Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
FightBack Forums _ Speeding and other Criminal Offences _ Received NIP and Interviewed for Damage Only RTC
Posted by: refill Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 10:27
Post #410637
Date of the NIP: 23 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: 24 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important):
Was the NIP addressed to you? Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Recorded
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have?
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 alleged offence is that my car hit another car at a car park and caused some minor damage (scratch or crack as described by the police officer).
I contacted the police immediately after receiving the NIP and was told they want to have a “chat” with me. They then “interviewed” me at home. The police officer claimed that the NIP is still valid as they have witness(es). I said I could not remember what happened on that day as it was almost one month ago. After the interview, I was told there is no need to fill the form (S172) on the NIP about the driver’s information.
Potential driver could be me (with a full license) or my partner (with a provisional license). Neither of us was aware of the incident and there is no damage to my car.
I would appreciate your advice on the following questions:
1. Is the police officer’s claim true that the NIP is still valid because they have witness(es) giving the delay caused by the police system itself?
2. As I did not identify the driver in the interview and was told not to fill the form on the NIP, will I be prosecuted for 'fail to identify the driver'?
3. If I chose one of us (which might be inconsistent with the witness statement), will I be prosecuted for “perjury”?
4. If I chose my partner as the driver at the time, will he also be prosecuted for driving “not accompanies by a qualified person” as my license is less than 3 years?
Many thanks for your kind help."
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? - No
Was there a valid reason for the NIP's late arrival? - Unsure
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? - Unsure
Do you know who was driving? - Unsure who was driving
NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:27:21 +0000
Posted by: fluff34567 Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 10:52
Post #410645
didnt the police explain the full details at your interview???
what was meant to have happened?
Posted by: refill Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 11:04
Post #410648
The police officer said my car hit the other car when doing reversing according to the witness statement. The damage was told initially "a scratch" then changed to "a crack" at the end of the interview.
I asked about witness statement of the driver during the interview. The police officer refused to provide this information. 
Posted by: Glacier2 Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 11:10
Post #410651
You won't see that unless you are charged with an offence and you then plead not guilty.
Posted by: Gan Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 11:16
Post #410655
This all appears very odd.
It sounds more like they realised the NIP was invalid and wanted to keep the case alive.
I would cover your back with a letter along the lines of :
To confirm the details of our interview with officers X & Y (date) regarding the alleged incident.
As a result of the transfer of information between police forces the NIP was not sent until 23 days after the alleged incident.
We are unaware of any incident and even after interview we are unable to identify the driver.
Officer X advised us that following the interview it was no longer necessary to return the signed form.
I would leave out the bit about the claim that the NIP is still valid. Take a copy and send recorded delivery.
A bit late now but always best to avoid "the little chat" especially when "Dangerous" is alleged. You may still have a civil claim from the other driver but I wouldn't have thought they'd prosecute over a minor incident in a car park, even if they could ID the driver.
Posted by: refill Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 11:20
Post #410658
Many thanks for your advice. What do you think my chance to plea "not guilty" in court? Should I find a solicitor for advice as recommended by the police officer at the end of the interview? I have no idea at all. It's the first ever NIP received in my life.
Posted by: refill Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 11:39
Post #410665
I regretted dearly to have "the little chat" with the police officer. My intention was trying to clear things up not inviting troubles.
However, I did not sign on the recorded statement at the end of interview as requested by the police officers. It seems that they were not happy with that. I wonder whether the unsigned statement can be used in court to against me.
Posted by: Pete D Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 11:48
Post #410671
You option 4 would make you both liable to prosecution and I do not like the words, 'If I choose. If you know who was driving then that is the fact. Whether you struck the other other car is more difficult but are there any CCTV cameras in the car park. I do not think the NIP is relevant as it is not required in this case. If they have witnesses then you will have trouble side stepping this unless you can obtain CCTV footage of your reversing. Pete D
Posted by: glasgow_bhoy Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 11:53
Post #410674
NIP isnt requiered withihn the 14 day rule as there was an accident
Posted by: murphcbr6 Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 11:53
Post #410675
Is there any corresponding damage on your car? If not - take some pictures now with today's newspaper in shot.
Personally I'd just ignore this - for a prosecution to be brought it has to get past the CPS, the CPS guidelines for this sort of thing are
a) is in the public interest
b) do they have a good chance of obtaining a conviction
c) was the driver likely to be aware of the collision
Posted by: refill Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 12:02
Post #410676
Thanks for your comment. I hate the word "choose" as well. The fact is I do not remember. I just don't know whom to identify at the end of the day to avoid both "fail to identify" and "perjury". The police officer mentioned the witnesses but no CCTV footage of the reversing. It seems that I am very likely to be prosecuted then.
