Forged signature on log book.

fineso.mom

A friend of mine got a summons recently for not paying a fine for non display of tax for a car they have never owned. It turned out their partner bought the car, wrote my friend's name on the log book and then drove it with no tax. My friend never got a fixed penalty notice so I presume the partner got a ticket and ignored it which then led to the summons.
I advised them to go straight to the guards but through loyalty (!) my friend is going to go to court and take the rap.
My question is...is my friend committing some sort of fraud by doing this?
This is a person who would go back to a shop if they got ten cents too much in change. They are acting out of loyalty but I think the guards should have been their first course of action ( and the partners marching orders the second).

Marcusm

Suggest that they look to the Chris Huhne/Vicky Pryce case in the UK to see not only how matters such as this can lead to break ups but also to time in prison. Pleading guilty to non display of tax may have different consequences however providing false details - in the case of the partner forging the declaration of ownership and, less assuredly, taking the rap for it are dishonesty/false declaration offences which can carry a jail sentence. They are regarded much more harshly than the underlying non display offence. They can also have employment and financial considerations if discovered/pursued.

Ken.

I'm fairly certain non display of tax and attempted murder would be my charges. Your friend is a doormat and the other guy new his mark when he forged that log book.

fineso.mom

This is what I'm worried about. I presume the law is similar in Ireland? They work in a sector where any sort of conviction would possibly mean an end to their career.
It's madness really and I know they are totally stressed out about it but I suppose they want to protect the partner. Of course if the partner was in any way decent my friend wouldn't be in this position.
I've considered going to the guards myself but that would be the end of our friendship I'd say.
I think I'll look up a bit about false declarations, perhaps if they realised the possible consequences it might change their mind.
Thanks for the reply.

Ken.

It's not a huge fine or anything but being done for no tax= fine. Being done for fraud = possibly no travel to places like Australia or America

Road Traffic Act, 1961 115

(1) Where a person is required by this Act or regulations thereunder to furnish particulars in connection with an application for the grant or issue of a licence or certificate or otherwise in connection with a licence, certificate or vehicle, he shall not furnish pursuant to the requirement any particulars which to his knowledge are false or in any material respect misleading.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Where, in a prosecution for an offence under subsection (2) of this section with respect to particulars in connection with an application for the grant or issue of a licence or certificate, such grant or issue and an application therefor are proved, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that the person to whom the licence or certificate was granted or issued made the application.

(4) A person shall not forge or fraudulently alter or use, or fraudulently lend to, or allow to be used by, any other person, any licence, plate, badge or certificate issued under this Act or under regulations thereunder.

(5) A person who contravenes subsection (4) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

(7) Notwithstanding subsection (4) of section 10 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) of this section may be instituted within twelve months from the date of the offence.

brian_t

Your friends partner is a criminal. You would have to wonder what other dishonesty they might have done.

fineso.mom

ken wrote: »

I'm fairly certain non display of tax and attempted murder would be my charges. Your friend is a doormat and the other guy new his mark when he forged that log book.

I cant disagree with you. But there's only so much I can do. The partner is bad news but if I interfere too much my friend might cut me off and I don't want them to be without an ally.

fineso.mom

brian_t wrote: »

Your friends partner is a criminal. You would have to wonder what other dishonesty they might have done.

I don't ! Google answers that question. He is no stranger to the legal system it turns out. Unfortunately my friend was already hooked by the time someone alerted her to that fact.

Marcusm

ken wrote: »

It's not a huge fine or anything but being done for no tax= fine. Being done for fraud = possibly no travel to places like Australia or America

Road Traffic Act, 1961 115

(1) Where a person is required by this Act or regulations thereunder to furnish particulars in connection with an application for the grant or issue of a licence or certificate or otherwise in connection with a licence, certificate or vehicle, he shall not furnish pursuant to the requirement any particulars which to his knowledge are false or in any material respect misleading.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Where, in a prosecution for an offence under subsection (2) of this section with respect to particulars in connection with an application for the grant or issue of a licence or certificate, such grant or issue and an application therefor are proved, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that the person to whom the licence or certificate was granted or issued made the application.

(4) A person shall not forge or fraudulently alter or use, or fraudulently lend to, or allow to be used by, any other person, any licence, plate, badge or certificate issued under this Act or under regulations thereunder.

(5) A person who contravenes subsection (4) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

(7) Notwithstanding subsection (4) of section 10 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, proceedings for an offence under subsection (2) of this section may be instituted within twelve months from the date of the offence.

The max fine was increased to €3,000 in 2006. The Huhne/Pryce case was prosecuted under similar UK legislation. If either party works in finance or legal arenas, I would not expect a conviction under this to be regarded as a "motoring offence" but one of dishonesty and likely to result in a loss of professional membership or being rendered unfit for certain employments.

Carawaystick

Ah but this is Ireland. Willie O Dea was caught perjuring himself in the High Court and sher nothing was done about it.

NUTLEY BOY

fineso.mom wrote: »

---- SNIP ---my friend is going to go to court and take the rap.

In short, this is foolish in the extreme.

