[NIP Wizard] Red light with incorrect time, Threads merged |
[NIP Wizard] Red light with incorrect time, Threads merged |
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 21:46
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 15 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,640 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - October 2019 Date of the NIP: - 4 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 16 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A270, Old Shoreham Road, J/W Carlton Terrace, Portslade Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - Drive a family members car, insured on it for various amounts of time. 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 - Drove through lights just after amber (can't remember exactly), filter right lane was showing green. Time of offence is one hour ahead of actual time. Time-stamped on the photo is the time when car was already home (only evidence would be WhatsApp messages). 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)? - No Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - Yes Although you are not the Registered Keeper, were you 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:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 21:46:56 +0000 Hi everyone, Recently received a NIP for a red light I passed through in Hove. Originally addressed to another family member who has the car registered to them, but they have sent off my details as I was driving the car at the time. However, as the date of the offence was a day after the clock change to GMT from BST the time on the camera and the NIP are incorrect by an hour. This is my first offence, but I was wondering if I can contend the fact the time is wrong on the NIP/photo or if I should just suck it up and accept the fine/do the course that may be offered (due to first offence). The time of the offence happened in the early hours of the Monday after the clocks changed on Saturday night. Also, the NIP was received within the 14 days, so there is no contesting this aspect. Thanks. This post has been edited by kzko7m4zr: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 21:49 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 21:46
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 22:09
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
The police are not going to drop it on the basis that the time is wrong when it is so obvious why, so you would have to go to court when the prosecution would simply produce a photo of you driving through a red light, explain about the change of time if you queried it and the court would not hesitate to convict you, in all probability.
Some forces offer courses for red light offences, so that might be on offer. -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 22:14
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
What he said, on the basis of what you've said a court could be satisfied that the alleged offence was committed.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 08:43
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Nothing lost in pointing out the time error, they may drop it but probably not.
As you’ve not been disadvantaged by the error (you clearly know when it relates to) the court will very likley not consider it a significant defect in the NIP or charge (if it’s carried on into it). -------------------- 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, 16 Nov 2019 - 12:28
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Even if it is a significant defect, section 123 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 says:
(1) No objection shall be allowed to any information or complaint, or to any summons or warrant to procure the presence of the defendant, for any defect in it in substance or in form, or for any variance between it and the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecutor or complainant at the hearing of the information or complaint. (2) If it appears to a magistrates’ court that any variance between a summons or warrant and the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecutor or complainant is such that the defendant has been misled by the variance, the court shall, on the application of the defendant, adjourn the hearing. So at best, it could buy you an adjournment, but that would likely just add to the costs that you'd pay at the end. If an out of court disposal is on offer (either FPN or course) I would take it. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 13:25
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 59 Joined: 13 Sep 2019 Member No.: 105,719 |
What he said, on the basis of what you've said a court could be satisfied that the alleged offence was committed. But not at the time alleged? Unless your system is completely FUBAR'd, you can't have somebody saying you did x, y, z at 2a.m when you can prove you were 40 miles away, and then they say "ah, we meant 1.am, for example? What is this, North Korea? |
|
|
Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 13:48
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
What he said, on the basis of what you've said a court could be satisfied that the alleged offence was committed. But not at the time alleged? Unless your system is completely FUBAR'd, you can't have somebody saying you did x, y, z at 2a.m when you can prove you were 40 miles away, and then they say "ah, we meant 1.am, for example? What is this, North Korea? As I said: (1) No objection shall be allowed to any information or complaint, or to any summons or warrant to procure the presence of the defendant, for any defect in it in substance or in form, or for any variance between it and the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecutor or complainant at the hearing of the information or complaint. (2) If it appears to a magistrates’ court that any variance between a summons or warrant and the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecutor or complainant is such that the defendant has been misled by the variance, the court shall, on the application of the defendant, adjourn the hearing. You could go to court and demand an adjournment, the error will be corrected and you will then have the option of pleading guilty to the "corrected" charge, or take the matter to trial. From what you say, it's likely a contested trial would be lost and you'd be looking at £620 standard costs + the costs for the adjournment + the fine + the victim surcharge. So by all means, you can put the prosecution to proof and demand that they prove your guilty beyond all treasonable doubt, but if the prosecution does so it'll cost you quite a bit. If you can avoid the hassle by paying £100 for an FPN or a similar amount for a driver improvement course, that would seem a more sensible option. But it's your money so you can do whatever you think is best. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 13:59
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
That addresses the court paperwork, not the defect with the NIP. Though as I said no disadvantage has been caused so I don’t see it as an issue.
