WTF Driving Dangerously!!!!!??
21 March 2009, 06:18 PM
#1
WTF Driving Dangerously!!!!!??
Anybody had a letter like this before??
As you can see it does not seem to be a 'notice of intended prosicution' I remember the day as i took my mates laptop back to him and fueled up as this is the nearest Shell to me, however i remember the journey as being totally uneventful and have no idea what i could of done that has caused this letter to be sent
The stretch of road that is mentioned, i was only on for 0.4 mile before i turned off for my mates address, it starts at a set of lights on a cross roads and continues up hill for less than half a mile with no other major junctions, it has terrace houses with cars parked both sides, not the sort of road you would hammer it up.
I am very confused and will be contacting plod on Monday but if anyone has any experience with this kind of notice your comments would be most appreciated
As you can see it does not seem to be a 'notice of intended prosicution' I remember the day as i took my mates laptop back to him and fueled up as this is the nearest Shell to me, however i remember the journey as being totally uneventful and have no idea what i could of done that has caused this letter to be sent
The stretch of road that is mentioned, i was only on for 0.4 mile before i turned off for my mates address, it starts at a set of lights on a cross roads and continues up hill for less than half a mile with no other major junctions, it has terrace houses with cars parked both sides, not the sort of road you would hammer it up.
I am very confused and will be contacting plod on Monday but if anyone has any experience with this kind of notice your comments would be most appreciated
21 March 2009, 06:37 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I acknowledge receipt of your letter. It seems that you have got my details from the DVLA and I confirm I am the keeper of the vehicle in question.
I do not know who was driving the car on the date you claim there was a driving offence, there are several people who it could of been, I do not keep logs as this is not required by law, if you claim there is please provide appropriate citations of case and/or statute law.
Unless you provide evidence to substantiate your claim against me I shall be unable to assist you further in this matter and I restate my denial of this claim.
I do not know who was driving the car on the date you claim there was a driving offence, there are several people who it could of been, I do not keep logs as this is not required by law, if you claim there is please provide appropriate citations of case and/or statute law.
Unless you provide evidence to substantiate your claim against me I shall be unable to assist you further in this matter and I restate my denial of this claim.
21 March 2009, 06:43 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Doncaster
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver, etc., in certain cases
(1) This section applies—
(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
(i) an offence under Part V, or
(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 117,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads.
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to the person riding a cycle.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.
(1) This section applies—
(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
(i) an offence under Part V, or
(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 117,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads.
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to the person riding a cycle.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.
21 March 2009, 06:44 PM
#7
BANNED
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LIVERPOOL THE CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE
Posts: 8,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have been observed by an officer either in a car or on foot driving in a dangerous manner, in his or her opinion.
I have had a similar experience where I had to appear at the local magistrates on a speeding offence, to cut a long story short I was observed by two officers on foot who said " in their opinion " I was speeding.
I got an £80 fine and 3 points.
I did have a brief paid for by myself (£175 for half an hour), he put a case forward, stateing lack of evidence and "opinion" not being good enough for prosecution etc.. and lost.
He even threw a crumpled piece of paper across the room and asked the officers how fast it was going....to be honest I think that was a mistake.
I was speeding about twice the limit in a 40 zone, but I thought there was no way they could do me " in thier opinion "...I was wrong, they could, and did.
I was accellerating from rest as I passed the two officers on the beat, I went straight past them, and thought nothing of it, until the summons arrived.
Lesson learnt.
EDITED TO SAY..You must lose the reg on this post, or you may be recieving another letter.
I have had a similar experience where I had to appear at the local magistrates on a speeding offence, to cut a long story short I was observed by two officers on foot who said " in their opinion " I was speeding.
I got an £80 fine and 3 points.
I did have a brief paid for by myself (£175 for half an hour), he put a case forward, stateing lack of evidence and "opinion" not being good enough for prosecution etc.. and lost.
He even threw a crumpled piece of paper across the room and asked the officers how fast it was going....to be honest I think that was a mistake.
I was speeding about twice the limit in a 40 zone, but I thought there was no way they could do me " in thier opinion "...I was wrong, they could, and did.
