PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Prosecuted by an unofficial camera, Alleged offence reported from 3rd party dash cam
Dripfedfredd
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 22:15
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 3 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,223



I'm a named driver on the bosses van.

I got 3 points in march for speeding through a traffic light camera (on green) that had sneekily been upgraded to clock speeding.
So 60 on a 40 dual carriageway to which I took the 3 points and a fine as a lesson learnt.

I do about 1000 miles per week most of which is motorways and I now use the van speed limiter on all roads to keep me legal.

2 weeks a go some t#%^ sent in his dash cam footage to the police showing my van closely following a hgv through a red light. Hgv was amber/red and my van was about 1 -2 second red.
His footage was on a next base camera showing time and date.
It was forward facing and it filmed the van passing him on the left in the same direction ( so no driver shot)
My boss says it's me but I don't remember taking that particular route on that day.
And since the speeding fine I've been triple careful so certainly not jumping lights.

Our lock up is 1/4 mile from this incident so both my boss and I both use these roads several times daily in that van.
He's adamant im taking the fine and given job security I'm short of ammunition to fight him.

There is a high council Cctv Dome camera over the junction ( traffic light/roundabout) but it could be looking anywhere.

The police seem to have gone straight for prosecution rather that questioning the accuracy of the footage.
If his date and time are wrong how are we supposed to know who was driving?

Has anybody ever come across 3rd party footage?

Help and advice would be appreciated.

The first notice arrived on the 24/7 so he has 2 weeks to accept , deny or name me.

Thanks
Dave
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 22:15
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Dripfedfredd
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:23
Post #21


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 3 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,223



Reading the NIP back page.....
I have 2 options which is to name the owner but he already said it wasn't him.
or
Say I was driving which Im adamant I wasn't.

I don't want to admit to something I haven't done before I argue the accuracy of the dash cam but theres no way of responding without admitting liability. Pffffft
angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:29
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,137
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



If you are certain it wasn’t you driving , just say so, if the form doesn’t fit, use a letter and staple the form to it. Your boss may not be a happy bunny though!

The person who took the video would be the witness to the crime corroborated by the video, no issue with that evidentially.



--------------------
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
cp8759
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:56
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,177
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:18) *
My question is:
Whilst the video footage shows without doubt a red light offence but can a dash cam be relied on as absolute evidence if the date and time is wrong.?

The driver of the other vehicle will give a witness statement to the police that will be a more detailed version of "I was driving at such and such a time, on such and such a date, and I saw this van go through a red light. I had a dashcam that filmed the incident and I exhibit the sd card containing the video as exhibit 1"; nextbase cameras take the time and date form GPS so you'll be hard pressed to show it's wrong.

QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:18) *
Now the NIP is in my name can I question the offence or does it have to be the registered keeper?
If we both dispute the offence and the video date and time can't be confirmed will they go for the registered keeper regardless?

There's nothing to dispute, you're just being asked to confirm whether you were driving or not. If you both claim the other was driving, as a worst case scenario the police may well investigate both of you on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, they'd pull out all the stops (CCTV, phone mast data, bank transactions etc...) and the person who was driving could well end up in prison as a result (We have an thread dedicated to aggregating such cases).

Realistically you should check if you have any sort of location tracking history on your smartphone, it should confirm that you were (or weren't) at the location of the offence at the relevant time. Once you know for sure that you were or weren't driving, fill in the form accordingly and send it back (or if the form doesn't allow this, as The Rookie says just attach a letter saying you weren't driving and explaining how you determined that (i.e. from your smartphone history, from a receipt / bank transaction that shows you were miles away from there or whatever else).

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 23:36


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 20:36
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,539
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



In your situation you only need to name the most likely driver.

If you aren't sure who was driving and your boss thinks it is you, then the buck is going to stop with you unless you make efforts to investigate further. As you are not the RK you only need to give information that is within your power to give rather than reasonable diligence.

Once between you you have named a driver you will then find out if the police decide to take no further action, stern words or prosecute for the red light. Seeing as all of those options are better than S172 prosecutions then it is best to play ball at this stage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 08:50
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,646
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



If its the JCB toughened phone, its still Android underneath. No reason that LOCATION SERVICES would be missing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 08:58
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,619
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 21:36) *
As you are not the RK you only need to give information that is within your power to give rather than reasonable diligence.

