PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Nip returned recorded delivery - failure to provide driver information court sunmons
Michaelknightkit...
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 21:23
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,448



Hello,
I got an NIP october 22nd for speeding. The nip didnt suggest what speed but said excessive speeding it was on a motorway and was received wihin a few daysof the alleged offence.
As i could not determine the driver i wrote a letter to the constabulary naming 4 drivers who it could have been with the nip asking for potential help in identifying a driver with perhaps a picture.
I have heard nothing until now where I have a court date set for march 9th.

The thing is i sent the nip back recorded delivery and i have found the slip. Just checked the royal mail sustem. And it shows that it was delivered to the post office but then no trace afterwards. I have not heard from the police since.

What should I do?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 21:23
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Michaelknightkit...
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:06
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,448



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:03) *
QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:02) *
This is entirely true, looks like i’m stuck between a rock and a hard place, I have zero points and I thought inwas doing right. :0(

Well, is there *any* chance you might be able to work out who was driving?



I’ve tried i’m just not sure. We share cars all the time. i just dont know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:13
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,325
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:06) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:03) *
QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:02) *
This is entirely true, looks like i’m stuck between a rock and a hard place, I have zero points and I thought inwas doing right. :0(

Well, is there *any* chance you might be able to work out who was driving?



I’ve tried i’m just not sure. We share cars all the time. i just dont know.

Then you can do one of two things:

a) Plead not guilty to speeding but plead guilty to failing to nominate the driver, or
b) Plead not guilty to both, and try and persuade the magistrates that a diligent driver in your position would have been unable to identify the driver. As explained, "I've tried I just don't know" won't work so I'd think very carefully before pursing this option.

If you plead guilty to failing to nominate the driver, you could put forward the fact that the car was shared with many people as mitigation (as clearly this would be a less serious scenario than a situation where the registered keeper is the only person who uses the car), and you could therefore ask the magistrates to take this into account when deciding the level of the fine.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:19
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,051
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 21:57) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 21:55) *
Pleading not guilty to both offences is the normal procedure. As they do not have evidence as to the driver they cannot convict that unless you plead guilty to it.

...this is why the plea bargain can work. If you plead guilty to the speeding now then that offence is in the bag and they may well still pursue the s172 offence. (So could be 9-12 points in the end depending on the excess)

Except if the OP doesn't know who was driving and pleads guilty to speeding when it could well have been someone else, that might amount to perverting the course of justice. The OP can only plead guilty to speeding if he actually believes he was driving.

I think the prosecution would be hard pushed to prove an intention to pervert the course of justice from what is, at worst, a reckless guess. I’m yet to be shown that PCOJ can be committed recklessly.

Nobody seems to have addressed the issue of the OP knowing (believing he knows) that the reply has not been delivered. Has he therefore furnished a response (leaving aside the issue that it’s an inadequate response anyway)?


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


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:27
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 871
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



If you share cars all the time is it not possible that you know who the driver is most likely to be? (Even if it is a 28% / 24% / 24% / 24% type thing?)

Even if you are not certain then only if you think you could be the 28% you could approach the prosecutor on the day and say you feel you were most likely to be the driver and ask if they will accept a not guilty plea for the FTF if you plead guilty for the speeding.

The issue with naming four drivers is the court may consider that even if you frequently share cars you would almost certainly have been able to eliminate one person through phone records, diaries or whatever. You would have to explain not only why you couldn't identify the driver with reasonable diligence, but why at least one person could not remember they weren't driving less than a month after the offence. It would be, to say the least, an unusual circumstance.

The issue with FTF is that if you are convicted it will not only be a fine, but the 6 points will significantly increase your insurance costs for five years which could become expensive if you drive multiple cars.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:52
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,051
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:27) *
even if you frequently share cars you would almost certainly have been able to eliminate one person through phone records, diaries or whatever.

How would he have access to those? S 172 imposes no obligation on anyone else to help him if they don’t want to.


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


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:56
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,325
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:19) *
I think the prosecution would be hard pushed to prove an intention to pervert the course of justice from what is, at worst, a reckless guess. I’m yet to be shown that PCOJ can be committed recklessly.

I have little doubt that if the OP just pleads guilty to speeding that'll be the end of the matter (providing one of the other potential drivers doesn't later brag about how he got away with speeding). Whether the OP can in good conscience plead guilty to speeding is a matter for him.

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:19) *
Nobody seems to have addressed the issue of the OP knowing (believing he knows) that the reply has not been delivered. Has he therefore furnished a response (leaving aside the issue that it’s an inadequate response anyway)?

