PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Using prohibited on restricted area, Request for information
Lynnzer
post Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 11:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,501
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



I have received a "Request for information to identify driver of a vehicle" subtitled Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988, and is from Northumbria Police
It says
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________

At **.** hours on **/07/2010 motor vehicle registered number ******* was observed at High Level Bridge, Newcastle.
Where it is alleged that the non endorsable offence of USING PROHIBITED VEHICLE ON RESTRICTED AREA was committed.
You are recorded as or have been named as the owner/keeper/hirer/driver of the above vehicle at the time of alleged offence.
If you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence you are required to provide the information as requested in part 1 and complete and sign the declaration at part 6 overleaf.

If you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, then you must provide the full name and address and date of birth (if known) of the person driving the vehicle or potential drivers' or any information you have which will lead to the driver being identified.

It is the legal responsibility of the vehicle's registered keeper to nominate who was driving at the time of the alleged offence.

Under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) you are required to supply the information requested above within 28 days of the service of this notice. Failure to to comply may result in court proceedings and if convicted a fine of up to £1000 plus 6 penalty points.
This information must be supplied on the reverse of this notice. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Signed (signature)
P Oliver on behalf of the Chief Constable.
______________________________________________________
The reverse is the same as on the standard NIP as served for speeding.
The alleged offence was on the 4th July (which sort of knocks out the intention of the asterisks to eliminate identity.)
This was received today, the 15th July by franked mail, cost 36 pence, dated 14th July.

I am pretty sure who the driver was then. It certainly wasn't myself as I was ill in bed with excruciating back pain.
I will be asking for the RTO for the High Level Bridge but am sure it will be in order as they have carried out a real blitz on this since some recent renovation.
That's another reason why it certainly wouldn't have been me anyway.
I've Google Street mapped the road and all seems in order sign-wise so a defective RTO would be the only way out I guess.

It appears that a camera is fixed to take details of incidents at this location but this operated by Newcastle City Council rather than the police. What impact if any would this make.
Any other ideas guys.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 11:54


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 11:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
muckychimney
post Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 12:11
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,311
Joined: 5 May 2007
From: ooot int sticks
Member No.: 11,891



Posted in wrong forum I think, if its camera related then should be in http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=4


--------------------
Images hosted by imageshack.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 12:36
Post #3


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,132
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (muckychimney @ Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 13:11) *
Posted in wrong forum I think, if its camera related then should be in http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=4

No; this isn't a technical issue to do with cameras, it's a request for help with dealing with a police s172 requirement.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
strollingplayer
post Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 14:12
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,039
Joined: 24 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,506



I thought they were supposed to use s.112 RTRA for non-endorsable offences.


--------------------
The content of this post, of any replies to it, and of any preceding it, may be soliciting, or be in response to a solitication for advice as to the formulation of a strategy for action in a legal process. This post, any replies and those preceding, should therefore be assumed to be subject to privilege.

Aims of challenging a council PCN

Stroller v local council: 2 accepted, 1 bottled, 1 win, 2 awaiting council's decision.

I reserve the right to be wrong. This applies to any part of this post, including this signature.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 19:26
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,161
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (strollingplayer @ Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 15:12) *
I thought they were supposed to use s.112 RTRA for non-endorsable offences.


No. I've moved this to SOCO.


--------------------
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
Logician
post Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 21:36
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,655
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE
I am pretty sure who the driver was then. It certainly wasn't myself as I was ill in bed with excruciating back pain.

So why not name the likely driver, and let them deal with the matter?


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hotel Oscar 87
post Fri, 16 Jul 2010 - 08:53
Post #7


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
From: Way, way off-shore
Member No.: 7,833



I think Lynzzer, something of a legend a couple of years ago for his prolonged pursuit of a speeding case and one of the first regulars here to encounter the RSS "Dream Team", may have been hoping that the use of the s. 172 requirement was inappropriate/incorrect. He is undoubtedly fully aware of his duty as far as the requirement was concerned.

Although brief SP's reply says it all, really. Prohibited vehicle, restricted road is an offence under s. 36 RTA which is an offence to which s. 172 applies. Are any of the signs non-compliant?


--------------------
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a tu.rd by the clean end.” - R.J. Wiedemann, Lt. Col. USMC Ret.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 16 Jul 2010 - 09:48
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,501
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Nah, all signs seem to be in order from what I can see on Google Street View.
Have now also got the FULL pdf of all Newcastle City Councils TRO's.
The full download is at http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/wwwfileroot/cx...idatedAug09.pdf just in case it could prove useful to anyone else.
I think the missus is stuffed on this one but at least it doesn't carry points.

