PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Always Challange Your NIP!!
Telford
post Fri, 29 Sep 2006 - 09:14
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,921



On the 14th August 2006, I received a NIP dated 08/08/2006, stating my vehicle had been caught doing 47 in a 40mph zone.

The location was on the A41 Albrighton by-pass at Cosford and travelling towards Wolverhampton, at 08:42. It further stated that this was a maned reading! This was a bit of a shock as there are several Gatso's on part of this route.

Furthermore as I am aware that this route has numerous variations in speed limits from 60 to 40 to 30 back to 40 and then 60 again I questioned the speed so I wrote to West Mercia safety camera partnership on the 16th August 2006.

In my letter I asked if there was any photographic evidence as I was unsure who was driving the vehicle at that particular time and also disputed the speed. This was sent on 17th August 2006 via Royal mail special next day delivery!

On the 24th August I got a response from West Mercia safety camera partnership basically saying that I had to disclose who the driver was and if I did not I could be prosecuted etc under the various sections of the 1988 road traffic act! Enclosed were 3 photos of my vehicle taken from the rear and thus not able to identify who the driver was! ( even though I had a good idea it was possibly my wifw). Furthermore you could not see any road markings to determine the speed of my vehicle either.Also that reasonable dilligence is for the consideration of the court. The said I must reply within either 28 days of the NIP or 7 days from the date of there last letter.

On the 29th August I used the template on this site to confirm the names of the drivers our address and that we had seen the photographic eveidence and none of us are able to confirm who the drivver was. I also acknowledged my responsibilities under section 172 of the 1988 road traffic act but as is required under subsection 172(4) I believe I have done as much as I could to identify the driver. I explained I had exercised at the very least "reasonable diligence" In so far as we had checked our diaries for that day, our bank and credit card statements to see if we purchased fuel and again neither of us could remember who was driving on that day! I signed off saying that there was nothing else I could do to identify the driver and asked if the matter can be avoided to going to court. Again the response was sent on that same day via Royal mail special next day delivery.

On the 8th September 2006, I had an acknowldgement letter from West Mercia safety camera partnership stating that they had my letter and I would receive a response shortly!

Then on 20th September 2006 I had a letter this time from West Mercia Constabulary from the central ticket office in Droitwich. In the letter it pointed out my vehicle had been exceeding the speed limit and that excessive speed was a major cause of road accidents. Thats why at the spot of my vehicle the cameras were there due to such incidents. However they then went on to say that on this occassion we have decided not to take any further action in respect of this offence! They also went on to remind me in the future as the registered keeper I am required to be aware of the driver of my vehicle at all times as per section 172 of the 1988 road traffic act!!

Therefore a very good result all round and many thanks to this web site and some of the information and guidence from other people in my situation. So it does go to show if you are prepared to put up a defence you can win! Thanks

This post has been edited by Telford: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 - 09:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 1)
Advertisement
post Fri, 29 Sep 2006 - 09:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
flashman
post Fri, 29 Sep 2006 - 15:06
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 218
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,580



QUOTE: Telford
"In my letter I asked if there was any photographic evidence as I was unsure who was driving the vehicle at that particular time and also disputed the speed."

So you didn't know who was driving, but you knew whoever WAS wasn't exceeding the speed limit? I'm sorry, but this is almost an object lesson in how NOT to deal with the scammers. You were lucky; others who do as you do will be caught out.


--------------------
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 - 00:12
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