Motorist told to regularise vehicle ownership following speeding summonses

A man who incorrectly filled out the logbook of a car he sold to strangers has been told by a judge to rectify its ownership after appearing in court to face a series of speeding summonses since handing over its keys.

Ricardo Rostas of Clareview Park, Ballybane, Galway was before Mullingar District Court to answer four speeding summonses issued following the non-payment of Fixed Charge Notices (FCNs) between January 27 and March 9, 2026.

Three of the four, the court heard, were recorded by GoSafe speed van operators on January 27 and within a minute and a half of one other.

Judge Bernadette Owens was told Mr Rostas’ vehicle was detected travelling at speeds of between 109kmh and 111kmh in an 80kmh zone along the R156 at Grange More, Raharney, Westmeath on the date in question.

GoSafe official Leo Kenny gave evidence that the unidentified occupants of the car gave him a “salute with the fingers” as it first passed by and when it turned back a matter of seconds later.

He said his suspicions about the vehicle and its occupants resulted in him contacting gardaí.

The other summons issued to Mr Rostas followed an incident on March 9 when the same vehicle was detected travelling at 149kmh in a 100kmh zone on the N4 at Culleen Beg, Mullingar, Westmeath.

That offence was struck out by Judge Owens after it emerged the prosecution had no certificate of registration from that day in court to prove Mr Rostas was the legal owner of the car.

Sgt Paul McNally attempted to plead with the court to hold off embarking on that ruling, saying checks carried out through the garda Pulse computer database showed Mr Rostas was still the legal owner of the car.

Mr Rostas told the court he had sold the car to a man on December 4 last year and was now “getting tickets and everything”.

“At the very beginning we had a deal,” he told the court, insisting how he could back up his claims via screenshots of text messages he exchanged with the man.

“The guy came down to see the car but he didn’t have enough money, so he gave me €1,000 up front and he told me later in the week he would send me a further €400 – which he sent to me.”

Mr Rostas said he filled out the car’s logbook by signing his own name without witnessing the signature of the proposed purchaser.

“Sure that’s not going to complete a lawful transfer if the purchaser doesn’t sign the form,” said Judge Owens.

“Both vendor and purchaser have to sign a transfer of ownership.”

Mr Rostas said he was “pretty sure” the man signed the logbook before leaving, insisting he could also provide photographic evidence of the purchaser’s identity.

Hesaid the man instructed him to put the vehicle in a named female’s name.

“But how could you put it in somebody else’s name if he had already signed the form?” Judge Owens asked.

Sgt McNally handed in a photocopy of the vehicle’s ownership transfer showing signatures of two people, but not the male individual Rostas claimed to have sold his car to.

“There is no male signature on it, there is only your signature on it,” Sgt McNally told him.

Mr Rostas replied for a second time, telling the court how the man instructed him to write the woman’s name down on the form but insisted the man had “previously signed” the section detailing the identity of the vehicle’s new owner.

Documentation to that effect was handed in to Judge Owens along with screenshot messages Sgt McNally said referred to “burnouts” being deliberately carried out by the man Rostas claimed he had sold his car to.

Judge Owens said the court was at a complete loss in its attempts to interpret how the vehicle’s change of ownership was processed.

“You have a form that you signed and it’s dated December 4, 2025 and the counter signature for buying the car is (a named female),” she put it to him.

Mr Rostas confirmed that woman was never present at any stage of the process, adding: “He signed it before he gave me the book and left.”

Sgt McNally intervened at that juncture by telling Mr Rostas an “incorrect procedure” had been followed during the course of the sale.

“That is your vehicle and your responsibility, as the vehicle is still registered in your name,” he said, while pressing Mr Rostas on whether he had attended his local tax office to try to rectify the position.

Mr Rostas responded, saying he spoke to a female officer at a garda station in Galway, who told him to attend court and provide evidence the car was no longer in his possession.

Following a brief adjournment of the case to consider her ruling, Judge Owens returned to the bench and dismissed the remaining three summonses against the accused.

She said the court, in making its decision, was also swayed by the contents of screenshots taken from text messages Mr Rostas had received having handed his car over to its prospective new owner.

One of those, the court heard read: “Before I do burnouts in front of every speed van, what’s the story?”

In dismissing the case, Judge Owens said Mr Rostas had been “extremely careless” in the way he had gone about selling his car and urged him to regularise its ownership without delay.