I was thinking that the S172 request in the format that it was presented, for a non endorseable offence was maybe inappropriate and whether or not S172 was the correct procedure to follow for non endorseable offences but I didn't see why not.
I'll wait and see what comes through for the wife now and there may some sort of incorrect wording or charge etc relating to her own NIP.

For those who live or travel in this area, the Newcastle and Gateshead area is a minefield of poor signs from the Central Motorway right through most adjoining streets. They even have a single 40 sign which should be lit but which is not (it's been broken for at least 10 years), in the middle of a dark underpass and in the central strip (hardly reservation as it's nothing more than armco separating the carriageways.)
It's effect should really make a section of one of the most highly Gatso populated roads completely unenforceable however as I don't deliberately speed along there anyway I have yet to test this in court.
It will almost inevitably happen one day though.
Anyway, seems like this particular mistake will have to be settled by the chequebook in due course.
For the mods:
maybe if we could consolidate all the TRO's that have been collected along the way into a section of its own it would prove very useful.
Regards to all


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 16 Jul 2010 - 10:22
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,089
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
For the mods:
maybe if we could consolidate all the TRO's that have been collected along the way into a section of its own it would prove very useful.
Regards to all


Lynnzer the TPT already do this for us. Its here http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/login.aspx


As regards the hatched section is this the internal motorway coming off the bridge. Is it on Google StreetView
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 30 Jul 2010 - 10:40
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,501
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 16 Jul 2010 - 11:22) *
QUOTE
For the mods:
maybe if we could consolidate all the TRO's that have been collected along the way into a section of its own it would prove very useful.
Regards to all


Lynnzer the TPT already do this for us. Its here http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/login.aspx


As regards the hatched section is this the internal motorway coming off the bridge. Is it on Google StreetView

Nah, the actual offence was committed (allegedly) by crossing the High Level Bridge (north to south). This has recently undergone a large refurbishment to the structure, and then made one way only with a 20 mph limit and access only to local buses and taxis. The signs seem to be OK but Google Street Maps seem to skirt the area, probably due to the fact that the car taking the pictures would have picked up a ticket if it had gone over the bridge itself.
The bridge spans the Tyne on the B1307 from the direction of The Close.
I had a reply from Newcastle Council who gave me the date of the publication of the changes in the Journal and another one for the consolidation Order to bring everything together.
Now, I submitted the S172 reply naming the wife, Mrs June Robson (who it was anyway) and there's a letter dropped through the letterbox this morning addressed to Mrs Jane Rodson. The name being wrong but the address being correct.
As there are two Robson's in the street, the other being only 60 yards away would I be right to send it back and advise them that no such person lives at this address. Can this be potentially timed out by the delay associated with the wrong details on the envelope or could I putting myself at risk of a S172 charge.
I did give the correct information in the first place. Also, if the missus doesn't respond due to wrong details on the envelope could they slap a S172 on her.
I won't open the envelope just yet. It may be better to hold it for a while.
Thinking of it, could the wife actually get a S172 for a non endorse-able offence anyway. She has been named the driver so they have that on record. All they don't have is her confession by completion of her own S172 request.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hdskyforce
post Fri, 30 Jul 2010 - 11:28
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 9 Apr 2010
Member No.: 36,761



It's not endorsable so as long as it was completed (as in information laid at court) within 6 months from the date of the offence it would not time out.

High Level Bridge is pretty water tight with it's TRO and signage due to the amount of money that was spent on refurbishing it. Just a point though for anyone that knows the area, when the High Level was closed for repairs the council restricted traffic from joining the Tyne Bridge at Swan House roundabout to buses only. Now that the High Level is open to buses only (and taxis, not sure why but they can do whatever they please in Newcastle Upon Tyne) you'd have thought that the restriction on Swan House would have been removed, but it hasn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 30 Jul 2010 - 12:21
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,501
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (hdskyforce @ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 - 12:28) *
It's not endorsable so as long as it was completed (as in information laid at court) within 6 months from the date of the offence it would not time out.

High Level Bridge is pretty water tight with it's TRO and signage due to the amount of money that was spent on refurbishing it. Just a point though for anyone that knows the area, when the High Level was closed for repairs the council restricted traffic from joining the Tyne Bridge at Swan House roundabout to buses only. Now that the High Level is open to buses only (and taxis, not sure why but they can do whatever they please in Newcastle Upon Tyne) you'd have thought that the restriction on Swan House would have been removed, but it hasn't.

