jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

Well what a load of bollox..

Got a form from police on 18/06/2004 stating on 11/05/2004 my car was exceeding speed limit etc etc.

Now I wrote back saying there must be a mistake and I'd sold the car etc, (I didn't look at the date, just presumed it'd been a recent offence near the date of the letter they sent).

They wrote saying they'd sent me the same form on the 13/05/2004 and I'd not replied.

As I said I sold the car in between the time of the offence and the second letter they sent me. I had 4 people view the car and 1 I met in a nearby town, 2 came to my place of work and test drove the car and 1 (the buyer) came to my house and took the car. I genuinely had no idea if it was me or one of the 2 test drivers who were driving at the time. I wrote and told them this (as it states on the form about.. must give details of who was driving, it's an offence to give incorrect etc). I explained about the car being for sale and now sold and about the test drives, the time between the offence and the time I received the letter.

The main reason I suspect it could have been a test driver was because at that time/date I would have been at work, both came around the middle of the day, the car was going away from my work (something I don't do as I only get 1/2 hour for lunch). I seriously didn't know. If I'd got the first letter they sent me I may have an idea, but half the time I can't even remember what I had for breakfast.

My reply was that they were considering whether to take court action...

Today I received the court summons..

The thing is I really don't know what to do. The summons is for 'failing to give information for who was driving'. It gives me the option of pleading guilty by post, guilty in person or not guilty. Thing is technically I didn't give the information as I didn't know it. So what am I supposed to do plead guilty (which I suppose I am, but only guilty of not providing the info) or not guilty (which surely means I'd be saying I did provide the info). If I plead guilty what the hell does that mean/proove?. Seems madness to me.

FWIW I'm no idiot boy racer, never had points/convictions in over ten years of driving.

hedgehog

The offence in this case is the s172 Failing to Provide. This is the catch 22 with the NIP.

If you don't know how was driving the only way to escape the s172 conviction is to prove in court that you didn't know who was driving and, as you will realise, that is nearly impossible. The "innocent until proven guilty" clause doesn't apply when it comes to government control of personal mobility.

This same problem occurs when, for example, the car caught in the photo is a clone. The government estimate that there are 140,000 clones on the roads so it is not uncommon for people to get NIPs for places they could not possibly have been. None of these people can state who was driving and if they don't confess they get done on the Failing to Provide count. In this situation many people just confess to a crime that they couldn't possibly have been involved in and take the £60 and 3 points for speeding. The camera partnerships love this as their records look good and it is another £60 in the bank and it works well for the government as there is no one complaining about cloned cars.

I recall one case where the victim of a s172 case brought people who had been at a wedding he attended in Wales to court as evidence than he couldn't possibly have been driving a car at the other end of the country and couldn't possibly have known who was driving it. He was found guilty on the s172 count.

Unfortunately for you the s172 endorsment on your licence is viewed as a very serious offence by the insurance companies, though the actual penalties in court are rarely much greater than the speeding penalty.

You don't have any defence that you didn't get the NIP either, the law is such that if the police claim to have sent it then you are deemed to have received it. I know how the real world mail system works, but these laws are designed to gain control over your personal mobility and so don't take the real world into account. As far as the court is concerned you got sent 2 NIPs and ignored the first one.

You've been stitched up well and good by a system that is designed just for that purpose, hence why everyone should do their best to fight every NIP if they are in a position to do so. This isn't about driving fast, this is about our rights to drive at all.

In view of the fact that you will get the license endorsment no matter which way you plead it may be worth your while to get a good solicitor with plenty of motoring experience and to go not guilty. It must be said, however, that this will not be inexpensive in the short term but you might want to set the cost against increased insurance costs. A good solicitor who is aware of current defence strategy in this area may be able to give you at least a fighting chance of getting off the hook but it is going to be tricky proving due diligence in your quest to establish who was actually driving, especially when the court must "believe" that you ignored the first NIP you were sent.

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

So I'm going to get a conviction on my licence for this?!, I'm going to get it whatever happens now?, what a joke!.

You've got me feeling sick now with the insurance bit.

How the f*ck is it some coont chief inspector can b8llsh8t about his mrs driving and get away with his speeding offence, but when I'm in what I deem to be an ongoing discussion about the driver I get this!.

hedgehog

The license endorsement you will get will be an MS90. You could rattle around a few internet insurance companies and see what the premium is like with or without it.

