Admitted being driver on NIP but still court referral |
Admitted being driver on NIP but still court referral |
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:14
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,081 |
I received a NIP for 38mph in 30mph limit. Contacted police for photos as husband and I always share driving (both pensioners). Photos showed back of car and no people visible. Couldn't be sure who was driving at the time so I filled in form as me being driver, taking responsibility as its my car and opting for Driver awareness course, signed it nd sent it back. Letter came back saying that as I had written i was still unsure and would take responsibility they could not let me do course and I court would be involved. I have never had a speeding fine before , and have always been a totally honest person so dont understand what is going on. I have gone back over the incident, which was over a month ago, and after tracking everything I can remember I am sure I ws the driver so I have filled the form in correctly. Could I write agin to say that Icancategorically say I was the driver or phone them, I sent off the NIP but I am still within the original time frame for returning it.
This post has been edited by pipi: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:48 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:14
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:26
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Sounds like your nomination was equivocal? You casted some doubt?
If so, you will be prosecuted for a more serious charge of failing to furnish the driver. Hopefully they'll dual charge with the speeding and you should be able to recover the situation with a 'plea bargain' to cop the speeding. However, it will be costly as you will be charge according to your income and pick up court costs and surcharge. You will have to attend court to do this. This post has been edited by Jlc: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:27 -------------------- 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, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:28
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Unfortunately your reply has to be unequivocal, by trying to be honest you did the exact wrong thing, you should have just named the most likley driver, no ifs, buts or maybes.
This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:28 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 23:20
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
However, it will be costly as you will be charge according to your income and pick up court costs and surcharge. If you encounter a sympathetic Bench, explain your misunderstanding o your obligation to provide unequivocal information (lay it on a bit, pensioners, never had dealings with the police, etc.) you might persuade them to sentence you at the Fixed Penalty Equivalent (£100 and three points). They have guidance which says this: Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances. Strictly speaking your circumstances do not fit with that guidance (because it's your fault the matter went to court), but it's worth a try. The reason your equivocal nomination is not acceptable is that it is used to prove who was driving. If you say "I'm not sure it was me but..." it is not conclusive proof. |
|
|
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 02:25
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 784 Joined: 9 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,764 |
If the offence was only a month ago in all likelihood it will not be too late for the revised NIP response to be accepted. Call them tomorrow and explain.
|
|
|
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 14:44
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
The reason your equivocal nomination is not acceptable is that it is used to prove who was driving. If you say "I'm not sure it was me but..." it is not conclusive proof. How about, "I am sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the driver was..." --Churchmouse |
|
|
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 17:10
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
The reason your equivocal nomination is not acceptable is that it is used to prove who was driving. If you say "I'm not sure it was me but..." it is not conclusive proof. How about, "I am sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the driver was..." --Churchmouse I imagine that would suffice. If he is sure to that level of certainty that should be good enough for the court. It seems the OP did not say that or something along those lines. |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 22:19
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
The reason your equivocal nomination is not acceptable is that it is used to prove who was driving. If you say "I'm not sure it was me but..." it is not conclusive proof. How about, "I am sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the driver was..." --Churchmouse I imagine that would suffice. If he is sure to that level of certainty that should be good enough for the court. It seems the OP did not say that or something along those lines. I agree, but I hasten to add that I would not personally take that chance; I would not mention any doubt whatsoever. --Churchmouse |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:19 |