If the Yahoo News story is correct, I suspect the registered owner of the vehicle may be in for more than just $1200 in fines. Tracing back to who made the fraudulent claims is straightforward and the registered owner might have some knocks on the door with a ‘please explain’ being asked.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I had a look at the Vicroads nomination form, and there doesn’t appear to be any requirement for the nominator of another driver to demonstrate proof of identity. Just name and address.
Both of which could be false.
1 Like
It will be as
It is an offence under the Road Safety Act 1986 (which may carry a fine in excess of $9,000 and potential licence loss for an individual, or a fine in excess of $18,000 for a body corporate) to knowingly provide false or misleading information in a nomination statement.
The actual form also states the above offence as well.
2 Likes
And how do you deal with a false name and address?
Now presumably this car has been photographed and can be identified back to the registered owner. Assuming the plates are legit. Maybe that is part of the story that is not mentioned.
2 Likes
The registered owner would have nominated the driver, signed the form as a statutory declaration and agreed that the information was not false or misleading (as per above).
If they were false plates, the registered owner (of the car with the registered plates being used) would have disputed the fines and not nominated someone else as the driver. It make no sense for them to nominate another driver when false plates were on an unknown car as they would be committing an offence.
2 Likes
But the nomination can be done online. What signature?
A signature is required if it isn’t done online. The form linked and referred to in the post about signing can be printed and completed offline. It has a section for signing (refer Section E). VicRoads allow nomination forms to be lodged by writing on the printed form, signing and posting. The postal address for lodging is included on the printed form.
If lodging online, one needs to declare/authorise that lodged information is true and accurate. Not doing so, the offense is very clear and articulated above.
Legislation has also evolved in the past decade or so in relation to validity of electronic communications/authorisations. As indicated above, to knowingly provide false or misleading information in a nomination statement is an offence no matter if lodged by post or online.
So how were the fines issued to the driver of the black car in the first instance? Something is missing from this story.
P.S.
Very much a side story to the topic.
2 Likes
The other key information required for the nomination form is the infringement notice number. Only those issued with the infringement will know this…which firstly is the registered owner based on the number plates.
2 Likes
Speculation if you think so?
I was more interested in the possibility the registered owner might not be who the system believes they are or live where they say? Why risk the penalties if it’s so easy to be caught out?
Given the level of identity loss these days, it might be the next level in ghosting someone else’s vehicle details beyond just the registration plate. Speculative, but is there any other reasonable explanation for what has occurred?
1 Like
Not speculation. The VicRoads states that infringment notices which aren’t directly issued to the driver (e.g. roadside stop) are issued to the registered owner of the vehicle. If the registered owner isn’t the driver at the time of driving (inc. business registered vehicles), the registered owner can fill in a nomination form (online or paper copy) to provide details of the driver at the time the infringement occurred. The same process occurs in other states.
There is potential that the car has been sold and the new owner hasn’t transferred ownership within the prescribed time. In such case, the transfer documentation can be used as evidence that the infringement notices were issued to the wrong person/business, and the infringements resuit from the new owner before registration change to the new owner. The new owner would then receive the infringement notices. The same process occurs in each state.
Likewise if the registered owner has changed address without updating details. If this happened, a person at an address might receive an letter addressed to someone else. If they did open it by mistake, it is unlikely they would fill in a nomination form because the infringement wasn’t theirs anyway. It won’t happen unless someone wants to intentionally cause trouble to themselves.
Possible that ‘ghosting’ could occur, but, it wouldn’t have occurred in the above case. If it was ghosted and the registered owner subject of identity theft received infringement notices which weren’t theirs, why would they then fraudulently fill in a nomination form to then blame someone else for infringement notices which weren’t theirs. They commit an offence because they chose not to notify of infringements which aren’t theirs. It won’t happen unless someone wants to intentionally cause trouble to themselves. It doesn’t make sense or is plausible.
There are also times/circumstances that nomination forms can’t be used. These circumstances are outlined on the VicRoads website.
1 Like
The detail missing from the source article, a reference from a piece of ACA high quality journalism is whether they’ve spoken with Vic Police. Why? Should they have followed up to verify physically the identity and location of the owner of the black Audi, and whether they completed the documentation disputed? One would hope ACA have a balanced story and ensured more than just one portion is reliable.
My thoughts are it may have, and someone has been able to manipulate the system. I’m aware of one recent instance where mail of a very official nature was arriving at an unoccupied address and a person unknown was quietly checking the mail. It was reported with no known outcome.
Given as stated the system of delivery is supposedly to the rightful owner, it’s speculative the owner might be so frivolous to use a stolen identity to redirect the infringement. It’s also speculative the true identify of the vehicle and owner have been falsified in someway. This includes some subterfuge with the mailing address. Perhaps it’s simply an error by the Victorian authorities?
I wonder if further discussion is best left until the full facts are established and a statement is available from the Victorian authorities. In the interim there will be a cohort of Victorian owners of black Audi vehicles wondering if they too may have been victims.
P.S.
‘A Current Affair: Melbourne man blames Optus hack for receiving someone else's traffic fines
2 Likes
The article proposal to demand recipients acknowledge they are to be allocated blame is ridiculous.
It has disaster written all over it.
From employers or rental companies suddenly chasing people to sign for weeks or months
To forcing the owner who may have abusive spouses being asked to approach and exchange a form.
Needing to Ask for a license number is enough to make an individual aware of their involvement.
In cases like the ‘high quality’ aca story of is punishable by severe fraud charges the original person is absolutely known and impossible to just disappear the original crime but is absolutely stupid they midas well rob a bank wearing a name badge and uniform.
there is absolutely not a realistic circumstance that a stolen license number will abdicate the initial fine.
Just a fear mongering story with no purpose other than string some sort of tabloid attention
2 Likes
It really doesn’t matter in this case. The innocent person who received the fines can simply reject them via section D on the nomination form and send it back.
A simple explanation is all that is needed. Ie, on holidays and nowhere near the offence location.
Up to Fines Victoria to deal with.
3 Likes
SMH what people will try.
1 Like
Hopefully we all read past the headline and opening statement.
There are two concerns.
Firstly the lack of judgement and moral responsibility now reflecting poorly on the character of the person attempting to shift the fine.
Secondly a question concerning the system which may have made it all too easy to attempt to pass the fine off to an unknown.
Is this type of fraud (disturbing as it must be to the victims) occurring sufficiently often to require change, or are the media grabbing at a handful of exceptions to draw in more interest?
P.S.
How the ABC headlined it.
Seems that the driver nomination process in QLD is even slacker than my state of Vic if this story is correct.
Don’t even need to supply a licence number of the nominated driver. Just a name, address and DOB.
In Queensland, the driver nomination occurs through their Department of Transport online account, rather than a public portal like that which occurs in Victoria. If one doesn’t have an online account, then one fills in a standard Statutory Declaration form which requires witnessing.
2 Likes
An epilogue.
2 Likes
The final shoe dropped.
1 Like
