Got an NIP
03 December 2003, 05:48 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
51 on a 40 mph dual carriageway. I remember seeing the camera but it was on the opposite carriageway.
Both my wife and I drove down there around the time of the alleged offence, what do I do? I am usually very careful along there, can't believe I was doing 51, which would have been an indicated 54\55 ish.
Both my wife and I drove down there around the time of the alleged offence, what do I do? I am usually very careful along there, can't believe I was doing 51, which would have been an indicated 54\55 ish.
03 December 2003, 06:10 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask for photo evidence. Then if its not clear who was driving state so as your defence. It worked for the Hamiltons
03 December 2003, 06:30 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Death Star
Posts: 21,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds painfull 
Seriously, how could you admit or be prosecuted with out conclusive proof?
As for a photo and if its not clear ask them to help you identify the driver.
Cant confirm or deny this works or not
Seriously, how could you admit or be prosecuted with out conclusive proof?
As for a photo and if its not clear ask them to help you identify the driver.
Cant confirm or deny this works or not
Trending Topics
03 December 2003, 07:42 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait until you are nearly out of time and it is bang in the xmas period, then write to them telling them that you can't remember who was driving.
If you are lucky they will just write it off 'cos they all want to go on hols, if you are unlucky they will send you the pic, or invite you to come in and view it.
Do you have legal cover with your car insurance? If so it could be worth trying to get them to write the letter, or get your solicitor to do it.
If you are lucky they will just write it off 'cos they all want to go on hols, if you are unlucky they will send you the pic, or invite you to come in and view it.
Do you have legal cover with your car insurance? If so it could be worth trying to get them to write the letter, or get your solicitor to do it.
04 December 2003, 07:05 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Hong Kong......
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an observation so dont bother flaming me. You have day and time of offence...........you know who was driving! So whats the big deal? You got nicked! Deal with it.
04 December 2003, 10:17 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
watch they don't use the "duty of care" argument that they have quoted to a friend of mine who received an NIP for 103 mph on the motorway.
The registered owner of the vehicle has a Duty Of Care under the law to ensure that they do not allow anyone to drive their vehicle who is not suitably insured, has not got the appropriate license, or is in an unfit state due to drugs,drink etc., so to that end they MUST know who was driving it.
Thats the way I can see it going from now on, with all these unsigned NIP's and supposed ways to get off. They'll get their money one way or the other, you do all realise that don't you?
The registered owner of the vehicle has a Duty Of Care under the law to ensure that they do not allow anyone to drive their vehicle who is not suitably insured, has not got the appropriate license, or is in an unfit state due to drugs,drink etc., so to that end they MUST know who was driving it.
Thats the way I can see it going from now on, with all these unsigned NIP's and supposed ways to get off. They'll get their money one way or the other, you do all realise that don't you?
04 December 2003, 10:20 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buzz, thats all very well, but if you can only narrow it down to 2 people i.e. yourself and someone else on your insurance policy either of whom may have been driving at the time, then you have shown due care.
04 December 2003, 10:32 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
You have fulfilled your DOC if someone (important!) informs them who was driving. You still don't have to sign it though (EU law), rendering it inadmissible. Also, when you receive a NIP, who informs you of your rights?
Also, the Hamiltons have just been through a case similar to yours. Neither of them got points as the driver could not be reliably identified. They did get stung for a lot of cash though 
[Edited by corradoboy - 12/4/2003 10:34:34 AM]
Re: CASE REF NUMBER
Further to my previous correspondence regarding the above alleged motoring offence:
I have been informed that the Honourable Mr Justice Owen has decided [dpp v Yorke & Mawdesely 2003] that the Section 172 notice of the NIP amounts to a voluntary confession made under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE].
I should be grateful if you would please detail why my legal rights under the provisions of PACE were not explained to me prior to my completion of the form.
I would like to submit the following skeleton argument and should be grateful if you would ensure that I receive a substantive reply by return:
1 The prosecution case is said to be based on a voluntary confession, which has, as aforementioned, been made under the provisions of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE].
