PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] Driving without due care and attention
uts321
post Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 12:31
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,220



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - August 2019
Date of the NIP: - 8 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 10 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A4041 Queslett Road, Birmingham
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - I was driving to work in the morning as usual. As I went along the Queslett Road through Sutton Coldfield, I spotted a police officer in hi-viz standing in a crossing area within the central reservation of the dual carriageway. At the point I saw him I was doing between 45 and 50mph (40mph limit on the road) in the outside lane and eased off the accelerator (going uphill) before I passed him. I glanced at him and saw him holding what looked like a speed gun at around stomach height.

I half expected to receive a NIP for speeding, and wasn't surprised when the NIP arrived. What surprised me though is that it's for the offence of "Drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / public place without due care and attention". The vehicle speed indicated is 0. Beyond that, I have no idea what I'm supposed to have done. I wasn't involved in any accident and nothing untoward or even memorable occurred anywhere on my journey, other than driving past said police officer.


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:27:49 +0000

I posted the S172 information back within a couple of days (with proof of posting and delivery), but I've not heard anything back since and it's coming up to two months.

The NIP mentions maybe being eligible for an educational course and I was hoping this would be the case, but the longer it's taking the more worried I'm getting. Is the length of time a bad sign and should I expect a summons? Will they at that point tell me exactly what it is I'm alleged to have done?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 38)
Advertisement
post Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 12:31
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 11:44
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44,569
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



May as well, but I doubt they have even heard of you yet.

Do it again when/if you get an SJPN, as mentioned above that can be expected within 7 months of the date of the alleged offence.

I do wonder if, for sake of argument, the NIP fails to meet the requirements....
QUOTE
within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed

Driving without due care and attention may well be the charge that would be faced, but does it specify the nature of the offence? If a driver is genuinely confused as to what they may have done wrong they would be being disadvantaged in maybe losing evidence in the next 6 months before they knew what evidence they may need to defend an allegation.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 14:10
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,421
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 23 Oct 2019 - 12:44) *
Driving without due care and attention may well be the charge that would be faced, but does it specify the nature of the offence? If a driver is genuinely confused as to what they may have done wrong they would be being disadvantaged in maybe losing evidence in the next 6 months before they knew what evidence they may need to defend an allegation.

I was wondering just that. Careless Driving is such a wide ranging offence it could be anything from clipping another car's wing mirror in Tesco's car park up to losing control on a motorway and causing £Thousands of damage or even injury. I think the OP is entitled to a little more. Speeding is a far more specific offence but the NIP usually gives the alleged speed and limit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mayhem007
post Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 10:11
Post #23


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 1,498
Joined: 9 Nov 2008
From: Doldrums
Member No.: 23,903



Is it conceivable or a possibility that the officer pressed the button and you went through on an amber light, and whereby you had plenty of time to stop.


--------------------
STAND UP FOR YOURSELF OR YOU WILL FALL FOR ANYTHING

Ultracrepadarion - A person who offers an opinion on a subject they know nothing about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
speedfighter23
post Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 12:41
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 206
Joined: 29 Jul 2019
Member No.: 104,999



The funny part of this is you haven't even been charged with anything, so it must be really annoying for you. I guess the only thing you can do is try not to think about it then decide what to do if you get any court summons. As mentioned before, it would be crazy for them to prosecute you without you even knowing what exactly happened, I certainly hope you defend yourself if it comes to it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
uts321
post Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 12:48
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,220



Following a busy month after moving house, I've got around to thinking about this again. This morning I emailed Birmingham Magistrates Court with my new address and received the folowing reply:

QUOTE
I have checked if a case was listed for you, no paperwork has been received yet from West Midlands Police for a future hearing.

Please phone the case preparation department in a few days’ time to find out if a file was sent: 0121 212 6336.


Seems WMP's CTO weren't quite telling the truth as it's four weeks since they told me "this matter has now been passed to the Magistrates Court".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 12:56
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,496
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



What they probably mean is that the matter has been passed to our department that deals with sending cases to court.


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
uts321
post Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 13:14
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,220



In that case, it's a good job my mail redirection seems to be working fine as there doesn't seem to be anyone I can contact at present who can or will change the details.

This post has been edited by uts321: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 13:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
uts321
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 16:58
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,220



After 6 months I've finally received the summons.

The police officer says that I overtook on the approach to the crossing at 49mph.

As I said initaially, I accept I was may have being doing 49mph when I first saw him, but at that point I slowed down and was certainly going no more than 40mph as I passed him. I also have no memory of whether or not I overtook anyone.

The officer's statement also says "the traffic was heavy at the time" which is a lie. It was the middle of August in the school holidays and I clearly remember being pleasantly surprised how quiet the roads were that say, especially in that area. In fact, the photos of the road taken by the officer that accompany the summons show how quiet it was. Out of the three pictures showing the road (a few hundred yards of dual carriageway), one has 3 cars, one has 2 and the other has none at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 17:19
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32,957
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (uts321 @ Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 16:58) *
The police officer says that I overtook on the approach to the crossing at 49mph.
As I said initaially, I accept I was may have being doing 49mph when I first saw him, but at that point I slowed down and was certainly going no more than 40mph as I passed him. I also have no memory of whether or not I overtook anyone.

