Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Speeding and other Criminal Offences _ Prosecuted by an unofficial camera

Posted by: Dripfedfredd Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 22:15
Post #1404812

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

Posted by: peterguk Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 22:37
Post #1404814

So, your boss has received a S.172 request to name the driver?

If so, he is legally obliged to do so regardless of what you or he thinks of the 3rd party video.

If he names you, you will receive your own S.172 request.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 22:41
Post #1404816

Well if his nextbase dashcam is anything like mine, the date, time and location is all recorded automatically based on GPS data, so there's not much scope for it to be wrong. You say the police have gone straight for prosecution but this seems unlikely, for 2 seconds into red the police won't prosecute in court unless you (or your boss) contest. Does your company have any sort of log where you have to sign vehicles out? There is clearly no point in denying the offence outright as there's CCTV footage, so the question is really just who was driving, you or the boss.

The first thing you should do is check your smartphone (if you have one) and see if you have location tracking turned on, this should allow you to confirm that you were driving, or that you were elsewhere. Failing that, check receipts, bank statements, emails, anything that could confirm that you could (or couldn't) have been driving at the time, talk to anyone you would have spoken to on the day, generally try to reconstruct your movements.

If you determine that you were driving, accepting a fixed penalty notice, 3 points and £100 fine, would be the most sensible option. If you can show that you were not driving, share your findings with your boss and if need be you might want to remind him that he could go to prison for falsely naming you as the driver.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 01:26
Post #1404821

The police haven’t gone straight to prosecution they have asked the keeper to name the driver.

Right now the keeper has to name the driver, the driver then confirms they were driving and THEN you find out what the police intend to do.

It sounds like you’ve seen the video and know a criminal offence appears to have been committed so some of your vitriol seems a bit misplaced?

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 19:42
Post #1405030

How have you seen the footage, have they sent it in to your company as well?

There is no guarantee the police will take action. NIPs are time limited so they tend to be sent out belt and braces no matter what. I know certainly round here the police very openly do nothing about dashcam footage other than "stern words". I guess if they started prosecuting every single one they would be inundated with twatty vigilantes.

Just follow the process, return your S172 on time, and you may find you are filed in the "too much effort" pile.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 20:33
Post #1405041

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 20:42) *
How have you seen the footage, have they sent it in to your company as well?

There is no guarantee the police will take action. NIPs are time limited so they tend to be sent out belt and braces no matter what. I know certainly round here the police very openly do nothing about dashcam footage other than "stern words". I guess if they started prosecuting every single one they would be inundated with twatty vigilantes.

Just follow the process, return your S172 on time, and you may find you are filed in the "too much effort" pile.

There's many discussions on forums across the web where all participants seem to agree amongst themselves that the police won't do anything with dashcam footage, maybe with the exception of dangerous driving etc...

The reality is many forces, including the MET, routinely act on dashcam footage even for minor offences like jumping a red light, using a hand-held mobile phone, crossing a double white or (at least for a couple of forces) even not wearing a seat-belt. After all if the footage is uncontrovertial (i.e. the person reporting it hasn't taken matters into his own hands and hasn't committed any offences himself) it's actually easier to prosecute than with officer testimony.

In a case based on an officer's witness statement, you can end up with someone turning up in court and making a nuisance of himself, saying the officer is mistaken, it wasn't a phone it was an ipod, it's another car that actually committed the offence, the officer misread the number plate, bla bla bla...

With CCTV, the prosecutor just plays the tape where you see the chap chatting away on his hand-held phone, or driving straight through the red light, or whatever else the offence may be, and there isn't really much for the defendant to argue with.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 23:22
Post #1405085

What's your evidence for "routinely", where routinely = in a significant number of cases?

The majority I see are for mobile phones. If it was routine to prove red light offences why do the police shell out a fortune for red light cameras when they could just whack a cheap CCTV camera up and have the same "evidence".

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 23:43
Post #1405089

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 00:22) *
What's your evidence for "routinely", where routinely = in a significant number of cases?

The majority I see are for mobile phones. If it was routine to prove red light offences why do the police shell out a fortune for red light cameras when they could just whack a cheap CCTV camera up and have the same "evidence".

Well it depends what you consider to be a significant number of cases. Does several hundred per month count?

A cheap CCTV camera wouldn't read number plates so it would be pretty useless for enforcement purposes. To be honest even an expensive CCTV camera would struggle, the cameras used by councils to enforce moving traffic offences in London often use an array including a "normal" camera that catches the offences, and a high FPS infrared camera that reads the number plate, as I understand it this setup costs something like 30k to install, at which point it's not so cheap any more.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 23:44
Post #1405090

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 00:22) *
they could just whack a cheap CCTV camera up and have the same "evidence".

Really? As someone would have to watch the whole session to determine when offences occurred it would be pretty inefficient, that’s why they have expensive cameras that detect an offence and ONLY THEN takes photos.

Posted by: The Slithy Tove Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 07:21
Post #1405107

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 00:44) *
Really? As someone would have to watch the whole session to determine when offences occurred it would be pretty inefficient, that’s why they have expensive cameras that detect an offence and ONLY THEN takes photos.

The councils do it all the time for other moving traffic offences. Seems to work for them.

Posted by: Monster 900 Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 10:36
Post #1405146

There are going to be a lot more of these with many police forceshttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44682669.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 11:55
Post #1405174

A CCTV camera isn’t an approved device, so the record can’t be admitted via a s 20 certificate for a start. This discussion is also off topic.

