driver – the incident to which your failure relates is merely a trigger for the failure to identify offence. The prosecution does not need to prove who was driving merely that you as the keeper have failed when requested to identify the driver. This is a complete offence in itself. The fact that you choose to keep silent and fail to offer an explanation merely exacerbates the offence and may well increase the sentence imposed (points plus fine). So when you go to court you can plead plead not guilty to the offence – the prosecution must then prove through your own negligent action that you have failed to properly identify the driver of your vehicle. Saying nothing will merely assist the prosecution in proving their case. Easy......!

 

[lacroupade]

Not 'lacroupade' but thought this might help.......hinder or confuse

As the registered keeper of a vehicle you have several legal responsibilities: excise licence, insurance and annual test (if required) – if using on a road and not SORN (UK – Statutory Off Road Notification). You also have a legal responsibility as a keeper to know who is driving or using your vehicle on a road at all times. In the case of transport companies, fleet managers etc systems must be in place to record details of users of ‘fleet’ vehicles so that in the event of an ‘incident’ the driver can quickly be traced.

If an incident occurs whereby you are required in law to identify the driver then failure to do so is an offence UNLESS you can show a valid reason why you could not with all due diligence identify the driver. The offence you are charged with is failing to identify the driver – the incident to which your failure relates is merely a trigger for the failure to identify offence. The prosecution does not need to prove who was driving merely that you as the keeper have failed when requested to identify the driver. This is a complete offence in itself. The fact that you choose to keep silent and fail to offer an explanation merely exacerbates the offence and may well increase the sentence imposed (points plus fine). So when you go to court you can plead plead not guilty to the offence – the prosecution must then prove through your own negligent action that you have failed to properly identify the driver of your vehicle. Saying nothing will merely assist the prosecution in proving their case. Easy......!

@ pvr - What he said!!!

Seriously, exactly what I was going to say but he did it more impressively....saying "I dunno" isn't a valid response as Alan explains so well...and if you do then you clobber yourself for a different offence, as he also says, which actually supports my hypothesis that you remain innocent of the original charge since it cannot be proven to the right degree (forward-facing camera might be a different proposition though, I wonder how they handle the ID thing?). And of course if you also advised them of the fact your plates had been pinched, with a note of the crime log number, then I doubt you'd hear anything else....unless they thought they had good reason to suspect you were trying it on or it needed further investigation just to make sure, say if there were repeat offences?

All this has reinforced my intent to fit the stick-on front plate I ordered recently for £4.99.....looks the biz frankly so what the hell!

And no babies yet......driving me mad, ex-wife doesn't want to get involved til theres a baby to play with and current wife back home 160 miles away in Wales ( ) so I'm the only support (no partner either) and daughters laid up in hospital with pre-eclampsia....this grandad lark isn't all its cracked up to be - who said "you can just hand 'em back"...???

 

[pvr]

Yes, I know technically both of you are correct and I know the law in that area extremely well so I could have quoted that back to myself .

From an experience point of view where one of my customers went through this cycle of putting the burden on the prosecution and failed, I thought it was illogical and unfair:

1. Car got flashed from behind by a mobile camera
2. Him and his wife drove the car on the same road several times during that particular day as it was near his house.
3. He offered both himself and his wife as possible drivers on the S172 and left it up to "them" to sort it out after that.

His view as that as it is a private car and both drivers are insured, it is unfair to have to know at any time of the day who drives it and there is no law that requires you to log each trip for private individuals.

Still found guilty as he did not identify the driver, the picture showed a back of a car and nothing else - so guilty unless proven innocent.

 

[lacroupade]

LOL - just trying to work out which line of business you are in pvr, solicitor or similar I'm assuming?

But sounds like we are in violent agreement; the offence of course was the alternative of failing to self-incriminate, which is a tad mean when theres a genuine lack of clarity on the part of the perps....anyway I thought the default position was always "it was the wife your honour"...? :lol:

Bugger, seems like that ones a draw....what are we going to argue about now?????? Any suggestions?

But lets be honest for a moment, your man would have been NIP'd within 14 days and the idea that he and his wife made so many independent trips that they couldn't remember who was where doing what on a particular day is stretching it a bit - we could argue about that if you like??? On second thoughts its not that interesting is it oh well....

 

[pvr]

Nothing like that, IT I'm afraid but with a very keen interest in (international) traffic law and the unfairness of it, I have even taken a traffic case to court in NL and won - even though being 20 years ago though (lying police and I could prove it that time). And in NL they openly claim it is a money / taxation scheme which even has it's own entry it the budget on the income side, unlike here where they try to hide it under "safety".

We could still argue about your point about the 14 days and remembering who drove when though. Take our new Polo for example, that is the family runabout now for everyone to use, so soon that will be 4 people taking that car. If that were to be a saturday, it is in and out of the drive down the road every 30 minutes or so and there is no way I would know who was driving it at 11:03 on a saturday morning 10 days ago for example.

Funny thing is that I have 0 points on my license, and I have a get out clause by swapping back to a European license and therefore unable to receive points (yes - I am aware of the shadow license they create etc), but no points means no insurance increase until you actually get banned via a virtual 12 points. However, despite that, I hate the system with a passion.

I would even go that far, that if I was ever caught - I would hire Nick Freeman to defend me, that is how much I hate the law(ness).

 

[lacroupade]

With you there - I too confess to being in IT :beerdive: but not on the technical side....

Didn't know about the shadow license, whats that about?

 

[pvr]

When you get done for a UK offence on a foreign license, they create a virtual UK license in your name where you collect virtual points.

If you hit 12 virtual points, you are not allowed to drive in the UK but they can not take you license (so you can still drive in your home country).


Do you have a French license?

 

[lacroupade]

No just a french house LOL.

Interesting, I didn't know about that, it makes me feel a bit better about all these lousy truck drivers who can't...

 

[Andy]

Now this is interesting, I'm elligible for an Irish passport and wondered about trying to get an Irish driving license too.

I do have points in the UK - what's the likelyhood of being able to produce an alternative license should I want to avoid the points on my british license?

I'm sure it would be spotted and I'd be done for perverting the course etc, but I've always wondered how close I'd get?