Clearly I am not a lawyer and my advice remains that you need to get one with experience of motoring offences, or even better someone who specialises in only motoring offences. However in this case for going not guilty I'd guess, and it is a wild guess, that you are looking at money in the order of £3000. This is why most people plead guilty to the speeding offence even if they know they didn't do it.

I'd love to be able to say that you can easily beat this but this system is so stacked against the motorist that it is not until you are caught in it that you realise just how badly the civil rights of the motorist have been eroded. Basically we are the new criminals in society and when we haven't even done anything the law is such that we can still be convicted.

It is possible that it wasn't even your car in the photo but a clone and someone local with a similar make had "borrowed" your reg number. This might explain why you don't remember the event and why it occurred at such a strange time. If this is the case then you, as a law abiding motorist, are literally being made to pay for the actions of criminals who have very little chance of detection.

MattW

James

I was summonsed for the same offence this year. I could n't recollect who was driving and sent a number of letters asking for the info, pictures etc. Case went to pre trial, I didn't attend as the clerk said i didn't have to.

Date was set everything was go. I wrote to the CPS explaining my side and enclosed all the correspondance. A week before trial the case was dropped due to the fact that the CPS fet it unlikley they would secure conviction.

The summons is purely procedure, no one has even looked at your case yet.

Have you kept copies of correspondance? I would write to the clerk asking him to postpone pre trial as you have not yet attempted to establish drivers identity. Ensure you explain that you wrote to the camera unit but didn't receive a satisfactory reply. Write to the camera unit and request a picture in order to satisfy due diligence, with any luck it may show who was driving and if you can prove the car was for sale(autotrader add, receipt etc) the CPS will in all likelihood drop the case. Make sure you copy both letters to each other, if you get my drift. You need to show you are being as helpful as possible.

Dazza01

They tried the same trick with me, all i did was fill in the form, didn't sign it and wrote them a letter stating at the btm of the NIP it syas it is a criminal offence to give false information.
When it finally went to court, i won my case, because i proved that i had done all i could to indentify the driver at the said time plus the fact they i didn't send me a piccy of the offence.

request a pic of the offence and go from there ??

Dazza
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=340242

read post #10

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

Hi guys, requested the pic ages ago, even rang and explained the situation. Got the picture and it's just a white windscreen, can't see anything at all.

It's the pleading guilty/not guilty that makes no sence. Effectively I'm not providing the info but it's because I can't not because I don't want to.

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

Also I have a traders insurance policy as I buy and sell cars for a hobby, so surely this is some way towards the don't know theory. Incidentally the mrs is allowed to drive my cars but I didn't want to 'try it on' with that one.

I kept all my letters etc, don't fancy a big fine though.

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

MattW, what did you plead when you sent the summons back?, makes no sense either way to me.

Dazza01

The ball is in ur court so to spk,
either take it on the chin and pay up (i wouldn't) & get points or stand ur ground take it to court and fight ur corner

Im with u all the way, been there, done and it worked for me, but then my circumstances were slightly different to your's

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

If I could I would, isn't it too late by now (being as I have a summons for faliure to provide information). I wouldn't have considered it until it was mentioned I'd get a far more serious (to the insurance co.s) endorsement on my licence.

The way the summons is worded I can't win, if I plead not guilty I'm saying to the court that I did provide the info when I didn't (which will be evident from my letters), if I plead guilty then I'll cop the same. As it looks like I'll get stitched up either way I'd rather have 3 points for speeding.

hedgehog

I would guess that Matt must have pleaded not guilty, if he had pleaded guilty he could not have mounted a defence to the charges and could only have made a plea in mitigation. He would have collected the 3 points, though I don't know what the minimum fine is. I think the maximum fine is £1000 but am not totally sure on that and can't check right now, however in the cases that I have heard of it has been rare for the fine to be much greater than the £60 speeding fine.

Remember the offence here is "failing to supply" and even though you have tried you have technically failed to supply. The fact that you were trying doesn't have any bearing at this stage in the process. The CPS will not even have looked at your paperwork, as Matt points out, and there have been cases when they haven't looked at the paperwork until the day of the trial. This can often lead to an escape on a technical point.