If the OP can show that the letter was sent, it would be rather odd if he could be held criminally liable just because a letter was lost in the post, absent explicit words to that effect in the legislation. The legal obligation is to send the response, not to check that it was safely received. Still it's not really relevant in this case as the OP didn't in any even provide a satisfactory response.

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:52) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:27) *
even if you frequently share cars you would almost certainly have been able to eliminate one person through phone records, diaries or whatever.

How would he have access to those? S 172 imposes no obligation on anyone else to help him if they don’t want to.

A court might be slow to accept that none of the others knew they were not driving, it might be equally sceptical that someone who definitely wasn't driving would be so reluctant to tell the RK "Well it definitely wasn't me because I was at such and such a place so I couldn't have been the driver". The fact that none of the potential drivers can be ruled out at all is a tad unusual.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 23:20
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,051
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:56) *
The legal obligation is to send the response


The obligation is to give such information as may be required. Whilst give =/= receive I would be slow to presume that a court would find that a defendant can benefit from a windfall of a response going missing where he knows that such is the case.

QUOTE
A court might be slow to accept that none of the others knew they were not driving, it might be equally sceptical that someone who definitely wasn't driving would be so reluctant to tell the RK "Well it definitely wasn't me because I was at such and such a place so I couldn't have been the driver". The fact that none of the potential drivers can be ruled out at all is a tad unusual.

A court might be slow to accept many things. What it cannot do is fall into the error of implying a collective obligation to respond on all of the possible drivers, such that "one of you must have remembered driving", particularly if the evidence is (in a hypothetical case) that the others didn’t positively assist the recipient.


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


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 23:32
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,224
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



OP.

Out of interest, what is your relationship to the car? Are you the RK?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 23:47
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,325
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 23:20) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 22:56) *
The legal obligation is to send the response


The obligation is to give such information as may be required. Whilst give =/= receive I would be slow to presume that a court would find that a defendant can benefit from a windfall of a response going missing where he knows that such is the case.

That depends on whether the court wants to run the risk of creating an incentive not to check whether the response was received. Can it be right that if I check the tracking number on the Royal Mail website I am guilty, but if I don't bother looking, I'm not? I don't have the answer, but it would seem an odd outcome indeed.

It also means that if I send a satisfactory response by recorded or special delivery I might become guilty of an offence, while if I sent it by 1st class post with proof of postage I can't be guilty because I have no idea whether it was delivered or not, again it would seem a very odd outcome.

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 23:20) *
QUOTE
A court might be slow to accept that none of the others knew they were not driving, it might be equally sceptical that someone who definitely wasn't driving would be so reluctant to tell the RK "Well it definitely wasn't me because I was at such and such a place so I couldn't have been the driver". The fact that none of the potential drivers can be ruled out at all is a tad unusual.

A court might be slow to accept many things. What it cannot do is fall into the error of implying a collective obligation to respond on all of the possible drivers, such that "one of you must have remembered driving", particularly if the evidence is (in a hypothetical case) that the others didn’t positively assist the recipient.

I wasn't suggesting that at all, my point is there is an inherent likelihood that the more potential drivers there are, the higher the chances are that at least one will assist the recipient, and therefore the harder it becomes for the recipient to persuade the court that they did in fact all refuse to assist.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stewpots
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:19
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 64
Joined: 23 Oct 2013
Member No.: 66,198



QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 21:23) *
Hello,
I got an NIP october 22nd for speeding. The nip didnt suggest what speed but said excessive speeding it was on a motorway and was received wihin a few daysof the alleged offence.
As i could not determine the driver i wrote a letter to the constabulary naming 4 drivers who it could have been with the nip asking for potential help in identifying a driver with perhaps a picture.
I have heard nothing until now where I have a court date set for march 9th.

The thing is i sent the nip back recorded delivery and i have found the slip. Just checked the royal mail sustem. And it shows that it was delivered to the post office but then no trace afterwards. I have not heard from the police since.

What should I do?


Are these named drivers on your insurance certificate ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:57
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,200
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (stewpots @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:19) *
Are these named drivers on your insurance certificate ?


Why is that relevant? Absent an overseas address for a driver, the police are unlikely to raise the issue of insurance.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 15:35
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,325
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Logician @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:57) *
QUOTE (stewpots @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:19) *
Are these named drivers on your insurance certificate ?


Why is that relevant? Absent an overseas address for a driver, the police are unlikely to raise the issue of insurance.

