PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Unsigned S172 (TVP) update 31/05/2005 case dropped
andy_foster
post Tue, 28 Sep 2004 - 19:33
Post #1


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Details of my case (so far). Thanks to all those who've helped (including those that have disagreed with my reasoning)

I am the owner and RK of the vehicle involved. Currently no points on my licence.

***
03.11 21/08/2004 flashed by a Truevelo speed camera on the A40 High Wycombe. More than slightly surprised as I was below 40mph in what I believed to be a 40 limit.
Backtracked to check speed limit signs - found 30mph sign obscured by foliage.
{S85 (1+2) RTRA 1984 places a legal duty on the relevant authorities to maintain the speed limit signs, and (4) provides a stutary defence when
there aren't street lights, however I cannot reasonably be expected to deduce that the speed limit was 30mph due to the presence of street lighting, as the 40 limit Iwas previously in, on the same road had street lights. Trying to argue that in court could be interesting.

***
28/08/2004 Received NIP dated 26/08/2004 (1,2,3,4)
(alleged offence of (speed 36mph) Exceeding 30mph on restricted road)

***
02/09/2004 First chance to take pictures of obscured sign

***
~1100 08/09/2004 Phoned TVP SAS helpline for advice regarding the S172 form.
{At the time I thought that the higher courts had ruled that not signing a S172 was an offence. Signing the declaration on my form would be a bad thing, cos the reverse of the "two sided document" (their wording) contains a statement I believe to be untrue.
The tubby simpy stated "If you admits you was the driver, you got to sign Part 5"}

***
15/09/2004 Returned S172 (1,2) with Part 1 completed, and Part 5 left blank.
{Actually read the relevant judgements - it is reasonable for the CC to require a signature, and all reasonable requests must be complied with. As there is no request for a signature on my form, other than a clearly unreasonable requirement to sign a false declaration, I cannot have failed to comply with a reasonable request.
Was hoping that they'd drop the speeding charge in favour of S172.}

***
18/09/2005 Received SAS Workshop offer letter (1,2,3,4) dated 17/09/2004.
{Would have to pay £71 for some patronising tw*t to tell me the usual lies. To complete course, cannot be disruptive, and must show an improvement in attitude! If I was on 9 points, "I don't like buses" would be a positive attitude. Other than that, I'd rather face the beaks.}

***
27/09/2004 Posted letter to manager of TVP SAS.
{After receiving the "Speed Awareness Scheme Workshop" offer, I read the NIP properly. It clearly states "IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION THE ALLEGED OFFENCE ABOVE WILL NOT BE PROCEEDED WITH HOWEVER YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF 'FAILING TO FURNISH INFORMATION CONTRARY TO SECTION 172'"
Page 2 says "Please sign and date the form where indicated or it will not be accepted."
The SAS offer letter indicates that they have accepted the incomplete S172 form, and are proceeding with the original alleged offence. Either this was a mistake, or Mr Pritchard lied on a form that reminds me I could be fined £2000 if I lie!
The letter was designed to be polite whilst hopefully ensuring it is not ignored.}

***
12/10/2004 Got fed up waiting for a response to my letter - phoned TVP SAS helpline - eventually spoke to someone with access to my file - current status is they have received my letter (29/09/2004) and passed it to the manager for his input.
From Hawkeye's post they seem to be aware of the holes in the form they sent me, so a humiliating (for them) S172 prosecution seems unlikely. Whether Mr Pritchard will decide to risk a prosecution for perjury to prosecute me for speeding is another matter, although I don't expect an answer anytime soon.  

***
15/10/2004 Received another brown envelope from TVP today. It contained:
(i) a letter
(ii) a single-sided copy of Page 1 of the original NIP (with "Please retain this page for your records" blacked out) and
(iii) a single-sided copy of the front of an old S172 form with my details, and the date the original was issued, written in the boxes above Part 1, by hand (where they were printed in the original), and "COPY" stamped at the top right of the form.
[N.B. (ii) and (iii) are scans from the original NIP, didn't scan copies as they are the same excecpt where blanked out]

The letter seems to imply that unless I comply they will prosecute me for S172, not the original allegation (speeding).

