PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Got caught 59 in 30 :(
lisa_jayne
post Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 00:49
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,127



Hi guys! smile.gif

I tried filling out the wizard but it lead me round in circles...

I've never had points before, so this is all new to me unfortunately sad.gif I am an insured named driver on the vehicle i was caught speeding in...Caught by a van which had a camera inside, didn't get pulled over

The registered keeper of the vehicle (a family member) recieved the notice in the post and it was in their name (not mine) - it arrived within 14 days by first class NOT recorded

Where do I stand? There was no photo included, what can I do? Where do I start? Please help me sad.gif thanks x
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 00:49
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
jobo
post Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 00:54
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521



cough to the speeding and the chances are they wont notice the no insurance. their happy as long as they get their 60 quid

This post has been edited by jobo: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 00:55


--------------------
jobo

anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lisa_jayne
post Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 01:09
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,127



i was INsured... smile.gif

and i think they'll be wanting more than £60...

is it true that if you keep ripping up the letters which they don't send recorded then there's no evidence they sent the letter within the 14 day period?

also, is it true that if they don't provide the evidence of speeding (sent recorded), 5 days prior to the trial...then the trial will be dismissed in most cases?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 04:31
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45,471
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



THey can tale the RK to court, proof of posting creates a presumption of delivery, she could only rebut that by sewaring on oath it didn't arrive, that is perjury and likely to lead to jail.....she could ignore it and get 6 points for not IDing the driver of course, neither of which sounds very fair when it was you speeding!

She could write and ask for photo's to 'help confirm the drivers ID' which will give a heads up on the 'ping'.

She should name you as late as possible within the permitted 28 days.

If correctly challenged they have to supply evidence they wish to rely on in court (photo's are NOT needed for a conviction if the camera was manned) 7 days prior to trial, first class is fine for that, and no its doesn't automatically mean even then the case will be dismissed if they are not.

If you repaet the wizard saying you DO have a NIP addressed to you it will allow you to complete it, post the output in this thread!

Simon


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lisa_jayne
post Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 22:48
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,127



so how do i go about requesting for photographic evidence? do i have to send this within the 28 days and will they freeze that time period to find out who was driving? is there some kinda form dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 11 Oct 2008 - 04:49
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45,471
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (lisa_jayne @ Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 23:48) *
so how do i go about requesting for photographic evidence? do i have to send this within the 28 days and will they freeze that time period to find out who was driving? is there some kinda form dry.gif


You are not entitled to ask for evidence at all until a not guilty plea is entered in responce to a summons, hence

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 05:31) *
She could write and ask for photo's to 'help confirm the drivers ID' which will give a heads up on the 'ping'.


This does not freeze the 28 days, so the letter should be sent ASAP, we wouldn't suggets a pre-formatted letter or they would recognise them and know it was a 'try on' and ignore them.

NIP wizard? There is so much more help we may be able to give if we have that info!

Simon


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lisa_jayne
post Sat, 11 Oct 2008 - 13:56
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,127



what do you mean by a heads up on the ping? so the purpose of writing a letter is just to see whether or not they got the face on camera? who do i write it to?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sat, 11 Oct 2008 - 14:44
Post #8


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,976
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 11 Oct 2008 - 05:49) *
QUOTE (lisa_jayne @ Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 23:48) *
so how do i go about requesting for photographic evidence? do i have to send this within the 28 days and will they freeze that time period to find out who was driving? is there some kinda form dry.gif


You are not entitled to ask for evidence at all until a not guilty plea is entered in responce to a summons,


At the risk of seeming pedantic, she is entitled to make any request which is not precluded by some rule of law. However, they are entitled to refuse to provide any evidence at this stage.

QUOTE
hence

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 05:31) *
She could write and ask for photo's to 'help confirm the drivers ID' which will give a heads up on the 'ping'.


Absolutely.

QUOTE
This does not freeze the 28 days, so the letter should be sent ASAP, we wouldn't suggets a pre-formatted letter or they would recognise them and know it was a 'try on' and ignore them.


