[NIP Wizard] A17 Sutton Bridge to Kings Lynn Options

[SoudanDrive]

NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - January 2018
Date of the NIP: - 4 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 6 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A17, Sutton Bridge to Kings Lynn, Norfolk, UNITED KINGDOM
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
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 -
I don't have any more details - posting for someone else.

I do have a scan of the NIP if it helps. Page 3 of the nip has some "Additional information" and the header on that says NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK CONSTABULARY while the top of page 1 says just Norfolk Constabulary.

The alleged offence is stated as "Speeding - motor vehicle - exceed 60 mph - automatic camera device" (original punctuation etc.).

I noticed the NIP uses the wording "Failure to do so within 28 days, beginning with the date of service of this notice" and wondered if the "within" argument can be used like in "The Queen on the Application of the London Borough of Barnet Council – v – The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 Admin".

Alternatively, is anyone aware of any faults with the signage/position of cameras? I guess the NIP must be from these: https://www.speedcamerasuk.com/database/EEN/een054.htm

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? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

• The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.
  
  You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:15:29 +0000

This post has been edited by SoudanDrive: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 00:18

[Advertisement]

[peterguk]

S.172 is quite unambiguous in its wording.

You friend simply needs to name the driver within the time scale given.

[Jlc]

I noticed the NIP uses the wording "Failure to do so within 28 days, beginning with the date of service of this notice" and wondered if the "within" argument can be used like in "The Queen on the Application of the London Borough of Barnet Council – v – The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 Admin".

It would be an expensive day out in court. I see no ambiguity to exploit here - the council (decriminalized) ticket was a 'drive away'.

Alternatively, is anyone aware of any faults with the signage/position of cameras? I guess the NIP must be from these: https://www.speedcamerasuk.com/database/EEN/een054.htm

An average speed based system - not known for their errors. Do we know the alleged speed?

This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 08:45

[cp8759]

I noticed the NIP uses the wording "Failure to do so within 28 days, beginning with the date of service of this notice" and wondered if the "within" argument can be used like in "The Queen on the Application of the London Borough of Barnet Council – v – The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 Admin".

That was related to a civil matter which is subject to a completely different set of laws, and it would be completely irrelevant in a criminal trial.

[SoudanDrive]

Thank you all for your responses, I guess at least it's a clear cut sort of case.

An average speed based system - not known for their errors. Do we know the alleged speed?

70, does that give us any hope?

[peterguk]

Thank you all for your responses, I guess at least it's a clear cut sort of case.

An average speed based system - not known for their errors. Do we know the alleged speed?

70, does that give us any hope?

So doing 70 in a 60 limit? There's hope of a SAC if your friend hasn't done one in last 3 years.