Tiggs

Back in Sep i got a NIP for 40 in a 30.......today, i got told it has been dropped.

Not sure if its common to get off these...if its, sorry for boring you! If it isnt i can post up my "plan of action" that resulted in it being dropped.

Dont want to bother if its not interesting, Nip in a lake type thing!

If you want to know, post and i'll follow this up later on.

Tiggs

fast bloke

that is criminal - someone is going to have to pay more tax now cos of your evasion

Wish

iTrader: (2)

Yes, Would love to know !

akshay67

Please reveal....

hedgehog

Well done, it is useful for people to know that it can be done and that there are flaws in the system.

When people who are doing 11mph are getting NIPs for 54mph it is important for all of us that as many people make a challenge as possible, providing they stand a reasonable chance of winning, so it is great to see more evidence of someone defending their position and winning.

This will also become an important part of the motorists fight for their freedom and civil liberties and when it sinks in just how restrictive Intelligent Speed Adaptation is going to be many people are in for a shock.

Mice_Elf

In other words... Yes please. Post how you did it.

Paulo P

iTrader: (42)

Nice one I'm sure there'll be alot of interest in this thread

RoShamBo

iTrader: (1)

Would like to know.
I too have a "theory" that so far has worked twice for people I know.
Interested to see if its the same.

Ro.

scatter_wrx

May have a NIP arriving anyday for doing 40 in a 30 (not me, but the other 'alf). Would be ineterested in how you did it so please post.

Looking around the other sites, it seems the loophole of not signing is now closed. Unless there is an admin messup (i.e. wrong reg) or the NIP arrives late, i could see the only way of getting off is to go down the route of requesting photographic evidence of who was driving, as you had made a genuine attempt to determine the driver but was unable to.

richs2891

would like to know how you did it as I got sent one this morning for 50 in a 40, odd thing is though I'm sure they where still setting up as I went by and I've got a petrol receipt from a garage, which I drove straight to 300 m from the camera site with a time half later than when I passed the "safety van".

Richard

jasey

I'll bet he had a word with Tony Blair and got off As he's Tony's greatest fan


Come on then ...

Or is it Tiggers

Tiggs

ok,

Get the NIP 1st Sep, 40 in a 30.

Now im not anti-camera, in fact i like them and would be happy to see more. But the selfish streak in me doesnt want to pay more than i have too! (i dont vote either but still belive in a vote being avalible!)

So i send the NIP back saying i cant ID the driver as i use the car with my wife and so could they send me the pic......i make it clear we have no idea which of us was driving at the time. (this is quite true)

They send me the pic (which is from the rear and so no help at all (car has tints so it was imposisble to see) They also send a letter saying it is not for them to prove the driver but up to me to show due diligence in knowing who uses my car and when.

So......i write back saying i use due diligence, its just that we both drive when out and about together, taking turns. Anyway, i explain i am happy to take the points and dont intend to try and get around it as i drive most so it was probably me at the wheel.

I then finish by asking them to confirm in writting that as i put on the form that i didnt remember who was driving was i now going to get in trouble for "changing my story" In other words, were they happy for me to state i was driving when that wasnt really true and more of a guess just to make things easy. If this "white lie" was ok, could they let me know and i'll happily send the form back.

My letter tone was educated, polite and accepting of my fate......with a hint of "come on then....put in writting that you want me to lie"

I wondered if they would come back with a Nathon Jessop styleee "you're damm right i ordered a code red" and tell me to lie and they where happy with it!

But they didnt, letter today said they have decided not to pursue it.

T

Edit to add.......dont assume the "i dont know who was driving thing" will work on its own. Most web sites say you will get done under sec 172 if you use this defence. Also, both letters from the Police start with the same header which is along the lines of "we note you cant ID the driver.........." In other words, this is a standard defence and a standard response from the Police exists to deal with it and do you under sec 172 anyway.

You need a bit of clever thinking added to that defence to get away with it!

Leslie

Good one Tiggs.

