Molds

Pls don't flame me as fingers crossed, touch wood my license is clean - this is for a friend, honestly!

43 in a 30. What's the low down on what to expect? Also anyone got any of those 'speeding advice' type web sites bookmarked please.

Thanks

Matt

TVR Gary

3 POINTS AND £60 FINE.

Scooby96

Take a look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/834532.stm

Sorry I meant get 'your mate' to have a look

Molds

that's pretty interesting scooby96.

not sure if it was camera or mobile unit - didnt think to ask him.

i knew i would get stick for the "its for a friend" line!

Scooby96

Thought I'd got caught literally days before I bought my first scoob (a mere 3 weeks ago) but luckily it was checking tax discs - not that i think it would have picked mine up at 95mph. Many a sleepless night waiting for the postman to deliver my points or summons for speeding. Phew - lesson well and truly learnt!

scooby_si

http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk very good
Si

scooby_si

& Molds if you do your NIP might come from same place where advice on previous link for "a friend" worked for me [cough] er him
Si

Pikey Tramp Layabout

This is a well known loophole that I thought had been closed! If you don't provide details of who was driving they did you for withholding evidence or interfeering in a police investigation or something like that, either way they got you for something.

Soapy Sam

I got a NIP for 43 in a 30 a couple of years ago, argued by correspondence for months, demanded photo - it didn't prove who (or who wasn't) was driving, in the end they got the hump and said if you don't complete the NIP, we'll do you for that as well as the SP30.

I bottled it and stumped up.....

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

pikey said not the case my friend, DEFINATELY NOT THE CASE..

the legal requirement is to identify the driver by providing the drivers license identity number. The police requirement is that the form be signed and there for admissable as evidence in a british court of law.
The two requirements are very different.

my suggestion would be to track down the case notes for HH judge TICEHURST who sat in the Bristol crown court. It can be supplied if requested.
The date escapes me, sorry, could be 13th december tho?? will check. hang on.
Andy

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

anyone concerned should maybe read this...

The Bristol Crown Court confirmed that the loophole (the Judge called it a "lacuna" in the law) does exist and works. Decision 13th December 2002 by HH Judge Ticehurst [d.p.p. v Pickford].

Pikey Tramp Layabout

Andy I think you misunderstand what I meant, the police require you to identify the driver, which if you do, your incriminating either yourself or someone else which is against human right laws which is the loophole. but if you don't discolose the info they want they will do the registered keeper of the car for witholding evidence or failing to cooperate in a police investigation or something similar so either way your stuffed. I am sure this has been discussed on here a few times before with the outcome as I have described. But I bow to your better knowledge as I could be wrong

Cheers
Steve

Scooby96

Pikey Tramp Layabout Good For Nothing Loser or whatever your name is,

"This is a well known loophole that I thought had been closed! If you don't provide details of who was driving they did you for withholding evidence or interfeering in a police investigation or something like that, either way they got you for something"

How about writing a letter stating that at least 5 people have access to your car on a daily basis and that you in all honesty cannot say who was driving - thats not withholding anything!!

Scooby96

It doesnt infringe your human rights identifying someone else as the driver but it does if you have to name yourself - incriminating yourself that is!

Scooby96

"thats not withholding anything!! "

although that could be construed and perjury which I think carries a possible max sentence of life?

Pikey Tramp Layabout

Scooby96 what is with the name calling agresive reply? is there anything in my post that offends you? if so then please let me know because I thought it was a straight forward comment.

Sue Sidal

This is my understanding of the situation.

If your car is filmed exceeding the speed limit, a letter is sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle with a notice of intended prosecution (NIP).

It is a legal requirement that the NIP is received within 14 days of the offence being committed UNLESS, the registered keeper's address is wrong, or is a company car address, that sort of thing, where they have to contact a 4th party in otder to get to the registered keeper and then the driver.

If you are the registered keeper and the address on the V5 (log book) is correct, the 14 day rule applies.

If you do not have this defence, there is a loophole.

The registered keeper has a legal requirement to tell the Police who the driver was at the time of the offence and this is done via the form that is sent to you with or as part of the NIP (differing Police force documentation varies).

If you fail to do this you commit a separate offence.

The document that you complete is returned to the Police and is used as evidence by the force to enable the prosecution of the driver.

With me so far????

It is not however, a legal requirement TO SIGN THE FORM that you send back with the details.

If the document is UNSIGNED, the court SHOULD not accept it as evidence and dismiss the case.

Failing that, there's always the hitch hiker defence.....

I do not condone speeding, nor do I condone misleading the Police or the courts, but sometimes when a person feels that they need to use the system in order to fight the system..........

Turbohot

Check out www.pepipoo.com

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

Steve (aka Pikey, class name by the way).
There are definately two parts to an NIP, one is the legal requirement under S172 of the RTA, whereby the driver must disclose the name of the driver at the time of the offence, its the other part that the police require for a prosecution.
Although importantly there is a development which should most definately be taken into account.
Correspondance between the Central ticket office and the alleged defendant can be construed as admissable evidence if this is signed, and indeed, I believe that this is how the police believe they have closed the loophole, so when you enter into correspondance on the matter, which you will about half a dozen times, do not sign the letter you reply with as they are trying to state that this is the admission,
no nasty names, no back stabbing that is not my style at all, just trying to portray another viewpoint on the matter in a friendly way
I have second hand knowledge from a best friend of mine who has himself most definately used this method to escape convistion, points and a fine. try pepipoo as mentioned above or try www.safespeed.org.uk or .co.uk or something as they have been pushing this method of escape since it was first discovered in 1999, apparently they have assisted with 10`s of thousands of motorists in that time.
Again, as above I must state that speeding is not condonable, use this option once to get off and *learn your lesson* to whoever gets done, if you surely speed everywhere and think you are infallable then you will surely suffer in some way or another.

Andy.....

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

Steve,
it must also be stated that this thread was going really rather well, giving information to other users.
but then the muppet element move in and start with the personal abuse... tsk tsk. why-o-why must they start...?

Andy