I was accellerating from rest as I passed the two officers on the beat, I went straight past them, and thought nothing of it, until the summons arrived.
Lesson learnt.
EDITED TO SAY..You must lose the reg on this post, or you may be recieving another letter.
Last edited by yoza; 21 March 2009 at 06:47 PM.
Trending Topics
21 March 2009, 06:51 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
the alleged offense was on the 26th Feb but they sent the letter on 19th March?
what have they been doing? thinking about it for 3 weeks?
Looks like you've been seen by an off duty officer. This thread might give you some more info.
SECTION 172 (OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER) - FightBack Forums
what have they been doing? thinking about it for 3 weeks?
Looks like you've been seen by an off duty officer. This thread might give you some more info.
SECTION 172 (OFF DUTY POLICE OFFICER) - FightBack Forums
21 March 2009, 06:55 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
You have been observed by an officer either in a car or on foot driving in a dangerous manner, in his or her opinion.
I have had a similar experience where I had to appear at the local magistrates on a speeding offence, to cut a long story short I was observed by two officers on foot who said " in their opinion " I was speeding.
I got an £80 fine and 3 points.
I did have a brief paid for by myself (£175 for half an hour), he put a case forward, stateing lack of evidence and "opinion" not being good enough for prosecution etc.. and lost.
I have had a similar experience where I had to appear at the local magistrates on a speeding offence, to cut a long story short I was observed by two officers on foot who said " in their opinion " I was speeding.
I got an £80 fine and 3 points.
I did have a brief paid for by myself (£175 for half an hour), he put a case forward, stateing lack of evidence and "opinion" not being good enough for prosecution etc.. and lost.
21 March 2009, 06:57 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
...
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
...
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.
...
Go over to PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice and ask there ....
Dave
21 March 2009, 09:00 PM
#14
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have been observed by an officer either in a car or on foot driving in a dangerous manner, in his or her opinion.
I have had a similar experience where I had to appear at the local magistrates on a speeding offence, to cut a long story short I was observed by two officers on foot who said " in their opinion " I was speeding.
I got an £80 fine and 3 points.
I did have a brief paid for by myself (£175 for half an hour), he put a case forward, stateing lack of evidence and "opinion" not being good enough for prosecution etc.. and lost.
He even threw a crumpled piece of paper across the room and asked the officers how fast it was going....to be honest I think that was a mistake.
I was speeding about twice the limit in a 40 zone, but I thought there was no way they could do me " in thier opinion "...I was wrong, they could, and did.
I was accellerating from rest as I passed the two officers on the beat, I went straight past them, and thought nothing of it, until the summons arrived.
Lesson learnt.
EDITED TO SAY..You must lose the reg on this post, or you may be recieving another letter.
I have had a similar experience where I had to appear at the local magistrates on a speeding offence, to cut a long story short I was observed by two officers on foot who said " in their opinion " I was speeding.
I got an £80 fine and 3 points.
I did have a brief paid for by myself (£175 for half an hour), he put a case forward, stateing lack of evidence and "opinion" not being good enough for prosecution etc.. and lost.
He even threw a crumpled piece of paper across the room and asked the officers how fast it was going....to be honest I think that was a mistake.
I was speeding about twice the limit in a 40 zone, but I thought there was no way they could do me " in thier opinion "...I was wrong, they could, and did.
I was accellerating from rest as I passed the two officers on the beat, I went straight past them, and thought nothing of it, until the summons arrived.
Lesson learnt.
EDITED TO SAY..You must lose the reg on this post, or you may be recieving another letter.
I'd have asked when were said coppers eyes last calibrated
21 March 2009, 09:19 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: www.Surreyscoobies.co.uk
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 172 has nothing to do with the actual offence, It is a request(demand) for information relating to an offence.
Failure to provide details will get you prosecuted anyways so you are as well to provide the details.
This is part one of a possible prosecution, Once the driver is identified then they will follow normal procedure to prosecuted the driver.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SILENCE UNDER A 172!!!!
You stand to get done for use/cause/permit if you dont fill it in.
The best option is to go along with the letter and tackle the actual offence itself rather than worry about this phase.