With no memory of the overtake you'll have to convince the bench that the officer was 'mistaken'.

QUOTE (uts321 @ Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 16:58) *
The officer's statement also says "the traffic was heavy at the time" which is a lie. It was the middle of August in the school holidays and I clearly remember being pleasantly surprised how quiet the roads were that say, especially in that area. In fact, the photos of the road taken by the officer that accompany the summons show how quiet it was. Out of the three pictures showing the road (a few hundred yards of dual carriageway), one has 3 cars, one has 2 and the other has none at all.

Again he was mistaken (probably copied a previous statement). If you go with the officer was lying then it will almost certainly end badly.

So any particular questions?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 20:18
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,445
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Why don't you post a redacted version of the statement so we can see what's what?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
uts321
post Sun, 16 Feb 2020 - 22:06
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,220



This is the redacted statement

https://ibb.co/c3tvXyd
https://ibb.co/mttykWT
https://ibb.co/SmYz0Bq
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 21:12
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,445
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Well it seems quite clear that the central allegation is speeding and overtaking within the controlled area of the pedestrian crossing. Does the next page say anything more about the alleged overtaking manoeuvre?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
uts321
post Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 21:52
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,220



Those three links are the whole of the officer’s statement. The only bit after that I haven’t included is regarding identifying car, sending the NIP and my return of it.

It does say “A conditional offer was not sent as the driver is to be dealt with by court disposal only, as requested by the Officer.”

As I mentioned in initial post, he wasn’t even holding his speed detection device up as I went past him. He was holding it around stomach height and not pointing it at traffic, so his detection of my speed was at least 200-300 yards earlier and not as I drove through the crossing. His hi vis stood out clearly as it was a bright, sunny morning and I saw him straight away and slowed down well before I went past him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 22:16
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,541
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (uts321 @ Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 21:52) *
Those three links are the whole of the officer’s statement. The only bit after that I haven’t included is regarding identifying car, sending the NIP and my return of it.

It does say “A conditional offer was not sent as the driver is to be dealt with by court disposal only, as requested by the Officer.”

As I mentioned in initial post, he wasn’t even holding his speed detection device up as I went past him. He was holding it around stomach height and not pointing it at traffic, so his detection of my speed was at least 200-300 yards earlier and not as I drove through the crossing. His hi vis stood out clearly as it was a bright, sunny morning and I saw him straight away and slowed down well before I went past him.

His device is almost certainly approved for use up to 1km. Your speed was probably recorded before you saw him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
uts321
post Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 00:15
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,220



QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 22:16) *
QUOTE (uts321 @ Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 21:52) *
Those three links are the whole of the officer’s statement. The only bit after that I haven’t included is regarding identifying car, sending the NIP and my return of it.

It does say “A conditional offer was not sent as the driver is to be dealt with by court disposal only, as requested by the Officer.”

As I mentioned in initial post, he wasn’t even holding his speed detection device up as I went past him. He was holding it around stomach height and not pointing it at traffic, so his detection of my speed was at least 200-300 yards earlier and not as I drove through the crossing. His hi vis stood out clearly as it was a bright, sunny morning and I saw him straight away and slowed down well before I went past him.

His device is almost certainly approved for use up to 1km. Your speed was probably recorded before you saw him.


I don’t dispute that at all. As I initially said, I was going 45-50 when I first saw him, so 49 is likely correct. What I dispute is that I have been charged on his assertion that I was travelling at 49mph whilst overtaking someone through a pedestrian crossing. He has taken two separate offences, separated by a distance of at least 200 yards (one of which i hold my hands up to and the other I have no recollection of taking place) and put them together to create a more serious offence and has added an untrue aggravating factor of heavy traffic.

What little faith in and respect for the police I had left is now well and truly gone. Especially West Midlands Police who can’t even manage to solve 8% of crimes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Safedriverbirmin...
post Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 08:00
Post #36


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 22 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,970



OP - I have received exactly the same, same location, same statement etc. Only difference is I am told I was doing 59 rather than your 49. Clearly the office is using the same statement and just changing the speed. I am replying non guilty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 09:40
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32,957
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Safedriverbirmingham @ Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 08:00) *
Clearly the office is using the same statement and just changing the speed.

There's potentially no issue with 'reusing' a statement - it's actually quite normal.

QUOTE (Safedriverbirmingham @ Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 08:00) *
I am replying non guilty.

Start your own thread for any specific for your case.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 11:07
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 186
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (uts321 @ Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 00:15) *
and has added an untrue aggravating factor of heavy traffic.

Bear in mind, the officers judgement of how heavy the traffic may not be taking into account the typical traffic at that location (which they may well not know).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
uts321
post Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 20:08
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Oct 2019
Member No.: 106,220



QUOTE (Spandex @ Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 11:07) *
QUOTE (uts321 @ Sat, 22 Feb 2020 - 00:15) *
and has added an untrue aggravating factor of heavy traffic.

Bear in mind, the officers judgement of how heavy the traffic may not be taking into account the typical traffic at that location (which they may well not know).


I get what you’re saying, but it really wasn’t heavy traffic by any definition. If you look at the officer’s pictures in my link, that is what the traffic was like there that morning.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 10th April 2020 - 06:36
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.