S172 NIP "to whom it may concern" |
S172 NIP "to whom it may concern" |
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 19:54
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 20 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,979 |
Hi all
Unfortunately received a nip today. However, its addressed to "whom it may concern" My question - do I have to reply? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 19:54
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 1 Jan 2019 - 13:31
Post
#81
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 349 Joined: 21 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,881 |
Today I received an nip/s172, however they have changed the alleged offence from 'driving without due care and attention' to 'dangerous driving' I called the constable who sent the notice and asked why the offence has been changed from careless driving to dangerous driving. She said that she has taken over the investigation from a colleague and is deciding to investigate it under dangerous driving as it is excluded from the 14 day nip rule. 1st thought is that if this the actual rationale for pursuing a dangerous it may be an abuse of process. The officer can't simply decide to go after a more serious offence to make up for administrative errors earlier on (despite the fact they seem oblivious to the actual legislation). 2nd is that although the OP states there was no RTC the details of what has been alleged by the other driver is not yet known. -------------------- If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
|
|
|
Tue, 1 Jan 2019 - 14:48
Post
#82
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 20 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,979 |
Today I received an nip/s172, however they have changed the alleged offence from 'driving without due care and attention' to 'dangerous driving' I called the constable who sent the notice and asked why the offence has been changed from careless driving to dangerous driving. She said that she has taken over the investigation from a colleague and is deciding to investigate it under dangerous driving as it is excluded from the 14 day nip rule. 1st thought is that if this the actual rationale for pursuing a dangerous it may be an abuse of process. The officer can't simply decide to go after a more serious offence to make up for administrative errors earlier on (despite the fact they seem oblivious to the actual legislation). 2nd is that although the OP states there was no RTC the details of what has been alleged by the other driver is not yet known. The constable didn't actually give that rationale for changing the alleged offence to dangerous driving, she just said we are investigating the incident as a dangerous drive and when I challenged her about the fourteen day rule, she said dangerous driving is excluded from it. On the letter she sent, she also stated that a road traffic collision occurred. However when I spoke to her on the phone, she denied a collision occurred and couldn't explain why the allegation was stated so on the letter she wrote I've also just noticed that the roundabout they mentioned for the location of the incident is incorrect, it's the correct road but wrong roundabout. Does this matter? |
|
|
Tue, 1 Jan 2019 - 15:14
Post
#83
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,283 Joined: 5 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,178 |
Plan to write them a brief letter stating that the nip was not served on the registered keeper or the driver within 14 days of the incident, therefore I'm pleading not guilty. You can't plead anything unless or until they've actually charged you with something. |
|
|
Tue, 1 Jan 2019 - 16:41
Post
#84
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
I've also just noticed that the roundabout they mentioned for the location of the incident is incorrect, it's the correct road but wrong roundabout. Does this matter? It matters. Particularly if you're asking in that manner which suggests something occurred but they have the wrong location. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:01 |