[NIP Wizard] Not driving near the location of the offence Options

[johnnycab]

NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - November 2019
Date of the NIP: - 9 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 11 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A306 Roehampton Ln nr Wanborough Drive SW15
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? -
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 - Nowhere near the location, at the time of the alleged offence. The NIP does not have any photo evidence attached. Disabled driver. Alleged to have done 38mph in a 30mph zone.

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)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - No
Do you know who was driving? - No

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

• If you can show that after reasonable diligence you have been unable to determine the identity of the driver, you will not be guilty of S172 failure to provide.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:52:10 +0000

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

Could anyone else have been driving the vehicle at that time? Or did you have sole contol - keys on you, for example
Is it possible its a time change isssue? Unlikely now but maybe...

[Logician]

Nowhere near the location, at the time of the alleged offence.
Disabled driver
Were you driving? - No
Do you know who was driving? - No

Why do you not know who was driving? If you do not know, how do you know the driver was disabled? If you were not driving, how do you know the vehicle was nowhere near the location?

[johnnycab]

A quick brief: I am asking this above on behalf of a family friend, who is unable to navigate the forums. He claims that it is impossible that he was in the area, given the information provided on the NIP, which is corroborated by family members and will be able to prove it ─ if it comes to that. He tried calling the number provided in the NIP, but they are not available until tomorrow, although I assume that it will be a dead-end and I ask some of the questions in anticipation, as the clock will carry on ticking as per s172 in the meantime..

What are the next steps? ie. requesting the photographic evidence and how to go about refuting or dealing with this alleged offence etc.

Edit: I would also add that he does not drive very fast and overtly respectful of the speed limits and there is always a family member accompanying him, when he is driving.

This post has been edited by johnnycab: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 14:09

[nosferatu1001]

Ah, send three and fourpence

So he
- had control of the keys at the time and the car was on X driveway /parked at work / tec
or
- was driving at Y locaiton, Z miles from the locaiton on NIp
or
- somehting else?

[johnnycab]

So he
- had control of the keys at the time and the car was on X driveway /parked at work / tec

^ this

The car was in the driveway at home.

This post has been edited by johnnycab: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 14:19

[Logician]

Most likely the reg number has been misread, or less likely the plate has been cloned. A bemused phone call asking the police to check the photo might sort it out quickly.

[johnnycab]

Most likely the reg number has been misread, or less likely the plate has been cloned. A bemused phone call asking the police to check the photo might sort it out quickly.

Although, it was my first instinct, but I did not want to be presumptuous. In your experience, would the Police entertain any such calls or are they likely to divert you to another 'process' and/or another department etc.? ie. refer you to Camera Processing Services

BTW, they have not provided any photographic evidence, I don't know if that is the norm.

This post has been edited by johnnycab: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 14:35

[The Rookie]

No, they are pretty good with these, they will check the photo, if it’s a plate misread they will tell the caller there and then and cancel it. If the plate has been read correctly then your into showing it’s a clone which can be simple via photos or can get a lot more complex.

You need to be careful with how you write stuff as clearly the ‘disabled driver’ was both irrelevant if true and not at all true anyway.

[Irksome]

Try and avoid using words like evidence ... just request a copy of the photos to assist identification of the driver or such phrases.

[johnnycab]

No, they are pretty good with these, they will check the photo, if it’s a plate misread they will tell the caller there and then and cancel it. If the plate has been read correctly then your into showing it’s a clone which can be simple via photos or can get a lot more complex.

Thanks, that makes sense.

You need to be careful with how you write stuff as clearly the ‘disabled driver’ was both irrelevant if true and not at all true anyway.

Noted. I provided the information as the form requested adding as much detail as possible. However, I do understand your point.

This post has been edited by johnnycab: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 15:01

[johnnycab]

Try and avoid using words like evidence ... just request a copy of the photos to assist identification of the driver or such phrases.

On the contrary, I don't think it is unreasonable in the slightest to use the word 'evidence' in order to mollycoddle MetPol, especially when you are faced with a letter which starts with the word 'Prosecution' and littered with combative language throughout.

[Fredd]

On the contrary, I don't think it is unreasonable in the slightest to use the word 'evidence' in order to mollycoddle MetPol,

That's fine, as long as you're prepared to explain to your friend why they're not getting to see any picture, in the event that the police decide to simply reply that they're not entitled to see evidence ahead of a trial. I'm sure you know best.