The letter does not have anything to indicate that it has been sent on behalf of the CC (Osgerby,Mohindra).

IMHO, I have met my legal obligations regarding the original NIP/S172.

Do the new letter and the partial copies of the "original" NIP/S172 constitute a new request for information under S172, (TVP giving themselves a second bite of the cherry), or is it simply a case of them generously giving me a second chance to give them some money?
IMHO, the lack of any reference to the CC in the letter, and the fact that the partial forms bear the original date (26/08/2004),  would suggest to me that this is not a new request.

QUOTE (I)
Dear Mr. Pritchard,

I refer to your latest correspondence, DocRef: 82498.

There I are two points that I am not totally clear on.

Your letter urges me to complete and return the Notice within “the next 14 days”. The NIP, dated 19/11/2004, but marked COPY, states that the form must be returned within 28 days of the date on that notice. Please can you clarify?

Your letter refers to a form showing duplicate information, but the S172 form is also dated 19/11/2004. Can you confirm whether this has been served on me as a separate request for information, under S172 RTA 1988, or whether it is in fact a reminder as implied in your letter?
 
Yours sincerely
(me)


Based on previous performance, it should take him about 2 weeks to realise that I'm taking the p*ss. He might decide that it's time to issue a summons, or he might decide to give me a 4th chance to sign the form, indicating that he has no intention of taking me to court.

***
18/12/2004
Got another letter from our friends in Banbury, today.
Apparently, I should reply to this letter within 7 days. Failure to do so may result in the matter being dealt with by a Magistrates' Court.

This is now my 4th chance to give them something they think they want, don't need, and can't use.  rolleyes.gif

***
17/01/2005
One month after being offered a further 7 days to reply, I wrote to Mr Pritchard again.
QUOTE (I)
Dear Mr. Pritchard,


Thankyou for your recent letter, dated 24th December 2004, offering me a further 7 days to comply with your earlier instruction to furnish a signed S9 Witness Statement.  
I would appreciate it if you could advise me as to when I can expect to receive a summons, so I can avoid clashing with the hearing date when booking my holiday.

Yours sincerely
(me)


***
15/02/2005
Another letter from our friends in Banbury.
QUOTE ([url=http://www.article13.org/TVP/NFA%20002.TIF)
Mr. Pritchard[/url]]
Alleged Speed: 36 mph

Dear Sir,

I refer to the Notice of Intended Prosecution form sent to you recently in relation to an alleged traffic offence detected by camera technology and supported by photographic evidence.

I have carefully considered your recent correspondence and all the circumstances of this particular case and on this occasion decided that it would be appropriate to take no further action.

This decision has not been taken lightly and any further offences that may come to light will not be dealt with so leniently.

Yours faithfully

<pp squiggle>
Bryan C Prichard
Manager


No further action by them, perhaps  icon_twisted.gif

***
17/03/2005
Today I received a summons for S172.

Summons P1,P2, P3

"Bundle":
Notice to defendant - Proof by written statement
S20 Certificate and photo
Copy of front of NIP
CTO clerk's "witness" statement
DVLA response
FAQ and Flowchart

Also included was a Means Form, a Tourist's Guide to Witney Mags' Court and a slip stating that due to changes in legislation, if my plea isn't returned before the date of the hearing, I'm screwed.

***
13/04/2005
NG plea (by post) was entered yesterday morning.
Phoned the court - case has been adjourned to a PTR in Banbury on May 17th. I am required to attend.

***
17/05/2005
Trial date set for 10am 31/05/2005 at Bicester Magistrates' Court.

***
24/05/2005
Received a Court Order informing me that the case has been adjourned for trial at 12 noon at Banbury Magistrates' Court.

Phoned the listings office to confirm that it is to be held at Banbury. Also confirmed that it's due to be heard by a District Judge.

Hand delivered skeleton argument and disclosures to CPS.