Les

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

good work there!
its called a paragraph 4 defence if Im not mistaken, unable to identify.
quite effective if your carefull how to approach, I note you used your educated tone in letter writing, good plan.

Another request that can have them fuming is to ask for the exact location of the camera (just in case it was along that very road that you changed drivers).

I would hate to think that some might use your defence to commit purgery, lying is wrong, however, being uncertain of the truth is another thing all together..

darts_aint_sport

The Hamiltons used this defense recently I believe.

hedgehog

It is also true to say that since the Hamiltons used the Paragraphn 4 defence magistrates courts received a little letter hinting that there may be a sudden outbreak of such defences and that they were to ensure it didn't happen.

In this case, where it didn't actually go to court, it is a good result and from what I can see the CPS are being very, very careful that they only go to court with para 4 cases they can win as they don't want the press getting word that you can walk out of a speeding charge by playing this card.

Never the less the Para 4 defence is still on pretty dodgy ground has you have to play the due diligence game and what one person might consider acceptable in this area another might put you in court to see how you go. It is also important that you don't play it unless you actually didn't know who was driving, perjury is a bad thing and not to be encouraged.

It is certainly good to see people fighting them. One thing to remember is that if you just return the NIP and then pay out on the Fixed Penalty Notice the money goes directly to the camera partnerships. If you go to court then the partnership doesn't get your fine, so we could literally put them out of existance if we all went to court. There are a range of defences out there and I would encourage everyone to review them all and pick one that applies to their personal circumstances.

Dazza01

Well done Tiggs
I also got my case thrown out earlier this year with the same defence, but it also helped my case that i requested a piccy but they never sent it, i spent the best part of 20 mins of the phone to them, they say i never called them as all calls are logged, but my NTL phone bill says otherwise

In the end the Judge throw it out

Tiggs

i simply based my letter to them on the odd idea that even though i didnt know who was guilty i should make it up just to deal with the issue within 28 days.

sounds stupid and when put to them in such a way as to make them confim the stupidity (ie "yes Mr Tiggs, lie on the form...thats fine with us") it falls apart for them.

T

wakeboardar

tiggs 1 police 0

when is the rematch

Spoon

Either way, 40 in a 30 deserves no less than jail for at least 12 months.

ajm

Congrats on your victory!....

BUT...

I'm not buying the quasi-moral highground act.... you are the same as the rest of us: desperate to wriggle out of it, except in your case you are wriggling out of a system that you believe is justified which puts you in the moral quagmire compared to those of us who fight a system we believe is unjust!

pslewis

You should have paid your penalty - 40 in a 30 is not justified in any circumstances!!

Hopefully you will slow down, if so, then good on you!!

If you STILL drive like a **** then I hope you meet Mr Big in Prison! (take some vaseline in old boy!)

Pete

Tiggs

i have ALWAYS been anti anti camera on this site. I have openly admited that i look forward to more cameras and more GPS speed detection systems.......i have no problem with that at all.

however, if i can get out of the system i belive in then why not! if you find that a moral contradiction......you're right.....and i dont care!

Tiggs

i agree......i was caught (well, either i or my wife) and would have taken the points if it came to it............i didnt try my luck based on my guilt or lack of, i tryed my luck cause i felt lucky

Diablo

Nice one, still, only an **** speeds in a 30

Tiggs

to be honest.......i'd seen one of those "devil dogs" in the road ahead......as a service to the community i wastrying to take the sucker out......couple more mph and i'd have got him

Diablo

CC

i had an nip for 45mph in a 30mph 2am in the morning empty motorway going through 'roadworks' ie bollards.

i couldn't remember who was driving either, put that on the nip heard nothing.

Chris L

Used the same defence with my sister in August this year. Travelling along the A303 going on holiday to Cornwall. We were 'flashed' at 70 in a 60 (although neither of us could recall a flash). Requested the photos which showed nothing (car was full of gear for the holiday, so no chance of identifying the driver). Sister wrote back, following advice on Pepipoo saying that we could remember who was driving. She gave the names of both potential drivers. We had a letter back saying it wouldn't be persued.

Chris