In many, if not most cases, it does have the effect of freezing or resetting the clock, however, it might be unwise to rely on such an assumption without verifying it.
In plain language, it is often worth asking for photos in the manner that Simon has suggested - to see if it gives prior notice of any potential previously unknown issues (a 'heads up'), before naming yourself as the driver. If the 28 days are running out, and you have received no response, it is often prudent to phone the scammers, being very careful not to give anything away, and simply state that you wrote to them asking for photos to help you identify the driver, have had no response and are concerned that the 28 days will soon be up. They will usually then allow you extra time.


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

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lisa_jayne
post Sat, 11 Oct 2008 - 15:09
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,127



ahhh ok, well...its only been a few days so i'll get this letter sent monday morning...

who do i send it to? the police?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sat, 11 Oct 2008 - 15:14
Post #10


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,976
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Send it to the same address that you would send the completed s. 172 form to.
N.B. Don't send the s. 172 form yet.


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

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
uknational
post Sun, 12 Oct 2008 - 08:52
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 429
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,944



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 10 Oct 2008 - 05:31) *
THey can tale the RK to court, proof of posting creates a presumption of delivery, she could only rebut that by sewaring on oath it didn't arrive, that is perjury and likely to lead to jail.....s



Ummm....does that not presume that the police can prove that she is lying - innocent until proven guilty, remember!!! Perjury is only perjury when, like every other criminal offence, sufficient proof is laid before a court to prove the case. To do that they would have to get the postman to swear he remembers delivering it, or produce a recorded delivery receipt or some other sort of proof of delivery

Not that im advocating perjury as a strategy, but its no different to any other offence when it comes to proof of guilt.

This post has been edited by uknational: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 - 08:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 12 Oct 2008 - 16:40
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,152
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (uknational @ Sun, 12 Oct 2008 - 09:52) *
Not that im advocating perjury as a strategy, but its no different to any other offence when it comes to proof of guilt.


It is. Perjury, like treason and speeding, is an offence that requires corroboration. You have to be a bit careful because there is a difference between committing an offence and the prosecution being able to prove it. That is why it is important to discourage perjury because it would be reckless to advise someone to commit an offence and hope that they can't then be proved guilty. Not to mention that you would lay yourself open to a charge of subornation of perjury.

Perjury is perjury regardless of any evidence laid before the court. Being convicted of perjury is another matter.


--------------------
Moderator

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
lisa_jayne
post Fri, 17 Oct 2008 - 00:25
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,127



What about if the driver at the time of incident can't be varified...does the registered keeper, or person in charge of vehicle at the time, have to swear an oath on a holy book or something? do they still do that or is it just in films lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jobo
post Fri, 17 Oct 2008 - 00:59
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,506
Joined: 9 Jan 2008
From: manchester
Member No.: 16,521



more or less yes you do

though you have to back this up with a convincing reason why you dont know and some evidence of what youve done to id the driver


--------------------
jobo

anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Fri, 17 Oct 2008 - 01:46
Post #15


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,976
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (lisa_jayne @ Fri, 17 Oct 2008 - 01:25) *
What about if the driver at the time of incident can't be varified...does the registered keeper, or person in charge of vehicle at the time, have to swear an oath on a holy book or something? do they still do that or is it just in films lol


Depends.

If the keeper receives a NIP/s. 172 and fails to name the driver, they are guilty of the offence of failing to provide the driver's details (6 points) unless they can convince the court that they do not know who was driving and could not with reasonable diligence ascertain the driver's identity.
It would be extremely difficult to convict anyone of the substantive speeding allegation if no-one admitted to being the driver, which is why they give you 6 points for failing to do so (unless you have a good defence - which you don't)

They do not have to give evidence unless they are defending such a charge, and simply swearing under oath that they do not know who was driving will not be enough.


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

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
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: Friday, 14th August 2020 - 13:39
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.