Your friend is probably also perverting the course of justice and a few other little naughties.

Some day this will probably come back to bite in a number of ways in terms of employment, applications for insurance policies and so on.

FreudianSlippers

Carawaystick wrote: »

Ah but this is Ireland. Willie O Dea was caught perjuring himself in the High Court and sher nothing was done about it.

For balance: As far as I know O'Dea was never found to have committed perjury and has denied such claims.

fineso.mom

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

In short, this is foolish in the extreme.

Your friend is probably also perverting the course of justice and a few other little naughties.

Some day this will probably come back to bite in a number of ways in terms of employment, applications for insurance policies and soon.

This is the angle I'm going to take. A twenty five year unblemished career and one of the most stand up honest people I know, and they are considering putting it all in jeopardy for someone who is pretty much the opposite. She didn't even know the car existed before the summons arrived.
Thanks to all for taking the time to reply. I'm hoping some cold hard facts will make them see sense.

Little CuChulainn

Scenario: Your friend pleads guilty to this offence and gets a fine. The next day her partner is involved in a hit and run in which someone is seriously injured. Your friend is prosecuted because she owns the car and has admitted to the courts she drives it. What defence has she?

And thats to say nothing of the future fines for speeding, parking and toll bridges that she will be liable for.

fineso.mom

Supposedly the car is gone now. But I would take anything the partner says with a pinch of salt to be honest.
I'll be adding that scenario to the list of reasons why it's not a good idea to go to court.
I advised going to the guards or a solicitor but neither has been done. I can only imagine a solicitor would say WALK AWAY!
Anyway going to have a chat later and hope they see sense. Thanks again for the help.

Marcusm

fineso.mom wrote: »

Supposedly the car is gone now. But I would take anything the partner says with a pinch of salt to be honest.
I'll be adding that scenario to the list of reasons why it's not a good idea to go to court.
I advised going to the guards or a solicitor but neither has been done. I can only imagine a solicitor would say WALK AWAY!
Anyway going to have a chat later and hope they see sense. Thanks again for the help.

I think you'd be doing her a disservice by advising her not to go to court. She has received a summons - that's an order to appear at the court. If she does not appear, a warrant may be issued for her arrest.

She MUST go to court, she SHOULD engage a solicitor beforehand and she NEEDS TO decide what she's going to plead in answer to the charges.

Little CuChulainn

fineso.mom wrote: »

Supposedly the car is gone now. But I would take anything the partner says with a pinch of salt to be honest.
I'll be adding that scenario to the list of reasons why it's not a good idea to go to court.
I advised going to the guards or a solicitor but neither has been done. I can only imagine a solicitor would say WALK AWAY!
Anyway going to have a chat later and hope they see sense. Thanks again for the help.

The car is gone where? That's even more worrying. The guy would have difficulty selling it without being the registered owner unless he sold it to someone dodgy. That invites even more potential issues.

fineso.mom

Marcusm wrote: »

I think you'd be doing her a disservice by advising her not to go to court. She has received a summons - that's an order to appear at the court. If she does not appear, a warrant may be issued for her arrest.

She MUST go to court, she SHOULD engage a solicitor beforehand and she NEEDS TO decide what she's going to plead in answer to the charges.

Sorry I meant I'd be advising her not to take responsibility for the car and non display when she goes to court. She definitely needs a solicitor. It's a mess.

fineso.mom

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The car is gone where? That's even more worrying. The guy would have difficulty selling it without being the registered owner unless he sold it to someone dodgy. That invites even more potential issues.

Exactly , where is the car ? Even if he did manage to sell it I cant see him bothering to send off the tax book. He obviously wasnt bothered about the fixed penalty notice in the first place, so can't see hI'm caring about any offences by the new owners.

And Dodgy should be his his middle name.

goz83

I say this with respect.

Your friend is not being loyal. Your friend is being an idiot with a big fat Loser engraved across her forehead. Tell her to cop on to herself. The partner wasn't very loyal was he?

fineso.mom

Ah listen, you're preaching to the converted!
This situation is so beyond normal for her. It took a lot to even tell me,she is mortified. As I said before she would go back to a shop if she thought they have given her a few cents too much change. Would have zero experience of anything approaching dodginess.
Now that I have a bit of information about the seriousness of making a false declaration I think I can convince her to take a step back and reconsider taking the blame. I'd say your man has her convinced it will be grand and she just wants to believe him. As they say...it's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through in order to stay in a sh**th relationship.

robindch

fineso.mom wrote: »

Would have zero experience of anything approaching dodginess.

As above, once the police and courts are involved, she really needs to go see a solicitor to find out what her options are.

fineso.mom

robindch wrote: »

As above, once the police and courts are involved, she really needs to go see a solicitor to find out what her options are.

Absolutely, I agree. I'll be advising same. Thanks.

BattleCorp

If she was my friend, I wouldn't pussy foot around, afraid to hurt her feelings.

If she fell out with me, then so be it.

I wouldn't be a proper friend if I didn't do my best to show her the dangers of going to court and admitting to an offence that had nothing to do with her.

Her partner sounds like a real catch.