PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] Can i contest a speeding ticket issued in intermittent roadworks with an intermittent temporary 50mph speed limit
is there hope
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 15:12
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 2 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,199



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - July 2018
Date of the NIP: - 9 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 13 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A5 Halton, Wrexham
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - Vehicle is registered to our company name with 3 insured drivers
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 - The NIP was sent to our company address which is the same as our home address. i have requested photographic evidence which arrived today as there are 3 people insured on the vehicle. It was my husband driving who i can recognise but it is a very blurred image and anyone else would probably make out its a male driving but that is all.
The alleged speeding offence is for 59mph in a temporary 50mph limit on the A5. The regular speed limit is 60mph.
I have looked up the temporary speed limit order which was issued by Welsh Statutory Instruments on behalf of the welsh cabinet secretary for economy & infrastructure, it was granted for a period of 12 months from 14/07/17 to 13/07/18 in which it says the roadworks are for intermittent work periods and will end when temporary traffic signs for each work period are removed, it also states that the temporary restrictions will operate intermittently over a period of 12 months.
my husband says there were no road signs on that stretch of road and he always sets his cruise control to 1mph lower than the speed limit when possible and from the pictures received from NW police there are no bollards, cones, restrictions of carriageway width or any sign of road works taking place whatsoever.
he is a very conscientious driver and has had a clean licence since he passed his test so i believe him.
My questions are...
Can we contest the alleged speeding offence on the basis that as the road works and temporary speed limit were intermittent and that the road signage could have already been removed as there were only 3 days left on the intermittent temporary speed restriction, could this render the speeding ticket as incorrect as he was actually driving at 1mph below the correct speed limit for that road - just because there was a temporary speed restriction on that part of the road doesn't mean it was in force at the time of the alleged offence.
And.... is the burden of proof on the police to ensure they are carrying out speed checks in areas with active restrictions, as the works order states the roadworks are intermittent so how do they know when to speed check an intermittent area?
we have around 10 days before we need to send the NIP back but do i fill it in with my husbands details and an accompanying letter outlining our concerns or do we wait for the new NIP to be sent direct to my husband?
please ask if you need any further info, thanks.


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? - No
Were you driving? - No
Do you know who was driving? - Yes

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • Complete the Section 172 statement naming the person you believe was driving.
    You aren't incriminating them - they'll receive a NIP to complete themselves in due course.

    (You might also like to let that person know that they can expect to receive one, and give them the link to this Wizard for when it arrives!)

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 15:12:49 +0000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 15:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 15:45
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,152
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The photo is to ID the vehicle not the driver, the recipient has to name the driver or commits a separate more serious offence, although for a company that’s a large fine, points (6 for failing to ID) can’t be awarded to a company they can (though rarely) take directors to court who can receive points.

Basically no, if the order creating the limit was live and the limit correctly signed then the limit is valid, there could be a get out if it’s manifeslt unreasonable (a high hurdle) to keep the limit you may have a case, but it’s likely to need you take it to a higher court.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 16:41
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,467
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



To be pedantic for a moment you don't actually respond to the NIP. That is just to notify you that a prosecution is being considered and no response is required. What you must respond to is actually a request under S172 of the Road Traffic Act to name the driver at the time of an alleged offence. There is no need to delay responding to this. The request has to be complied with regardless of any issues you may have with the speeding offence itself.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 16:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 20:43
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,367
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



The police are likely to say that the temporary speed limit signs were checked before speed enforcement was commenced, as this is standard procedure. They will say your husband must simply have missed seeing them. It does not affect the issue whether or not any road works were actually taking place or whether there were no other indications. Your husband cannot of course prove that there were no speed limit signs unless he happens to have a dashcam. If he does to court and loses he will have to pay costs with a guideline of £620, a fine of 50% of his net weekly income, plus a surcharge of 10% (minimum £30) and receive three points. At that speed he would be eligible for a course provided he has not done one for an offence within the last three years, which would cost £80 to £100 and avoid any points, failing that a fixed penalty of £100 + 3 points. His choice, but not worth going to court in my opinion.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 21:47
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,331
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Is the signage actually checked every session? I thought it was a Pepipoo myth that had become seen as a semi-fact.