2 I will submit that I was neither cautioned, nor offered an explanation of my rights, prior to being required to complete the voluntary confession (s172 of the NIP).
3 In the circumstances, I will submit that my rights under the provisions of PACE have been breached.
4 I will further submit that, as I was deprived of my rights under PACE, I have been deprived of my right, under Article 6 of the ECHR, to a fair trial and that I may be the victim of a malicious prosecution.
Under the circumstances therefore any prosecution is bound to fail.
In the light of this, you may wish to consider withdrawing your case rather than waste the Court's and witness' time. In the event that you decide to proceed with the case and my not guilty plea is successful, I will make an application for my costs.
I look forward to hearing from you by return.
If this is correct, it's game over for the cameras for a while at least.
Further to my previous correspondence regarding the above alleged motoring offence:
I have been informed that the Honourable Mr Justice Owen has decided [dpp v Yorke & Mawdesely 2003] that the Section 172 notice of the NIP amounts to a voluntary confession made under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE].
I should be grateful if you would please detail why my legal rights under the provisions of PACE were not explained to me prior to my completion of the form.
I would like to submit the following skeleton argument and should be grateful if you would ensure that I receive a substantive reply by return:
1 The prosecution case is said to be based on a voluntary confession, which has, as aforementioned, been made under the provisions of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE].
2 I will submit that I was neither cautioned, nor offered an explanation of my rights, prior to being required to complete the voluntary confession (s172 of the NIP).
3 In the circumstances, I will submit that my rights under the provisions of PACE have been breached.
4 I will further submit that, as I was deprived of my rights under PACE, I have been deprived of my right, under Article 6 of the ECHR, to a fair trial and that I may be the victim of a malicious prosecution.
Under the circumstances therefore any prosecution is bound to fail.
In the light of this, you may wish to consider withdrawing your case rather than waste the Court's and witness' time. In the event that you decide to proceed with the case and my not guilty plea is successful, I will make an application for my costs.
I look forward to hearing from you by return.
If this is correct, it's game over for the cameras for a while at least.
[Edited by corradoboy - 12/4/2003 10:34:34 AM]
04 December 2003, 11:02 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right as I see it if
1.I take the rap I'll have had 6 points in 5 years, insurance goes up.
2.Missus takes rap insurance is ok.
3.Fail to sign or state unable to identify, get prosecuted for failing to identify driver, get MS code conviction which puts insurance through roof or uninsurable.
Great
Let's hope the missus will have em.
1.I take the rap I'll have had 6 points in 5 years, insurance goes up.
2.Missus takes rap insurance is ok.
3.Fail to sign or state unable to identify, get prosecuted for failing to identify driver, get MS code conviction which puts insurance through roof or uninsurable.
Great
Let's hope the missus will have em.
04 December 2003, 11:19 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you can only narrow it down to 2 people i.e. yourself and someone else on your insurance policy either of whom may have been driving at the time, then you have shown due care.
I don't agree with the system, I think it stinks big time!
I would certainly think long and hard about trying the PACE argument against giving them a voluntary confession of guilt which is then used to prosecute you, all without having it explained that this is what you are actually doing. In a police station you would have the right to silence and not to incriminate yourself, so why should "by post" be different?
Can anyone name me another "crime" where they post you a "Confession of Guilt" form?
04 December 2003, 11:33 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've called them and asked whether they can id the driver. The "nice" lady I spoke to will ring me back within an hour.
If they can't I guess it's a flip of the coin. Hardly justice tho'
If they can't I guess it's a flip of the coin. Hardly justice tho'
04 December 2003, 11:38 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That word "justice" again.
Matt, how would it be an injustice if you had to pay a speeding fine on account of you/your car being caught speeding?
Matt, how would it be an injustice if you had to pay a speeding fine on account of you/your car being caught speeding?
04 December 2003, 11:46 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt - don't worry - I got a NIP in exactly the sme cicumstances - could have been me or wife driving, both insured, but I got NIP as I'm the registered keeper.