***
31/05/2005
CPS guy phoned me just as I was about to leave the house, to tell me that he was dropping the case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 28 Sep 2004 - 19:33
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peteturbo
post Wed, 29 Sep 2004 - 19:16
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 876
Joined: 19 May 2004
From: London
Member No.: 1,219



Belt and braces;

To get back to the sign. I thought i had a little contrtemps with our finest over entering a no entry road. Went to the site, found the signs twisted through ninety degrees and with snashed bulbs. Took lots of photos just in case.

Emailed the council, complaining about the sign.

Two weeks later got email from council saying signs had been repaired.

NO FURTHER DETAILS.

This is wonderful. it confirms the sign was sufficiently 'wrong' to need repairing. No photos needed (in fact best not - just leave it to courts imagination).

Suggest you see if your council will be so obliging,

Peteturbo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jdh
post Wed, 29 Sep 2004 - 19:21
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,705
Joined: 20 May 2004
From: Lincolnshire
Member No.: 1,224



A little way from where I work there are a pair of 30mph signs as you enter the village, except one of them has been turned 180 degrees so one side of the road has a 30 sign showing, the other a NSL sign showing. It's been like it for well over a year now. I don't know how often they check the signs are complete/correct/lighting working etc but if this one is indicative then there must be signs all over the area that render speed limits unenforceable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cjm99
post Fri, 15 Oct 2004 - 14:14
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,109
Joined: 16 Dec 2003
From: Manchester
Member No.: 675



QUOTE
The letter does not have anything to indicate that it has been sent on behalf of the CC



The NIP side of the document says ref. sec 172 request for info.. "for and on behalf of CoP" and is signed by Pritchard. This will be accepted.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Fri, 15 Oct 2004 - 14:29
Post #5


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (cjm99)
QUOTE
The letter does not have anything to indicate that it has been sent on behalf of the CC



The NIP side of the document says ref. sec 172 request for info.. "for and on behalf of CoP" and is signed by Pritchard. This will be accepted.


That is a copy of the original NIP (dated 26/08/2004).
I have already (IMHO) complied with the original request for information.

If this is a new request for information, whilst the original request is signed by Mr Pritched, "for or on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police", is the fact that the letter bears Mr Pritchard's name (signed pp) and enclosed with an old request made "for or on behalf of CoP" evidence that the new request was also made "for or on behalf of CoP"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clear Skies
post Fri, 15 Oct 2004 - 15:21
Post #6


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,872
Joined: 17 May 2004
Member No.: 1,213



andy

try this.. http://www.getjustice.co.uk/

he is an expert, give him the detail about about signs.. and a copy of the pics if u can by e mail

he will tell u if u have a case. he will tell u if u can get legal aid (some one just did ) and he may generally assist.

he does charge, but I doubt if he charges for the first five minutes as u explain your position >. I dont expect he will ask for money if he cant help..

If his expert opinion is required it may well be covered by legal aid & he will tell you.

rgds
bill


--------------------
QUOTE
God always has a custard pie up his sleeve....
Georgy Girl



Carbon Offset & support PePiPoo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sat, 20 Nov 2004 - 09:16
Post #7


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Divbad
post Mon, 22 Nov 2004 - 16:43
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 976
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
From: Manchester
Member No.: 646



Andy,

If there was no enforceable 30MPH limit because of incorrect signage, then there was no speeding offence. Are you confident enough on this point just to sign the bloody s172 & defend the speeding if they pursue it? They might counter with something along the lines that, "as there were no 40 repeaters and streetlights you should have known it was a 30"... erm, after xx metres without a repeater... but that is (IMHO) something to argue with an Expert on your side in Court.

They are giving you several bites of the s172 cherry. They could send summons now for "failure to supply within 28 days" of the first NiP. Perhaps they get more brownie points for SP30 than MS90.

QUOTE (Andy_Foster)
As there is no request for a signature on my form, other than a clearly unreasonable requirement to sign a false declaration, I cannot have failed to comply with a reasonable request.


I think we know the answer to that one - sign or be damned - but icon_idea.gif Have you considered the PACE letter instead of signing their two-sided statement?