My understanding was that they check the signage when they survey the site. I don't doubt they also look as they as driving past.

But getting a civvie to "certify" the signage would involve both providing considerable training, measurement, for a motorway roadworks limit potentially an hour plus journey to check both ends. Plus you'd think it would be notable enough to put in their statements.

I know we have camera staff on here who always claim they check and polish all the signs with Mr Sheen before doing anything, but I'm talking about a real check rather than a tick box exercise. Much easier to check once and assume things are still compliant from then.


--------------------
My username is notmeatloaf because I'm not made of meat loaf. I hope that clarifies things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 02:11
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,367
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



What's wrong with looking as they drive past? Anyway whatever actually happened their statement may say they have checked them, and where can the OP go from there?


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 03:40
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,152
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Usually at roadworks the Police will rely on the hourly check carried out by the contractors. These are slightly dodgy (the checklist I had had the ticks are two consistent almost like someone has just ticked every box in succession rather than driving the route and ticking each as they pass), and I know for a fact they haven't a clue about the need for illumination as the Terminal signs were ticked as OK at the checks either side of when I passed.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 03:48


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
is there hope
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 10:19
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 2 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,199



Thanks for your comments,
the photos that NW police have supplied are taken from a bridge over looking the A5. Do you think they will have driven up the A5 to check if the "non existent" signage was in position before they positioned themselves on the bridge and could i ask them to prove it?.
the other annoying thing is that my husband would have had dash cam footage but it was overwritten by the time we received the NIP.
There are so many anomalies here that could infer reasonable doubt ( am i watching too many crime dramas??), i guess i was hoping we could prove that if we went to court..... but it seems we just have to roll over and accept the penalty.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AntonyMMM
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 12:21
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,282
Joined: 17 May 2010
Member No.: 37,614



Part of the evidence presented would be that the limit was in place and correctly signed, but what steps they took on the day to verify that, who knows.

As previously stated above, to challenge it, and see the relevant statements, your husband would have to decline any offer of a course (if he is eligible) or a fixed penalty and take the case to court - which, given the potential costs involved if he lost (which is very likely) seems a very high risk to take.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 16:04
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,946
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is the date of the alleged offence on or before 13 July?


--------------------
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.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 03:38
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,152
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (is there hope @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 11:19) *
the photos that NW police have supplied are taken from a bridge over looking the A5. Do you think they will have driven up the A5 to check if the "non existent" signage was in position before they positioned themselves on the bridge

Unlikely, as I said they will probably rely on the roadworks team checklist (carried out every hour)

QUOTE (is there hope @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 11:19) *
There are so many anomalies here that could infer reasonable doubt ( am i watching too many crime dramas??), i guess i was hoping we could prove that if we went to court..... but it seems we just have to roll over and accept the penalty.

You haven't produced any anomalies (as in something not normally expected), so no, that's not enough for reasonable doubt would have to cast doubt on the signage on the day being defective such that at the time in question the lower limit wasn't reasonably conveyed to a driver, they will have the signage check list and its fairly difficult to prove that's not valid, not impossible of course, but not easy.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 14:18
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,331
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 03:11) *
What's wrong with looking as they drive past? Anyway whatever actually happened their statement may say they have checked them, and where can the OP go from there?

Because many locations will have multiple approaches. They will I assume approach from one. So they can only say that a certain percentage of the signs were correct.

It is one of those things that I imagine you need to do properly or not at all.

And yes, relying on construction workers with I assume minimal training to check signage... I would put good money that someone just gets the clipboard every few hours and ticks off all the "hourly" checks in one go because they seemed fine this morning. Onerous checklists never work. In a previous job you had to initial once a day that you had checked various legal obligations. Of course no-one checked and just initialled the list at the end of each shift.

I wonder if it would ever stand up in court. You could challenge it and I wouldn't think it would be difficult to find deficiencies in cross examination.


--------------------
My username is notmeatloaf because I'm not made of meat loaf. I hope that clarifies things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
is there hope
post Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 13:36
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 2 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,199



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 17:04) *
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but is the date of the alleged offence on or before 13 July?


Hi, it was on 10 July so it does come under the traffic order for the intermittent and temporary roadworks.
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: Tuesday, 14th August 2018 - 17:53
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.