It must be said that I am surprised that Matt got off so lightly on the Paragraph 4 (didn't know who was driving) defence. You may recall that there was a highly publicised case where the Hamiltons got off a speeding charge on the same defence and after that incident a memo was circulated to magistrates indicating that in order to stop a tidal wave of similar defences they should show no mercy, basically. Matt's is certainly the only successful Paragraph 4 defence that I have heard of in some time, though clearly there could be hundreds every day that I am not hearing about.

On the other hand there is a useful point in all this which is that if you plead guilty then you will not be able to present a defence. Even if you don't want to pay for representation then you could, with lots of research, present your own defence and there is always a slim chance of the magistrate finding in your favour.

Again I would urge getting professional advice before acting on anything you hear on here but if you plead guilty then the court can not argue with you on that and you will be convicted. If you plead not guilty then you can present your case in court, give it your best shot and even if you lose you will not be much worse off. Unless you call police officers etc. costs, if they are awarded, are unlikely to cost you much more than £35ish.

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

Thanks mate.

Just checked insurance online and it added about 50% to the original premium!!

hedgehog

It was explained to me by a chap who works in insurance that the MS90 is viewed by the insurance companies as a "dishonesty" conviction and they take the attitude that if you were "dishonest" with the police and the courts then you are likely to behave in a similar way towards them when declaring the risk or in the aftermath of an accident. With this in mind they take it very seriously indeed and you may find that some companies will not insure you so your options to shop around may also be limited.

The fact that you can't be dishonest about something you didn't even know about doesn't come into the equation.

The other thing you may care to do is to keep a record of all your work and expenses in relation to this allegation. The actual NIP has been declared illegal under European Law and there is the possibility of a huge class action by those convicted on the strength of an NIP to claim back costs etc. This will not happen any time soon as it depends on test cases and all that stuff and, as you will know, the legal system is anything but fast.

As you have found the NIP puts you under duress to name a driver and sign. If the police tortured a murderer until he confessed they would never get a conviction in court but when it is a motorist everyone is perfectly happy for them to do it. There are 23 million motorists out there who are not standing up to this and it is impossible to say why we are so passive but in the run up to a general election we need to make our voices heard so get over to www.abd.org.uk and join up.

Manda_po

This sounds like good advice to me.

MattW

I pleaded Not Guilty.

Basically here is a quick run through of what happened. Bold items are my action.

1. NIP Received
2. Called office requested they attempt to id driver
3. Call recieved saying inconclusive
4. Called office "what do i do?" replied that I must put it in writing
5 Returned NIP naming both myself and wife asking what to do
6. Received letter stating must nominate driver
7.Wrote letter naming both drivers, requesting photo and location
8. Received letter stating location which was not specific and stated must nominate driver. Photo not sent as said inconclusive.
9. Wrote letter again stating named drivers, requesting photo and stating that I have been diligent and office are obstructing me by not providing photo
10. Received photo and letter stating matter passed to CPS along with S9 witness statement and DVLA check.

3 months wait

11. Received Summons for pre trial
12. Returned not guilty plea. Wrote to Clerk stating wife due baby at time of pre-trial can I postpone
13. Received letter that I was not required to attend pre trial and asking me for any unavailable dates.
14. Wrote with dates
15. Received court summons
16. Faxed and recorded delivery letter to CPS with copies of all correspondence and letter explaining I had done all I could to help and by passing file to CPS camera office denied me chance to review photo and check exact location details.
17. Recieved letter dropping charge.

MattW

At about point 14 I'd wished I'd rolled over and tossed a coin for the speeding, a number of solicitors said I had no chance.
Just goes to show

However, i am under no illusion, if I had gone to court I think it would have been guilty, on the basis that the magistrates will find you guilty in a 50-50 case as you have right of appeal whereas Crown doesn't.

andypugh2000

Put a "subaru" sunstrip on your windows and a GB stcker on the boot, take the photo to court and say (in a shaggy voice) wasnt me surely my car must have been cloned!!

andy

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

Thanks Matt, I've briefed a letter I'm sending to the court.

Is it too late to take the NIP and 3 points at this stage?. Tried to ring the ticket office but they're closed weekends (counting all their money probably lol)

hedgehog

The speeding offence and the s172 offence are mutually exclusive, though there were some cases at the peak of the "unsigned" campaign when victims were done for both due to the magistrates lack of understanding and knowledge of the law.

The whole point of s172 is that you must incriminate yourself otherwise they do you for something more nasty than speeding. Hence why this is almost certainly illegal under European law.

