Who is the onus on here?

Vegeta

Hey folks

One of my brother's friends was stopped driving my brother's car.

The car was out of tax.

Who has to pay the fine?

My brother as he was the registered owner or the person driving?

Sorry if this was asked before but a summons came in the door this morning over something which we thought had been sorted.

dirtydiesel

Who ever is named on the summons is gonna have to pay it, its really down to your brother to sort it, the other guy should give him something towards it as he was driving.

Berty

Your brother should pay 100% of it.

If I come to your house to watch the Heineken Cup Final and the TV license man comes banging down the door and you happen to be out the back smoking do I have to pay the fine because I was watching the TV at the time?

Your brother should take the ownership of his own property.

Gumbo

the onus is on the driver to ensure the car they are driving (no matter who owns it) has valid insurance, tax and NCT.

Gary ITR

the onus is on the driver. If your brother was summonsed he will have to go to court and explain he wasn't the driver. I would assume the guard took details of the driver at the time he was stopped.
Any company vehicle i had it was always made clear that things like tax and keeping tyres legal were my responsibility

Berty

Onkle wrote: »

Any company vehicle i had it was always made clear that things like tax and keeping tyres legal were my responsibility

That's slightly different because you are considered the "end user" and treat the vehicle as your own property. I always reffered to my company cars and MY car.

Vegeta

Berty wrote: »

Your brother should pay 100% of it.

If I come to your house to watch the Heineken Cup Final and the TV license man comes banging down the door and you happen to be out the back smoking do I have to pay the fine because I was watching the TV at the time?

Your brother should take the ownership of his own property.

Your opinion is not what I am after Berty. The current legislation governing the matter is.

Berty

Vegeta wrote: »

Your opinion is not what I am after Berty. The current legislation governing the matter is.

Maybe you should read the charter of the motoring forum so! :mad:

Charter wrote:

This is a public forum used by people with no idea what they are talking about. Don't assume the advice given is correct.

Vegeta

Onkle wrote: »

the onus is on the driver. If your brother was summonsed he will have to go to court and explain he wasn't the driver. I would assume the guard took details of the driver at the time he was stopped.
Any company vehicle i had it was always made clear that things like tax and keeping tyres legal were my responsibility

Yeah the guy driving had to produce his insurance details so there is proof he was driving at the time.

pa990

legally, the driver should pay the fine.

Morally, the owner should have paid

Vegeta

Berty wrote: »

Maybe you should read the charter of the motoring forum so! :mad:

There is a difference between giving incorrect advice by accident and stating what you think "should" happen.

Your brother should pay 100% of it.

Sorry for my bluntness but that is not what I'm interested in finding out.

Vegeta

pa990 wrote: »

legally, the driver should pay the fine.

Morally, the owner should have paid

The friend was fully aware of the situation (no tax) and was told he was taking a risk.

It's not as if it was a surprise to him

Berty

Still comes down to the fact that your brother is "responsible" for taxing his car so it makes no difference which of them has to pay the fine the money should come of your brothers wallet.

If somebody knows the legal aspect of it then better still, failing that ask your question over on the ES forum.

Vegeta

Berty wrote: »

Still comes down to the fact that your brother is "responsible" for taxing his car so it makes no difference which of them has to pay the fine the money should come of your brothers wallet.

That's fair enough. I don't agree as the friend asked for a lend of my brother's second vehicle, was told it had no tax, was told that he was taking a risk and he still chose to drive it.

If somebody knows the legal aspect of it then better still, failing that ask your question over on the ES forum.

That's a good suggestion and thanks for it

Guy:Incognito

pa990 wrote: »

legally, the driver should pay the fine.

Morally, the owner should have paid

You can't buy morals.

H8GHOTI

Is your brother's friend refusing to pay? That's bad form imo. If he was made fully aware before hand, as you say he was.
I was recently driving my sister's car untaxed, only for a couple of days, while my own was in the garage & I would take 100% responsibility if caught.

I don't know the actual legal answer.

How far out was it and was your brother driving it around himself untaxed?

Vegeta

H8GHOTI wrote: »

Is your brother's friend refusing to pay? That's bad form imo. If he was made fully aware before hand, as you say he was.
I was recently driving my sister's car untaxed, only for a couple of days, while my own was in the garage & I would take 100% responsibility if caught.

I don't know the actual legal answer.

How far out was it and was your brother driving it around himself untaxed?

It was a long way away, about an hour and half. The brother wasn't driving it himself untaxed as he had a van for work.

Well the problem is a summons was handed in by a very friendly Garda (no sarcasm here, he was a nice guy) this morning. That means a fine of approx 1200 euro is it

At the time the friend was stopped, my brother told him repeatedly to pay the 60 euro fine. The friend agreed

As there was no notification 28 days later or whatever that the fine was increased to 90 euro, it was assumed that the fine was indeed paid.

Until this morning of course.

Drummerboy08

I think legally the driver is responsible for ensuring the vehicle he is driving is taxed, ensured, and roadworthy.

I know thats written in law somewhere, but hopefully someone from the ES forum will be over shortly to post it so I dont have to.

If your brother told his friend of the risks involved by taking the car, I dont think he should pay anything tbh. It was the friends choice to drive an un-taxed car.

Can I ask why the car wasnt taxed? Was it off the road or something?

Vegeta

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Can I ask why the car wasnt taxed? Was it off the road or something?

It was a second vehicle and not being driven because couldn't afford the running costs.

Drummerboy08

Vegeta wrote: »

It was a second vehicle and not being driven because couldn't afford the running costs.

So in other words, he wasnt trying to avoid paying it.

I think his friend should be paying it, especially if he was warned of the dangers.

H8GHOTI

Vegeta wrote: »

It was a long way away, about an hour and half.

I meant how long was the tax out?

MarkR

If the driver had permission of the owner, then the owner is at fault for allowing it on the road.

daveharnett

The offense is driving without tax - the driver is responsible for making sure the car he is driving is legal. Is there some dispute? If your brother has loaned the car for the medium term, I don't think there's any question as to where responsibility lies (legally or morally).