I don't think that's quite correct. S172 says that "the person keeping the vehicle" is obliged to identify the driver (and so is subject to the "reasonable diligence" provision). Perhaps the OP could tell us whether he is "the person keeping the vehicle".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 09:08
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,439
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 09:58) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 21:36) *
As you are not the RK you only need to give information that is within your power to give rather than reasonable diligence.

I don't think that's quite correct. S172 says that "the person keeping the vehicle" is obliged to identify the driver (and so is subject to the "reasonable diligence" provision). Perhaps the OP could tell us whether he is "the person keeping the vehicle".

OP refers to 'my van'. There's also potential here that the vehicle is registered to the company - so keeping reasonable records would be expected.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 10:27
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,638
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



As far as I remember GMP are one of the forces that offer courses for minor red light offences, so that might solve the problem if you accept you were driving for the sake of job security.

If this NIP/s.172 request has come to the company, if the company replies that it cannot answer who was driving, which seems to be the case, the company is likely to be prosecuted and fined, but no one will get any points.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 10:42
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,439
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 11:27) *
... if the company replies that it cannot answer who was driving, which seems to be the case

Looks like the OP has been named already:

QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 19:13) *
I received my Nip today dated 07/08/18.



--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 11:23
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,638
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 11:42) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 11:27) *
... if the company replies that it cannot answer who was driving, which seems to be the case
Looks like the OP has been named already:
QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 19:13) *
I received my Nip today dated 07/08/18.


Yes, but if the OP says it was not him, the question will revert back to the company, won't it?



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 12:13
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,439
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Possibly, depends on who the RK is.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 13:26
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,539
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 09:58) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 21:36) *
As you are not the RK you only need to give information that is within your power to give rather than reasonable diligence.

I don't think that's quite correct. S172 says that "the person keeping the vehicle" is obliged to identify the driver (and so is subject to the "reasonable diligence" provision). Perhaps the OP could tell us whether he is "the person keeping the vehicle".

The OP is still "any other person" and has to provide any information that may lead to the identification of the driver.

It is unlikely as a driver and employee the police would believe he has no information to give.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 13:37
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,619
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 14:26) *
The OP is still "any other person" and has to provide any information that may lead to the identification of the driver.


How is he "any other person" if he is the person keeping the vehicle? The distinction is quite clear in the case of, say, a leased vehicle. The lessee, whilst not being the RK, is clearly the person keeping the vehicle and must have an obligation to provide the driver's details rather than just provide "any information etc."

Whilst it may not be so clear cut here (and we don't yet know) "any other person" surely relates to anyone other than the person keeping the vehicle, not anyone other than the RK.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 14:25
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,849
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



I suspect (or hope) what NML means is that even the PKV is subject to the any other person requirement to provide such information etc if they can’t name the driver. DPP v Flegg I believe.


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


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dripfedfredd
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 21:39
Post #35


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 3 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,223



Thanks to all that responded.
It's made interesting reading.
The RK and the OP cool.gif both have equal use of the can as required.
The RK Was the main driver and boss but now I tend to take the van home more.

I'll look into the GPS location on the phone a bit further and see what the Network say.
If there was the option of a traffic awareness course. Would this still apply give I recently received 3 points for speeding. For which I believe I was 3mph over the speed awareness course threshold.

If I thought that was an option id take that rather than risk my job or prosecution for arguing.

Before the 3 points my licence had been clear for 8 years and 9 no claims. Not that that counts for anything
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 21:51
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,439
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Having points doesn't impact any course offer.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 22:57
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,071
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 22:51) *
Having points doesn't impact any course offer.


But taking the van home may affect your income tax.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dripfedfredd
post Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 13:17
Post #38


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 3 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,223



Income tax... Now there's another topic🙈

So is there a different course than speed awareness? I'm strongly tempted to use that option if it exists rather than rock the boat. The van is a major perk which can easily be taken away if I p*** him off.

If so and I say I was driving the van via the form.
Is there mileage in an accompanying letter as per'rookie' explaining the confusion and that I am willing to take the offence but request the option of a course or would they throw that out as I'm admitting under duress.?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 13:42
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,439
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Nomination has to be unequivocal. Any doubt cast will not be accepted.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 13:54
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,219
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 14:17) *
Is there mileage in an accompanying letter as per'rookie' explaining the confusion and that I am willing to take the offence but request the option of a course or would they throw that out as I'm admitting under duress.?


Don't send any letters like that unless you want it to end up in court.

ONLY accept you were the driver if you were the driver, or were most likely the driver. Any other reason could result in jail time.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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: Monday, 10th December 2018 - 12:02
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.