--------------------
It is probable that, simply, in addition, in my opinion, as accurately as I want to make it, probably, I am an orang utang. But that's not what the eye sees.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Mon, 22 Nov 2004 - 16:52
Post #9


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



[quote=Divbad]
They are giving you several bites of the s172 cherry. They could send summons now for "failure to supply within 28 days" of the first NiP. Perhaps they get more brownie points for SP30 than MS90.

[quote=Andy_Foster]As there is no request for a signature on my form, other than a clearly unreasonable requirement to sign a false declaration, I cannot have failed to comply with a reasonable request.[/quote]

I think we know the answer to that one - sign or be damned - but icon_idea.gif Have you considered the PACE letter instead of signing their two-sided statement?[/quote]

If you read Broomfield and Francis (and Boss v Measures), it is clear that a request needs to be reasonable to be lawful.
This is echoed in the stautory defence
B)+-->
QUOTE(S127(7)(B))
the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.[/quote]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Divbad
post Thu, 25 Nov 2004 - 14:45
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 976
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
From: Manchester
Member No.: 646



Andy,

Whilst true that the request needs to be reasonable to be lawful, m'learned fudges decided that a signature was "the usual way of ending a letter" and therefore a reasonable request, notwithstanding arguments about the declaration. They expanded on this to say that the signature is required "to help the prostitution screw the defence over" and therefore a PACE caution was not required.

AFAIK, s172(7)(B) talks about reasonable timescales and reasonable practicability, not reasonableness of the request, e.g. being in a coma is a reasonable defence under this section on timescales. Information not being in def.'s possession / power to give is a reasonable defence to practicability - "I couldn't say because I did not know."

The PACE letter avoids the issue.


--------------------
It is probable that, simply, in addition, in my opinion, as accurately as I want to make it, probably, I am an orang utang. But that's not what the eye sees.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 25 Nov 2004 - 15:44
Post #11


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Divbad)
Andy,

Whilst true that the request needs to be reasonable to be lawful, m'learned fudges decided that a signature was "the usual way of ending a letter" and therefore a reasonable request, notwithstanding arguments about the declaration. They expanded on this to say that the signature is required "to help the prostitution screw the defence over" and therefore a PACE caution was not required.


I read that as a reason why a simple request for a signature was deemed to be reasonable.
The requests/instructions to sign the form all specify that it must be signed "where indicated" or suchlike - which is a request/instruction to make an S9 declaration.
There is case law which strongly suggests that it is up to the CoP to request the information they require - it is not up to me to second guess what they require.

There is (arguably) insufficient space on their S172 form for a signature, other than the purjorous(sp?) one they require.
The NIP clearly states that I must "[u]PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ON THE FORM PROVIDED" - the fact that this stipulation is uttely absurd, is not my problem.


QUOTE (Divbad)
AFAIK, s172(7)(B) talks about reasonable timescales and reasonable practicability, not reasonableness of the request, e.g. being in a coma is a reasonable defence under this section on timescales. Information not being in def.'s possession / power to give is a reasonable defence to practicability - "I couldn't say because I did not know."


I have spend a while pondering this very issue - I have (in the literal sense) provided all the information they require regarding the identity of the driver. What I haven't done is complete their S9 witness statement. If this constitutes "failing to furnish", then the reasons why I was either unable to (or could not reasonably be expected to) complete their declaration must be reasons why it was not reasonably practicable for me to give the information.

QUOTE (Divbad)
The PACE letter avoids the issue.


IMHO, the PACE letter is much more likely to result in a speeding conviction, once they have worked out how to deal with it. It will undoubtedly win in Europe, but I want the best stragegy for Witney Magistrates' Court, on a Thursday afternoon.

As I see it, the only issue is whether or not their is now an absolute requirement in law to sign the form.
IMHO, there is no such requirement from Broomfield or Francis - the request must be made, and be reasonable, which all stems from Boss v Measures (anyone other than the Home Secretary want to argue with Lord Woolf CJ?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Divbad
post Thu, 25 Nov 2004 - 15:50
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 976
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
From: Manchester
Member No.: 646



They will say that the request (for a signature) was made on their "s172 Statement" form... hence the "unsigned" route is closed.