[johnnycab]

On the contrary, I don't think it is unreasonable in the slightest to use the word 'evidence' in order to mollycoddle MetPol,

That's fine, as long as you're prepared to explain to your friend why they're not getting to see any picture, in the event that the police decide to simply reply that they're not entitled to see evidence ahead of a trial. I'm sure you know best.

I do not know best, neither do I profess to know anything about this subject, hence I come here to seek advice and accept it thankfully. I was not aware of the wordplay and I sincerely apologise to the previous poster for my ignorance.

[Logician]

The point is that they are not obliged to provide any "evidence" at this stage, but if they decide to prosecute the registered keeper for failing to identify the driver, and the registered keeper can say, "I could not identify the driver, so I asked to see the photographs the police had of the vehicle in case they helped, but they would not let me see them" then the police do not look too clever. That is why we advise other phrasing, just as a precaution.

You cam here for advice, that is what you are getting from people who have seen a lot of these cases, but it is always up to you whether to take it or not.

[NewJudge]

To set your mind at rest (and to perhaps help you) the reason is that there have been instances where people in similar circumstances have asked for "evidence" and the police have taken this as an indication that they are challenging the allegation. They then went straight on to initiate court proceedings (the only place where the evidence must be provided) and the opportunity for a course or fixed penalty (if appropriate) is lost. As Fredd points out, there is no right to see any evidence at this stage because the decision whether to prosecute or not has not been taken. The police are obliged to provide a "Notice of Intended Prosecution". They will also set out the recipient's duties and responsibilities under the law and the possible penalties in the event of a conviction so such information is bound to appear "combative".

It doesn't often happen (that they take the matter directly to court) but it does occasionally and the stock advice is not to ask for "evidence" but for "any photographs which might help to identify the driver".

[johnnycab]

The point is that they are not obliged to provide any "evidence" at this stage, but if they decide to prosecute the registered keeper for failing to identify the driver, and the registered keeper can say, "I could not identify the driver, so I asked to see the photographs the police had of the vehicle in case they helped, but they would not let me see them" then the police do not look too clever. That is why we advise other phrasing, just as a precaution.

Ok, so now that I understand the reason behind the phrasing, would I be correct in assuming that this process seems to be (unnecessarily) loaded towards a singular aim of a legal outcome? This is particularly damaging in the case of outliers such as my friend ie. your guilt/innocence can only be proved once you take that route and follow through, otherwise just accept that you are guilty?

[southpaw82]

The point is that they are not obliged to provide any "evidence" at this stage, but if they decide to prosecute the registered keeper for failing to identify the driver, and the registered keeper can say, "I could not identify the driver, so I asked to see the photographs the police had of the vehicle in case they helped, but they would not let me see them" then the police do not look too clever. That is why we advise other phrasing, just as a precaution.

Ok, so now that I understand the reason behind the phrasing, would I be correct in assuming that this process seems to be (unnecessarily) loaded towards a singular aim of a legal outcome? This is particularly damaging in the case of outliers such as my friend ie. your guilt/innocence can only be proved once you take that route and follow through, otherwise just accept that you are guilty?

The process is the same as with any other criminal offence - a prosecution should only ensue if it is in the public interest and there is a realistic prospect of a conviction. If the police are presented with evidence that means that there is not a realistic prospect of conviction then they should not prosecute. However, if a realistic prospect still exists, e.g. because the evidence needs to be tested, then the correct place to do so is in court. It is not for the police to decide on guilt or innocence.

[johnnycab]

To set your mind at rest (and to perhaps help you) the reason is that there have been instances where people in similar circumstances have asked for "evidence" and the police have taken this as an indication that they are challenging the allegation. They then went straight on to initiate court proceedings (the only place where the evidence must be provided) and the opportunity for a course or fixed penalty (if appropriate) is lost.

Thanks. Hypothetically, I suppose you could be left with no other choice, as is in my friend's case to ask for evidence (even if it appears to be challenging) when you genuinely have no other information to furnish - other than stating that you were not present where they assert you were, any mis-reads and other scenarios notwithstanding.

[The Rookie]

But as it’s not their only ‘other choice’ (even though it perhaps could have been) that’s all completely irrelevant isn’t it.

They have the very simple ‘bemused phonecall’ choice as mentioned right at the outset, mentioned because it’s a tried and tested method for these cases and is very simple and painless.

Still if you want to stiff your ‘friend’ over by making it much more complicated than it needs to be that’s of course your call.