PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Admitted being driver on NIP but still court referral
pipi
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 7)
Advertisement
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 23:20
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 22:26) *
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.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
squaredeal
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 14:44
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 23:20) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 17:10
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 14:44) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 23:20) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 22:19
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 17:10) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 14:44) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 23:20) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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, 29th March 2024 - 01:19
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here