Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

OK - we didn't sign. We didn't sign because the person in charge didn't realise he had to plus he was so busy dealing with PCNs and othe NIPs that it slipped through - reminders were dealt with by either ignoring 'cos "I've already done that" or by writing letters. We gave the data several times.

Its no skin off our nose - you up for a NIP/PCN then you deal with it not the Company. Our policy is to pay parking tickets and to name on SS172 reqs - without argument. We get so many it takes up nearly 1/2 day a week of one person.

Anyhow, this one slipped through and it only came to my attention when the force concerned said we would be reported for failure to supply. I rang them up and they said too late and today we got a summons.

I've followed it through and they still won't drop the case.

We supplied the name/address within a few days of receiving the original NIP but didn't sign. We wrote various letters (naming the driver at the time) that the force concerned admit to have receiving & were undoubtedly signed. I've read the RTA over and it says nothing about having to complete a form that the force provides for it to have been deemed supplied. IMHO we have complied with everything that the RTA requires under that section of the law, several times, when asked and they have acknowledged receipt of same.

I've read www.pepipoo.com and although that helps, it doesn't quite follow my particular case.

I'm not up for points (though I will wind the MD up that he is ) but the Company is potentially due a fine if found guilty of the offence as listed.

Any simillar or advice or anything?

Don't mind a day out at Court though...

brumdaisy

did anyone understand that?

If you go to court can I come and watch cos I've never been in one?

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

You one of them "voyeurs" ???

hedgehog

I wonder how the decision in DPP vs Francsis would apply to companies. In terms of the individual it was decided that you had failed to supply if the form wasn't signed. It would be worth reading the precise text of that judgement to see if the signature came under the information that the CC could request.

However, in your case a signature isn't necessary to persue the driver as he was named and will be sent an NIP of his own which he will have to sign or fall foul of the Francsis judgement. It would be interesting for you to find out if the actual driver has been sent an NIP. If so and if that NIP was returned signed does section 172 open the door to that being considered as a signature sufficient to cover your back as well? I'm not sure that it does but worth consideration. Your problem, of course, is that s172 says you have to provide the information requested by the CC and this may be different from the information actually necessary for them to get a successful prosecution.

I have a feeling that the issue of supplying the information and signature on a document other than the NIP was resolved during the period when the "unsigned" loophole was closed. I can't for the life of me remember the exact details however but can certainly find out if this keeps running for you.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Update:

We got a NIP today for another driver in one of our vans. This time it came from Surrey Police.

I filled out the form (I do it now ) but NOWHERE on the form was any request for the person naming the driver to SIGN THE FORM!!

So basically, we have one police force that requires it as part of process that if you are not the driver, to name the person who was and sign the form and another (adjacent) force that is quite happy for you just to put the name/address on the form without signing. Their view is that as long as you have named the driver, you are complying under SS172(3) - which is my view.

Now obviously I will be keeping a copy of this new form and presenting it should we need to go to court along quite this basis.

Hedgehog - what do you think?

hedgehog

My take on this would be that if there is a space on the Surrey form for you to sign it then the signature would constitute part of the information that the CC requested and so you would have to sign it.

The position that naming the driver is providing the information requested but that the signature is not information was argued and used successfully but the Francis judgement ended the "unsigned" loophole in England and Wales.

If you returned the NIP unsigned then my guess is that it will be sent back to you in order that you may sign it, assuming there is a space for you to sign it. Should you not do so then it is probable that you will be called to court to answer a failure to provide charge and, that I can see, you have no effective defence against this.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

But Surrey does not require it therefore it is not necessary, so equally it is not needed as part of any attempt at securing a conviction of the named driver. So in Surrey eyes we have complied yet in Thames Valley we have not - hence an inconsistency in the law/