See sec 6.1 European human right.
Hope that helps.
Failure to provide details will get you prosecuted anyways so you are as well to provide the details.
This is part one of a possible prosecution, Once the driver is identified then they will follow normal procedure to prosecuted the driver.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SILENCE UNDER A 172!!!!
You stand to get done for use/cause/permit if you dont fill it in.
The best option is to go along with the letter and tackle the actual offence itself rather than worry about this phase.
See sec 6.1 European human right.
Hope that helps.
21 March 2009, 09:20 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 March 2009, 09:28 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: n/a
Posts: 5,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 172 has nothing to do with the actual offence, It is a request(demand) for information relating to an offence.
Failure to provide details will get you prosecuted anyways so you are as well to provide the details.
This is part one of a possible prosecution, Once the driver is identified then they will follow normal procedure to prosecuted the driver.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SILENCE UNDER A 172!!!!
You stand to get done for use/cause/permit if you dont fill it in.
The best option is to go along with the letter and tackle the actual offence itself rather than worry about this phase.
See sec 6.1 European human right.
Hope that helps.
Failure to provide details will get you prosecuted anyways so you are as well to provide the details.
This is part one of a possible prosecution, Once the driver is identified then they will follow normal procedure to prosecuted the driver.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SILENCE UNDER A 172!!!!
You stand to get done for use/cause/permit if you dont fill it in.
The best option is to go along with the letter and tackle the actual offence itself rather than worry about this phase.
See sec 6.1 European human right.
Hope that helps.
you go court and fite it and copper just says i saw you? and u lose
21 March 2009, 09:37 PM
#19
21 March 2009, 09:39 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: www.Surreyscoobies.co.uk
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is to establish the driver who they intend to present with a prosecution. It is a bit of a rubbish law I agree but not filling it in will 100% get you points and a fine, filling it in and then defending yourself gives you the best chance of escaping prosecution.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but hey, I dont make the law.
21 March 2009, 10:19 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You haven't been presented with a Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days of the alleged offence. You now can't be prosecuted for the vast majority of driving offences. There is no offence of "drive dangerously or without consideration for other road users" it's either Dangerous Driving or Driving without etc. Simply reply with your details safe in the knowledge you can't be prosecuted. This assumes you didn't have an accident where you would have been aware of the offence and it also assumes your car is registered to you and they haven't had to go round the houses to get to you. Finally, this does not constitute legal advice.
22 March 2009, 12:40 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Deepest Darkest Kernow
Posts: 4,404
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Send it back partially filled in stating that you find it offensive that they are assuming that the driver is a christian - lower half of the form, surely it should be asking for first and family names!
22 March 2009, 12:43 AM
#25
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: 52 Festive Road
Posts: 28,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 March 2009, 01:07 AM
#26
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Slowly rebuilding the kit of bits into a car...
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allahu Akbar !
Sorry !
dunx
P.S. Send them a bogus "scammera" invoice for your car at 10:30 in Hull ?
Sorry !
dunx
P.S. Send them a bogus "scammera" invoice for your car at 10:30 in Hull ?
Last edited by dunx; 22 March 2009 at 01:09 AM.
22 March 2009, 01:29 AM
#27
Thanx all Its frying my head, i cant even remember seeing a copper, foot,car or van I think the 14 day rule must apply. I am f'ing fuming
Am going to ring um on Monday and am in the middle of penning a 'nice' letter to them to accompany the form. i will post up any thing i find out.
Again thanx all for the comments
Its frying my head, i cant even remember seeing a copper, foot,car or van I think the 14 day rule must apply. I am f'ing fumingAm going to ring um on Monday and am in the middle of penning a 'nice' letter to them to accompany the form. i will post up any thing i find out.
Again thanx all for the comments
22 March 2009, 01:40 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All a bit mysterious, certainly looks as though they are far too late with a NIP anyway. Maybe someone was being a bit sensitive about the A 158, I seem to remember its a bit accident prone in places.
I think you will have to reply to them according to the law. Make sure you don't say anything at all which they could take advantage of.
Les
I think you will have to reply to them according to the law. Make sure you don't say anything at all which they could take advantage of.
Les