It's a real pigs ear isn't it?
To get out of Newcastle is a nightmare. The funny thing is that you can still join the Central Motorway onto the Tyne Bridge but you have to turn left at the exit just prior to it, then do an about turn onto it before the actual Swan House entrance, if you get what I mean. And once you're on, the speed limit is unenforceable due to a single non illuminated sign in the central strip under the Swan House tunnel that you simply cannot see properly. No way is this compliant.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hdskyforce
post Fri, 30 Jul 2010 - 12:28
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 9 Apr 2010
Member No.: 36,761



Yes, and the central motorway north bound has no signs stating that "End of Motorway Restritctions" your just met by a repeater national speed limit sign (when the CME is 50mph) and then a green background direction sign so the motorway must have ended. It's appauling that it is called a motorway and the signage is so poor. Half a mile of motorway too!!! What's the point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 06:43
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,501
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



So, still waiting for any useful advice on the letter from the police camera unit. It isn't addressed to the right person named on my S172 request. the address is correct but the name is mrs Jane Rodson instead of Mrs June Robson begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting.
Bearing in mind that there's another Robson living a hundred yards away should I just return this as being undelivered?
What implications would arise for such poor addressing if it went to court for a S172 offence?
How would it look if I sat on this until day 26 then sent it back as no such person living at this address. This would be within 28 days and although it would fail to provide them with the S172 completion due to the letter not being opened they cannot say it hadn't been responded to.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 09:42


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Thu, 5 Aug 2010 - 10:11
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,655
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



With an error in both names, and in fact errors that make it another valid name, I think I would be very tempted to do what you suggest.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 6 Aug 2010 - 09:20
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,501
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



The wife has opened the bloody envelope AAAaarrrgghhhhh

Anyway, the name is shown on the form exactly as that on the envelope, in fact the envelope has a see through address panel which shows the name on the form itself.
So, now knowing that the S172 request is named specifically to Mrs Jane Rodson would you expect it to be an offence of some sort to complete it anyway?
I mean it isn't addressed to anyone here so we have no right to complete it I suppose?

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 - 09:21


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roadrunner 163
post Fri, 6 Aug 2010 - 12:40
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,028
Joined: 10 May 2010
Member No.: 37,442



did the original 172 request come to your self being Mr Robson at your address and then in response to the information you furnished a second 172 request arrives at the same address to a Mrs Rodson.

If it is the same address and to be frank a small error on the name then I think your / in this case your wife is taking a huge risk for such a small potential victory if you / she were to contest this.


--------------------
Ticking an incorrect box does not make me guilty as one of the other boxes does apply to me. - Your honour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fatboytim
post Fri, 6 Aug 2010 - 15:48
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,196
Joined: 22 Dec 2005
From: wirral
Member No.: 4,476



Perhaps Jane Rodson could fill out the 172 naming June Robson and see what happens.


--------------------
NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 10 Aug 2010 - 11:12
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,501
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (fatboytim @ Fri, 6 Aug 2010 - 16:48) *
Perhaps Jane Rodson could fill out the 172 naming June Robson and see what happens.

Bloody good idea. At day 26 too.
Thanks for that. I was just going to return it opened with a note to the effect that no such person is known at this address.
Maybe I'll still do that anyway since there is no such person at this address. The S172 request is quite specific. "WARNING: It is an offence to provide a false statement" which is exactly what the wife would be doing if she completed it as the nominated person showing on the form.

Also, although she knows it was her driving, by the very fact that the form is made out to a different person she cannot complete it.
Another thing is that the S172 request states quite specifically "It is the legal responsibility of the Vehicles Keeper to nominate who was driving at the time of the alleged offence". I did exactly that so my own backside is well covered.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 - 11:39


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
adrianL
post Tue, 10 Aug 2010 - 11:52
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 9 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,654



QUOTE (hdskyforce @ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 - 13:28) *
Yes, and the central motorway north bound has no signs stating that "End of Motorway Restritctions" your just met by a repeater national speed limit sign (when the CME is 50mph) and then a green background direction sign so the motorway must have ended. It's appauling that it is called a motorway and the signage is so poor. Half a mile of motorway too!!! What's the point.


(hijack) And to add to the daftness, heading south on the A167, it's a dual carriageway at National Speed Limit. It then transforms into a half mile motorway with a 50 limit !!

(end jijack, apologies in advance, have always thought Newcastle road planning a disaster since the 70s, a chance to propagate my belief!)
Adrian
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Saturday, 15th August 2020 - 19:40
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.