RoShamBo

iTrader: (1)

Got a NIP, 34 in a 30 and have asked for the photo evidence and have been told that

"Under rules of disclosure we are not obliged to provide photographic evidence at this stage but would consider doing so if it assisted you in identifying the driver"

Then the same letter says:

"The phographic evidence has been reviewed and there is no driver identification visible. The photo evidence is to prove the offence not identify the driver; that is the responsibility of the driver"

So they are contradicting themselves - I would like to see the photo evidence - am I allowed to see it by law ? Do they HAVE to show me ?

Any help appreciated.

Thanks.

MMT WRX

Try here mate pepipoo

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

You need to head over to pepipoo.com (sp). They are the legal experts in helping you fight stuff like this.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

The vast majority of people of pepipoo are as much lawyers as I am, and the legal advice on offer there is frequently wrong. And by fight stuff like this, I assume you mean try to get out of a ticket that was probably correctly issued?


Anyway, back to the OPs questions, and no, they are not contradicting themselves. The Camera Partnership is obliged to provide the photos in court if you take it that far, but are not obliged to provide them to you while you decide whether to plead guilty or not. What they are saying (apart from that) is that if the photo would distinguish one driver from others then they may produce it, but only for that purpose. For instance, if you told them that on that day you were sharing driving with your SO and you can't remember who had the wheel when, but you had a dark top and she had a pale one, then they may provide the photo to show what colour top the driver had on. But as they point out, it's your job as the registered owner to supply the details of who is driving, because unless you can show it was someone else then you get the ticket.


M

hodgy0_2

yes off course they need to provide it, if they decide to prosecute - we don't live in a police state yet

but I think the problem is they have no legal duty to do so before they actually prosecute you

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

I was going to say that I thought that if they are going to take it to court then they would have to show their evidence in order to give you a chance to prepare your defence.

As for correctly issued, that is for a court to decide.....innocent till proven guilty.

boomer

The ACPO guidelines for prosecution are 10% plus 2mph, so it seems strange that they are going ahead at such a low speed.

It is possible that they will "consider" you for a brain reprogramming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^ Hdriver awareness course, not that it is anything to do with the fact that they keep the £80+ "enrollment fee" rather than have to surrender the fixed penalty to the government's "pay off our £70B a year in interest fund"

Deffo ask PePiPoo!

mb

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

a) They were only ever guidelines and individual enforcement groups were entitled to prosecute you for doing 31 in a 30 (the guidelines were about the probability of a charge sticking, not generosity).

b) ACPO publicly tore up those guidelines more than five years ago.


M

Leslie

Can't have anything interfering with the stealth tax collection! That is most unfair not to allow any leeway. Radar just is not reliable enough to be able to prosecute fairly at such a low speed over the limit.

Les

Timwinner

iTrader: (3)

Be careful!!

If you claim it was not you driving then you are required to tell them who was driving. If you find someone to take the points then you will have to prove they had insurance, if not then you are liable to charge under use, cause, permit laws.
If you claim that you know nothing about it then you will have to report your stolen at the time of the offence, if they find that it was not stolen then you are liable for prosecution for a various things.

if you say it was my mate he just took the car for a few minutes, I didnt know he was not insured then he will have to be identified and he is liable for charge under taking and driving off or TWOC.

In the old days people used to pay for other people to take points etc and because of this the net got very tight very quick.
Think carefully about your next move, the police do not have to disclose anything to you at the moment, they can leave the evidence they have for court in order to challenge your account.

Historically there have been cases whereby people have had their car driven by a friend from brazil for example, the friend has returned home and although an address has been provided a prosecution was never brought as the friend did not respond or it was not deemed in public interest to follow up.

Lee247

I asked for the photo. Yep, it was me

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

They do allow leeway: it's just that now they don't tell the whole country what it is. Under the old publicised ACPO guidelines they effectively told the whole country that the motorway speed limit was actually 79mph, for instance.


M

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

You have a crap policeforce as ours sends any pics by email if you request them

Tony

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

I asked for the photo because I wanted to stick it up on SN, so they said that they cant do that, so I said well if I can see that my car was on that stretch of road at the time/date they say then I would be happy to pay but until I see the picture I couldn't be sure that I was there on that day so wouldn't be able to confirm who the driver was. They said nothing for 4 months until I got a letter of no further action.

Maybe just lucky that Suffolk SCP was inundated or inefficient but bottom line was no points or fine for me Perhaps the picture didn't actually show me at the 85 they said, I don't know, because I thought I was doing 95 when I saw the van!

Anyway, I wasn't complaining.

boomer

Well maybe someone should tell ACPO

On page 3 of NDORS-National Speed Awareness Course Guidance (April 2010) (that will be a policy/guideline that is less than 2 months old) it states (in a pretty green table)...

Speed limit = 30
ACPO Bottom Level threshold [10%+2] = 35
Speed Awareness Level not more than [10%+6] = 39
Summons after = 50

But it does state that...

...so it may be best for the OP to Google "<my county> road safety partnership" and check for local policy such as Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety who will give you a ticking off up to 35mph and a Speed Awareness Course for below 39mph (which seems pretty similar to the ACPO guidelines does it not?)!

mb

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

While interesting, at the time ACPO binned their original instructions there were no speed awareness courses delivered: the courses were introduced a couple of years later. At some point after that ACPO presumably redrafted that guidance and issued it, but with a lot less fanfare. It's also worth pointing out that in practice many forces do vary quite a lot from those guidelines: especially the ones which don't offer the course.


M

boomer

So do you agree that the ACPO guideline of "10% plus 2mph" does exist (as i said in my earlier post)?

mb

Timwinner

iTrader: (3)

ACPO guideline states that any speed 35mph - 50mph in a 30 mph limit is suitable for a an FPN.
The important thing to remember is a guideline is just that, a guideline it does not have to be adhered too.
The minute you go 31 you break the law and you can be given an FPN. ACPO simply offer what they consider to be "best advice and best practice" about policing they have no actual power to enforce their recommendations.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

There is no legal requirement to supply photographs to the driver prior to going to court, however to aid the registered keeper in identifying the driver most safety camera partnership will.

The onus is on the registered keeper to provide details of who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence, unless the registered keeper cant find out who the driver was, with reasonable diligence. The reasonable diligence test was being quite alot as a defence, that is why the government increased the penalty to 6 points for a successful "failing to identify" (MS90) prosecution.

For future reference the reasonable diligence test of a non registered keeper is much less, to the point that the prosecution have to prove that the alleged keeper had the information to give in the first place.

With the speed you were allegedly caught at try and get a speed awareness course.

Caution- dont try and mix defences if you decide to fight the ticket. Keep communication to a minimum when writing to the scammers.

Pepipoo.com has a wealth of knowledge regarding traffic law. Most are not trained, but the study/ knowledge gained by some of the senior members far easily surpasses most solicitors knowledge. I know because I have successfully fought off several speeding tickets and parking offences using the knowledge from Pepipoo.

Good luck

Andy

Leslie

Not if they have you for 31 in a 30 limit.

Les

fitzscoob

Last year I got flashed (lucky me!), sadly by a speed camera, doing 34 in a 30. They sent me through a link to a website where the photo was and they had me bang to rights.

I ended up going on a speed awareness course - I wouldnt do one again, it was so boring and pointless, more about learning how to drive economically rather than safely imo.

So yes, they can enforce at such speeds.