-------------------- 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, 16 Nov 2019 - 14:44
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
What he said, on the basis of what you've said a court could be satisfied that the alleged offence was committed. But not at the time alleged? Unless your system is completely FUBAR'd, you can't have somebody saying you did x, y, z at 2a.m when you can prove you were 40 miles away, and then they say "ah, we meant 1.am, for example? What is this, North Korea? Funnily enough, this forum exists to give advice as to how the law is, not how it might or ought to be. If you want to express your opinion then don’t do it in and advice thread. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 21:02
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 15 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,640 |
Nothing lost in pointing out the time error, they may drop it but probably not. As you’ve not been disadvantaged by the error (you clearly know when it relates to) the court will very likley not consider it a significant defect in the NIP or charge (if it’s carried on into it). Would pointing this out be best by writing to them? They also include a phone number you can call during certain hours. Obviously it seems my best bet is to hope for a course if it's offered at the moment. Seems unlikely that it would be dropped but I was interested in asking if it was possible due to the wrong timestamp as I know this has been used in the case of speeding fines. |
|
|
Sat, 16 Nov 2019 - 21:05
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Dropping it due to the time error isn’t, in my opinion, a legal argument, but solely at there whim, it’s happened for speeding and it hasn’t happened for speeding..... I’d do it in wiring, politely pointing out the error, attach to the completed and signed driver nomination.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sun, 17 Nov 2019 - 17:04
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
There are 3 potential issues here -
The incorrect time on the NIP, the incorrect time on the s. 172 requirement incorporated into the NIP, and the possibility of the incorrect time being carried over into the charge for any subsequent court proceedings. Case law is clear that whilst the requirement to serve a NIP within the 14 days is mandatory (subject to the statutory exceptions), the required details are 'merely directory' - if the accused know which incident the notice refers to (or in this case knows what the correct time would have been), the notice is valid despite the error. The general consensus on this site is that the recipient of an s. 172 requirement is not obliged to second guess the police if the stated requirement is moot. This would seem to depend somewhat on the precise wording of the s. 172 requirement, as the legislation itself creates an obligation to provide information required in relation to the identity of the driver alleged to have committed the offence, as opposed to the driver of vehicle A at place B at time C. There is no statutory time limit on issuing s. 172 requirements, so it would seem that if the OP were to 'play dumb' and state that his car was not being driven at the time, if the (civilian department working within the) police were bright enough to work out that the time was wrong due to the clocks going back, they could simply issue a corrected s. 172 requirement (as long as the OP was not within 28 days of timing out). However, this assumes that the bits in Brown v Stott about the police not being able to repeatedly question under s. 172 is deemed to mean something else. As has been stated, if the error were to come to light at court, the justices would simply amend the charge. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 10:58
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,423 Joined: 15 Apr 2009 From: Winnersh, UK Member No.: 27,840 |
Is this actually a NIP or an S172 request to identify the driver. If the latter, then could the OP respond that the vehicle was not at the location on the date/time specified but elsewhere (stating the location the car was at the time specified).
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 15:01
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 15 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,640 |
It is currently a NIP, although the family member who owns the car has named me as the driver and I now have the updated NIP to my address with 28 days to respond. The picture was checked and it shows the red light with the car. My only reason for posting was due to the time being incorrect on both the picture and NIP, however, there is an obvious reason why this time would be out by an hour due to clocks changing. Seems the consensus on this forum is that if I took the case to court it would be obvious and therefore pointless to pursue but I could point it out in a letter.
I have seen that some speeding charges have been avoided by incorrect time on the camera/NIP so I was wondering if it may be applicable to a red light camera as well. One interesting thing to note is that my NIP actually came with a sheet detailing about how speeding costs lives although I was under the speed limit when I drove through the red light. I suspect the inclusive sheet about speeding is just a template sent out with all of these as it is the most common. Would this work as a draft for a letter to include when returning my NIP? QUOTE Dear Sir/Madam,
I have enclosed my driver's details with this form as I was the driver, however, I would like to point out that the time of the alleged offence is incorrect by one hour as stated on the notice of intended prosecution. At the time stated I had completed my journey and the car was parked in the driveway. Yours sincerely, ... |
|
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 16:42
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,423 Joined: 15 Apr 2009 From: Winnersh, UK Member No.: 27,840 |
I would answer along the lines of
QUOTE Dear Sir/Madam I am responding to the attached S172 request with the following information At the time stated on the notice, the car was parked in the driveway [at location ....] and was not at the specified location at the time specified on the notice. I had driven the vehicle previously that day, but as previously mentioned, nobody was driving it at the specified time In my opinion (I am not a lawyer), you have answered the question that they asked i.e. who was driving the vehicle at a specified time/date |
|
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 18:48
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 634 Joined: 8 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,778 |
Did the OP drive through the red light or was it another family member taking the same journey roughly an hour later.
By replying, “it wasn’t me , guv” is the family member going to be facing a ftf charge? Is the op eligible for a course if they name themselves? Depending upon the family dynamics a full and frank response of, At x time I wasn’t driving the car, but approximately an hour earlier I was and was in the vicinity of the location mentioned in the S172 request. Might be the best course of action? |
|
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 19:31
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 15 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,640 |
It was me who was driving the car at the time. I should be eligible for a course if I do name myself as there are 0 points on my license and I have never done a course before (well if they offer it for a red light camera violation).
|
|
|
Mon, 18 Nov 2019 - 19:49
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
Perhaps the new digital cameras can be reset for the BST/GMT change, with the old steam driven film cameras it is inconceivable that they could be, so it must take an appreciable time for them all to be visited and the time corrected. This has happened twice a year since cameras were introduced and there must be a well established procedure for dealing with the issue, which will not include giving up in bafflement if the issue is raised.
-------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 - 11:20
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 15 Nov 2019 Member No.: 106,640 |
Update to this thread:
Today I received the following letter from the Police: QUOTE With reference to the above notice number, the photographic evidence has been checked and I can confirm that the offence has been recorded correctly and the vehicle registration does match the one above. If you still feel that your vehicle was not in the area at the time of the alleged offence then we require colour photos of all four sides of your vehicle. These details will be passed to our enquiries office for further investigation If you were happy to enclose a contact telephone number for yourself then this would be helpful if our enquiries officer requires any further information from you. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact this office So my guess is that they are trying to rule out cloned plates but I would agree the offence has been recorded correctly minus the time discrepancy. There is nothing else in the letter, so I am not sure if I just do nothing and wait or if I should reply in any manner? |
|
|
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 - 11:28
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
If you want it dropped I'd suggest supplying the phone number. you can then enquire if the time may be out due to the BST>GMT time change as you were 'probably there an hour earlier'.
Otherwise it's likely this will end in court. If they only charge you for failing to ID the driver then you should be acquitted, if they dual charge (likely) then whole you shouldn't be found guilty of the S172, you may struggle to get off the red light charge. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:20 |