Posted by: cshm37 Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 12:02
Post #410680
Thanks for your comment. I hate the word "choose" as well. The fact is I do not remember. I just don't know whom to identify at the end of the day to avoid both "fail to identify" and "perjury". The police officer mentioned the witnesses but no CCTV footage of my reversing. It seems that I am very likely to be prosecuted then.
I have a scratch on my car, so next time I am in a car park I'll have to remember to take the reg. no. of the car next to me.
Report to Police and hey presto! Job fixed at someone else's expense.
Do you think it's a scam?
Posted by: refill Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 12:12
Post #410690
That's a good point. I'll do that immediately. There is no corresponding damage on my car. But as it's a second-hand car there is some scratch at the back which got long time ago.
Posted by: Pete D Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 12:39
Post #410703
But was there CCTV footage that can prove you did not hit the car. Pete D
Posted by: refill Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 12:44
Post #410705
The police officer didn't mention any CCTV footage during the interview so I assume it is not available.
Posted by: Pete D Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 13:02
Post #410711
Do not assume visit the car park and take a look. Ask the unit manager. Pete D
Posted by: Teufel Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 13:18
Post #410719
wots the bet the alleged other party is a copper ?
Posted by: Glacier2 Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 13:57
Post #410742
50/50
Posted by: murphcbr6 Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 14:27
Post #410757
Do the police/CPS really prosecute this sort of thing or are they just trying it on? Does anyone have any first-hand experience of a full-on prosecution being successfully brought under these circumstances?
I mean this sort of thing must happen everyday, yes it's annoying if you come back to your car at Asda's to find someone has opened a car door and dinked your paintwork, or scratched your bumper when reversing, but is it really a matter for the police?
My understanding was that these laws were set up to prevent serious hit and runs - fleeing the scene of a serious accident etc.
Posted by: glasgow_bhoy Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 14:38
Post #410761
Yes they really do prosecute on these things.
Hitting a car in a car park and not reporting it is still a hit and run.
They will usually only do it though if they have witnesses/CCTV or other good cause to go ahead.
Of course, they weren't interested when I went to them about my old car having a door opened into it denting my door... had to sort that one myself. They are of course a lot more interested if the victim is one of their own, or has links. Its often all about who you know
Posted by: refill Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 16:45
Post #411211
Would the police decide not to prosecute if I apologise and agree to pay all the cost for fixing the damage caused by the incident?
I am having a hard time due to family issues and find this is very stressful. I am willing to accept whatever penalty to avoid the prosecution.
Can you guys give some advice? Thanks.
Posted by: bama Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 18:07
Post #411240
That offer is the same as pleading guilty IMV . a slam dunk win for the Police/CPS as a consequence should they choose to shoot a fish in a barrel.
Posted by: Gan Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 18:41
Post #411254
The last thing you want to do.
Admission of guilt that increases chance of conviction and certainly invalidates your insurance. Have you not received a claim from the other driver yet ?
Posted by: refill Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 19:23
Post #411261
no , I haven't recieved the claim. Does a claim mean not going to the court?
I am applying immigrantion to Australia. My application is unlikely to be sucessful with a conviction of careless driving offence. That is why I have to avoid the prosecution. I don't mind fines or points.
Posted by: Gan Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 19:26
Post #411265
Makes no difference.
I'm just surprised that the other driver hasn't traced you and made a claim yet. Possibly waiting to see if you're prosecuted which would make a claim almost certain to succeed.
Posted by: refill Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 19:36
Post #411267
The police said the other driver did not realise the damage until getting home. But I don't understand that how he can find the witness.
Went to the car park yesterday and ask the unit manager. There is no CCTV footage for the car park.
Posted by: jobo Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 19:37
Post #411271
. Possibly waiting to see if you're prosecuted which would make a claim almost certain to succeed.
why is that ???
Posted by: Glacier2 Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 19:39
Post #411272
Because it is on record that the defendant was in the wrong.
Posted by: Gan Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 20:00
Post #411276
. Possibly waiting to see if you're prosecuted which would make a claim almost certain to succeed.
why is that ???
Insurance companies take the view that, if enough evidence exists to prosecute, their client would be found liable on the balance-of-probabilities standard in a civil case.
Posted by: Glacier2 Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 22:06
Post #411308
And a conviction would be the icing on the cake for any claimant.
Posted by: refill Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 13:17
Post #411427
I remember that at the end of the interview the police officer suggested me to talk to a solicitor. Does it imply that the police is going to prosecute me? Or it's just bullying? I just keep thinking about this NIP and interview. My life is falling apart.
Posted by: Ocelot Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 13:34
Post #411434
I thought you had to lie under oath to commit perjury. Maybe he meant to pervert the course of justice?
Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 15:10
Post #411470
Perjury can be committed by lying on a return required by Act of Parliament (such as an NIP) - s. 5 of the Perjury Act 1911.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)