You could try crossing through the "Declaration" section and signing the damned form, but, as the s172 information request has been entitled "Statement", it is virtually a PACE statement anyway - without all the juicy bits that the PePiPoo PACE statement includes.


--------------------
It is probable that, simply, in addition, in my opinion, as accurately as I want to make it, probably, I am an orang utang. But that's not what the eye sees.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 25 Nov 2004 - 16:29
Post #13


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Divbad)
They will say that the request (for a signature) was made on their "s172 Statement" form... hence the "unsigned" route is closed.


And I will say that the current Lord Chief Justice said that a request must be reasonale to be lawful. The court will have copies of their S172 and NIP - and I will explain why the request is unreasonable, and why I could not comply even if I wanted to.

"The unsigned route" generally refers to S172 forms with reasonable requests for a signature. That has been closed.
Just because a policeman doesn't need a hat anymore to do you for speeding, doesn't mean that any policeman without a hat can secure a conviction without any evidence. icon_wink.gif

QUOTE (Divbad)
You could try crossing through the "Declaration" section and signing the damned form, but, as the s172 information request has been entitled "Statement", it is virtually a PACE statement anyway - without all the juicy bits that the PePiPoo PACE statement includes.


Yes, I could cross out their declaration and sign it, but I could also just accept an offer of a fixed penalty. But, that ain't gonna happen.

The chances of TVP prosecuting me for speeding without a signed form are slim (especially when Mr Pritchard promised on the NIP that they wouldn't).
If I crossed out their declaration and signed the form, it would be acceptable under S12 RTOA. That could be a problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Divbad
post Thu, 25 Nov 2004 - 17:08
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 976
Joined: 11 Dec 2003
From: Manchester
Member No.: 646



The bit of the declaration that you say is "unreasonable" is the "two-sided" phrase, right?


--------------------
It is probable that, simply, in addition, in my opinion, as accurately as I want to make it, probably, I am an orang utang. But that's not what the eye sees.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 25 Nov 2004 - 17:10
Post #15


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Yes. (And 2 untrue "facts" on the reverse that they require me to declare to be true)
I could have altered that part of the declaration to "one sided", but am I legally required to correct their mistakes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thamesvalley
post Wed, 12 Jan 2005 - 10:40
Post #16


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 794
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Member No.: 995



Hi Andy,

Has our friend contacted you yet ... Have you heard anything yet ... (*laughs*)

I got my lovely 'lill star now ....  8)


"18/12/2004
Got another letter from our friends in Banbury, today.
Apparently, I should reply to this letter within 7 days. Failure to do so may result in the matter being dealt with by a Magistrates' Court.

This is now my 4th chance to give them something they think they want, don't need, and can't use. "
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 12 Jan 2005 - 11:40
Post #17


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Have 7 days (commencing 17th December 2004) expired yet?  :wink:


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 15 Feb 2005 - 10:50
Post #18


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Received another letter this morning, stating they will take No Further Action in relation to the alleged motoring offence. This is not exactly news, as it says as much on the NIP.
My mate Bryan was presumably refering to the issue of allegedly failing to furnish the driver's details, contrary to S172(3) RTA 1988.

It is likely that they consider the matter closed. I do not  icon_twisted.gif

<N.B. mods - this has not yet been concluded, and therefore should not be posted in "success stories">


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thamesvalley
post Tue, 15 Feb 2005 - 11:54
Post #19


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 794
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Member No.: 995



Andy,

Can you post the letter on here, I cant view the file .....  Does this mean I am due one ... I havent even seen a conditional offer of fixed penalty yet ... Im well gutted !?!?

laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 15 Feb 2005 - 12:08
Post #20


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (thamesvalley)
Andy,

Can you post the letter on here, I cant view the file .....  Does this mean I am due one ... I havent even seen a conditional offer of fixed penalty yet ... Im well gutted !?!?

laugh.gif


The contents are at the bottom of the first post in this thread.
My S172 request was far more obviously flawed than yours, and the wording changed shortly after I received it - which would suggest that they were aware that it was defective. This isn't to say that yours wasn't fatally flawed, but they may not realise it yet  :roll:


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:16
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