Are they? I would have thought that if the person named as the driver didn't show up on the insurance, the police would send a s171 notice.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:14
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,200
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 15:35) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:57) *
QUOTE (stewpots @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 14:19) *
Are these named drivers on your insurance certificate ?
Why is that relevant? Absent an overseas address for a driver, the police are unlikely to raise the issue of insurance.
Are they? I would have thought that if the person named as the driver didn't show up on the insurance, the police would send a s171 notice.


They do not appear to check the insurance if they are given the name of a UK resident driver, no reason they cannot that I can see, they just don't do it, in my experience on here.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Michaelknightkit...
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:59
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,448



No but they all have comprehensive insurance on their own policies.
Also called the police they had not received my nip return. Hmmmm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 18:21
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,685
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:59) *
No but they all have comprehensive insurance on their own policies.

Which doesn't necessarily give an automatic right to DOV. (Not all policies provide this or there are exclusions)

Not that it appears relevant given the below.

QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:59) *
Also called the police they had not received my nip return. Hmmmm

In normal events this may have been useful.


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 19:19
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 871
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 9 Feb 2018 - 23:20) *
A court might be slow to accept many things. What it cannot do is fall into the error of implying a collective obligation to respond on all of the possible drivers, such that "one of you must have remembered driving", particularly if the evidence is (in a hypothetical case) that the others didn’t positively assist the recipient.

There are all sorts of things that may not be fatal for a case but the court will often find evidence more compelling the more credible the witness is. The OP is not questioning three random blokes off the street but three people apparently trusted to self insure and borrow the car with very little oversight.

"not admitting" and "denied using" also of course having two different meanings. "Not admitting" implies that with further persistence more information could have been gathered to assist the OP in their reasonable diligence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Michaelknightkit...
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 20:07
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,448



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 18:21) *
QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:59) *
No but they all have comprehensive insurance on their own policies.

Which doesn't necessarily give an automatic right to DOV. (Not all policies provide this or there are exclusions)

Not that it appears relevant given the below.

QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 16:59) *
Also called the police they had not received my nip return. Hmmmm

In normal events this may have been useful.


Normal events?
I appreciate everyone’s opinions so far
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 20:20
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,685
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 20:07) *
Normal events?

That the driver was unequivocally named.

Was one of those 4 drivers you?


--------------------
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
Michaelknightkit...
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 21:09
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,448



QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 20:20) *
QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 20:07) *
Normal events?

That the driver was unequivocally named.

Was one of those 4 drivers you?


Yes, its my car. But in the family we all drive each others cars, including my mothers carer.
The problem is noone would admit who was driving although I have a good idea.
I’m not sure why then police were not very helpful in providing pictures to help identify the driver.

Anyway, I thought I was doing the right thing in sending a letter asking for some help, and they never received it and they’ve admitted that snd I sent it recorded. It was sent will within the 28 day timeframe giving them an opportunity to reply in good time.

So i’ll stand my ground in court and fight my corner as I believe I have done everything The NIP asked me to do.


This post has been edited by Michaelknightkitt: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 21:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 21:51
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 871
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (Michaelknightkitt @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 21:09) *
Yes, its my car. But in the family we all drive each others cars, including my mothers carer.
The problem is noone would admit who was driving although I have a good idea.
I’m not sure why then police were not very helpful in providing pictures to help identify the driver.

Anyway, I thought I was doing the right thing in sending a letter asking for some help, and they never received it and they’ve admitted that snd I sent it recorded. It was sent will within the 28 day timeframe giving them an opportunity to reply in good time.

So i’ll stand my ground in court and fight my corner as I believe I have done everything The NIP asked me to do.

It is a shame in the letter that it could have been one of four drivers but you think it is Reverend Green because of x, y and z - not that you had an obligation too, just that it demonstrates reasonable diligence prior to replying to the S172 request

You may nonetheless have a defence because S172 doesn't actually place any expressed obligation to let the police know of your reasonable diligence, just that you can "[show] that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was".

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/172

Court is of course an ideal place for you to show your reasonable diligence. The issue will be you will need to explain to the court what you did to exercise RD, and what has given you a "good idea" of the driver but not enough to actually confirm it (as in, what did you ask them to confirm your suspicions, and did they refuse to provide it?). It's a difficult path to tread as too little diligence and you are guilty of S172, too much certainty and you have ascertained the driver or could reasonably have found out.

Personally if you actually want to defend this I would be looking at a solicitor because otherwise in court you will be walking a tightrope with lots of people trying to push you off. Most accept that a S172 defence is a fairly high bar.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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, 25th May 2018 - 16:22
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.