I asked for the photo to see if it would id (was no. plate only so no use) then I wrote them a letter explaining that we genuinally couldn't remember -it was our main car and we both regulalry use, and as it was a long journey we had swapped drives, so don't know who was driving at the time of the offence.
Result: - no further action.
I asked for the photo to see if it would id (was no. plate only so no use) then I wrote them a letter explaining that we genuinally couldn't remember -it was our main car and we both regulalry use, and as it was a long journey we had swapped drives, so don't know who was driving at the time of the offence.
Result: - no further action.
04 December 2003, 11:53 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Telboy - If I had been caught speeding it would certainly be justice, however it certainly was my car, may have been me, or my wife.
The road is very close to home, the van was there all day, we both used the car around the time in question (lunch time). I remember seeing it.
We could both leave home, drive past the van and be back home in ten minutes(without breaking speed limits).
With the case of the truvelo or a police stop then no doubt can exist. I got caught 3 years back on the M5 by a traffic car, no problem it was me etc etc. I thought English law was based on beyond reasonable doubt and all that.
Maybe I am naive, I was under the impression you only got done if the driver can be clearly id'd from the evidence.
The road is very close to home, the van was there all day, we both used the car around the time in question (lunch time). I remember seeing it.
We could both leave home, drive past the van and be back home in ten minutes(without breaking speed limits).
With the case of the truvelo or a police stop then no doubt can exist. I got caught 3 years back on the M5 by a traffic car, no problem it was me etc etc. I thought English law was based on beyond reasonable doubt and all that.
Maybe I am naive, I was under the impression you only got done if the driver can be clearly id'd from the evidence.
04 December 2003, 12:04 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am under the impression that the police want the money from whoever they can get it out of, by fair means or by intimidation with "if you go to court it'll be 6 million points and a £gazillion fine for arguing with us" type letters...
If you are posting money out by the way, I entered you for the Canadian lottery and you won, so could you send me £600 so I can claim the £1.5 million pound jackpot for you? Obviously you can't do it yourself 'cos the tickets are in my name etc etc... No, it's not a scam at all, honest!
If you are posting money out by the way, I entered you for the Canadian lottery and you won, so could you send me £600 so I can claim the £1.5 million pound jackpot for you? Obviously you can't do it yourself 'cos the tickets are in my name etc etc... No, it's not a scam at all, honest!
04 December 2003, 12:13 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt, everything you've said is correct of course, but from a purely judicial point of view, justice would be done if someone paid the fine for the speeding offence which has clearly been committed, not evading it.
Though of course i understand that you will avoid it if you can. I can see why the loophole of identification is being closed.
Though of course i understand that you will avoid it if you can. I can see why the loophole of identification is being closed.
04 December 2003, 02:42 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Matt,
They've identified it was your car, so they'll prosecute the registered owner unless you tell them someone else was driving your car. Whether the "admitting liability" loophole works or not, I've no idea.
Personally, I'd take it like a man so to speak. Either that or dob your wife in.
Stefan
They've identified it was your car, so they'll prosecute the registered owner unless you tell them someone else was driving your car. Whether the "admitting liability" loophole works or not, I've no idea.
Personally, I'd take it like a man
so to speak. Either that or dob your wife in.Stefan
05 December 2003, 01:31 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I know. This is very different to the Hamilton case, in so far as I know I was driving the car around that time, but also my wife did too.
The place in question is literally 1 mile from home, I went out 2-3 times that day driving a loop round testing positioning of my mp3 player. Once I got home my wife went to town.
Million dollar question, who was driving when the car was exceeding the limit.
I've sent the NIP back stating the facts and asking for their advice, I don't think it fair I just take it on the chin. The camera unit have already stated on the phone they can not id the driver.
The place in question is literally 1 mile from home, I went out 2-3 times that day driving a loop round testing positioning of my mp3 player. Once I got home my wife went to town.
Million dollar question, who was driving when the car was exceeding the limit.
I've sent the NIP back stating the facts and asking for their advice, I don't think it fair I just take it on the chin. The camera unit have already stated on the phone they can not id the driver.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post