If you don't actually admit that you were driving then they have no evidence at all to convict anyone, the car can't be responsible for the crime. In that case they do you for failing to provide. If you had of "provided" then they would have done you for speeding.

It is possible that they may accept a climb down on your part with much grovelling etc. and do you for the initial speeding offence. I can't recall this having happened, in just these circumstances, before but it is always a possibility and courts don't like their time taken up with such trivial things. It also means the £60 goes to the partnership, which would not be the case with a fine taken in court, so they might drive towards any small chance to increase their income.

As papers are now with the courts any such arrangement would probably have to involve, at least, the camera partnership and the clerk of the court. It might be worth a try. It may also be worth talking to the clerk of the court, they are often reasonable and supportive.

To put this into perspective there is a 96% conviction rate in the magistrates courts. Magistrates are not legally trained, they are lay people and so are usually imune to complex legal arguments. Hence why many people take cases to the magistrates courts with the intention of appealing to the High Court, they already know that the magistrates court is a lost cause.

hedgehog

Bummer, just thought of something.

Technically you have failed to provide if you don't provide the information requested by or on behalf of the Chief Constable within 28 days. So, while you may have a defence it is very unlikely you can escape the charge without some pretty clever representation. So, lets just for one minute assume you are found "guilty" of the s172 offence.

If you phone the ticket office on Monday and confess to speeding then this would be a voluntary confession and may be admissable under PACE. So, by doing that you could leave yourself open to conviction on both the s172 and the speeding count.

That would be a minimum of 6 points plus the MS90 and SP30 on your license.

Worth being careful they don't catch you out like that. I still think that if your license is important to you then you may find it cost effective to talk to a solicitor.

jameswrx

iTrader: (4)

Thanks, wish I'd never asked now lol. The main worry for me is insurance, I might ring the ticket office and *ask* if it's possible if someone could get of the ms90, not too keen though as it makes all my previous correspondance seem like bollox.

Do you know how long it stays on my licence for?.

hedgehog

4 years from the date of the offence. Hence why it is worthwhile in some cases to drag the process out for as long as possible :-)

Petem95

This is ******* outrageous

Unfortunately its not that surprising, given the current state of affairs in this country, and the relentless dash-for-cash from motorists, but if I was in your current situation I would make a point of fighting this as best you can just on principle, not trying to give-in and take the points.

As has been said try and get a decent motoring solicitor, maybe write to various national newpapers to expose this scam. Could you even take it to a European court?

Certainly get over to that website, pepipoo or whatever its called.

This is the sort of situation where I'd like to see you get off the hook, and screw the offending organisations (scamera partnership) or whatever for as much compensation for stress etc as possible.

good luck

trionic

As Pete says, get yourself over to http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/index.php

They will give you sound advice on this - they're used to fighting back on thee important issues and can tell you the nest way to go about it. The sooner you seek their advice the better.

You have to go to reasonable lengths to identify the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence. If you do this, and can prove it in court then you should be okay. Just make sure you leave no stone unturned, and don't give the CPS *any* gaps in your defence that they could exploit.

I wouldn't panic just yet. Remember that you can seek an adjournment of your case if necessary (sit work commitments or something).

Tiggs

if you plead guilty do you have to actually go to court yourself or can you just sit at home and wait o see how much they fine you?

hedgehog

In the case of either plea there is no requirement for you to go to court, though if you are going not guilty then it is highly likely you would need representation to present your case.

You can change your plea to guilty at any point so even if you do decide to go not guilty you can literally change that at the door of the court.

In the case where the photographs identified the driver then it was important, if entering not guilty, that you didn't go to court. Although the photos are "not intended" to identify the driver the magistrates court is likely to convict on the photos. It would be hard to do otherwise if they clearly showed the defendant driving. However, if you are not in court and the magistrate has never met you then how do they know what you look like?

The other thing is that you are not required to take the witness stand and should not do so unless represented and advised to do so by your solicitor. Once they put you in the stand they can directly ask you questions, under oath, such as "were you driving?" If you say "no comment" the magistrates are allowed to take a negative inference from this. If you lie then you have committed perjury which is a very serious offence. Also once in the stand there is always the possibility that you might say something that drops you in it and the more you talk to partnerships, police etc. the greater the risk of this becomes. Hence why it is important to get legal representation at the first possible opportunity.