Posted by: Dripfedfredd Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 17:18
Post #1406682

I've asked this question previously but being a newbie the have been no replies and I can't even find the message in my own account home page.
In brief.....
Some jobsworth had sent dash cam footage to the police of my van jumping a red light +1 second.
Their 'Nextbase cam' is date time stamped.

Its a company van with the owner and myself named on they insurance.
He says it wasn't him and has quickly put the NIP in my name which arrived today.
I say it wasn't me so were at stalemate but obviously I'm likely to either get points or lose my job.

The initial NIP in his name showed no reference to review evidence nor did it state the exact offence.
He requested the evidence hence the link to the video via a private officiol email with a link to the video.

Its me against him so I need to spin this NIP on its head and fight from a different angle.

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.?
We both use the van and both use that route.
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?

Really need help with this please.
I have spoken to CAB and they say contact a solicitor who deals with traffic offence but I haven't got solicitor money.

Thanks
Dave

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 17:19
Post #1406684

Read the replies first and then ask any further questions.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121928&hl=

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 17:39
Post #1406691

QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:18) *
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.?

Probably GPS sourced.

QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:18) *
We both use the van and both use that route.
Now the NIP is in my name can I question the offence or does it have to be the registered keeper?

At the moment the driver identity is being sought. The offence itself cannot be questioned until the driver identity is bottomed-out.

QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:18) *
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 no presumption that the (registered) keeper was driving.

QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:18) *
The initial NIP in his name showed no reference to review evidence nor did it state the exact offence.

Explain what you mean by 'exact offence' - and did the NIP arrive within 14 days of the alleged offence?

Posted by: Dripfedfredd Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 17:39
Post #1406693

Thanks 'The Rookie'
I knew I'd posted it and apologies for not responding to those that took the time and replied to me.

So yes I've seen the video and it's clear the can cleared the red light about 1 second after red.
So the video showed the video car stopping sharply on amber red then a hgv on immediate red with my van close behind.

As I mentioned in my first post, I recently got 3 points so I'm on the call now with all aspects of driving. I even throw my phone on the far dash so I can't reach it and it's clear in not in it.
GMP seen pretty keen to get coin in as much as they can do I doubt saying I was driving will result in the offence being forgotten about. More like an easy £100.

My boss shared the video link with me and as far as he's concerned there is no argument..... It was me or me.

We both drive that route once or five times a day depending on work schedule which includes weekends.
The incident allegedly occurred on a Saturday.
On that Saturday I had the Van but was not in that area which is why I dispute the video accuracy.

I hope this answers some of the previous replies.

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 17:41
Post #1406695

Same red light offence as your other thread?
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=121928&hl=

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:11
Post #1406709

QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:39) *
I even throw my phone on the far dash so I can't reach it...

What sort of phone is it? Some types track your location...

Posted by: Dripfedfredd Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:13
Post #1406710

It is a shortened version of the previous message as I received no reply notifications and assumed there were no responses.....lesson learnt and thanks

Thanks JLc.
The NIP (dated 20/7/18) went to boss initially (received 24/7/18) as 'fail to comply with red/ green arrow / lane closure traffic light signals - no detection. It gave a location and date time etc based on the dash cam video 14/7/08
We had no idea what the offence was until his request for evidence and he got a dropbox video link from the ticketing office. Video received on 31/7/18

I received my Nip today dated 07/08/18.

I don't think the NIP ater 14 days would apply even with their delay with evidence?


Its a works JCB thing. Im lucky to get data never mind GPS tracking

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:15
Post #1406711

QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 19:13) *
'fail to comply with red/ green arrow / lane closure traffic light signals'

That's sufficient for the alleged incident.

QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 19:13) *
I don't think the NIP ater 14 days would apply even with their delay with evidence?

Only the 1st NIP applies to the 14 days - which wasn't an issue...

Posted by: Dripfedfredd Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:23
Post #1406718

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

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:29
Post #1406723

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.


Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 18:56
Post #1406736

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).

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 20:36
Post #1406777

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.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 08:50
Post #1406867

If its the JCB toughened phone, its still Android underneath. No reason that LOCATION SERVICES would be missing.

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 08:58
Post #1406873

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".

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 09:08
Post #1406878

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.

Posted by: Logician Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 10:27
Post #1406897

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.

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 10:42
Post #1406898

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.


Posted by: Logician Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 11:23
Post #1406902

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?


Posted by: Jlc Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 12:13
Post #1406928

Possibly, depends on who the RK is.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 13:26
Post #1406961

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.

Posted by: NewJudge Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 13:37
Post #1406968

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.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 14:25
Post #1406984

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.

Posted by: Dripfedfredd Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 21:39
Post #1407056

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

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 21:51
Post #1407059

Having points doesn't impact any course offer.

Posted by: 666 Fri, 10 Aug 2018 - 22:57
Post #1407069

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.

Posted by: Dripfedfredd Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 13:17
Post #1407183

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.?

Posted by: Jlc Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 13:42
Post #1407192

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

Posted by: peterguk Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 13:54
Post #1407197

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.

Posted by: Logician Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 17:04
Post #1407260

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.?


The mileage will be the distance to court, certainly do not send anything like that.


Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 12 Aug 2018 - 12:26
Post #1407363

QUOTE (Dripfedfredd @ Sat, 11 Aug 2018 - 14:17) *
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.?

Either you were driving the van, or you weren't. If you were, name yourself and if you're eligible for a course, you'll be offered one. If you're not eligible, no amount of begging will get you one.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)