PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Intended prosecution for failing to identify driver, IP for failing to identify driver - even though i provided the details
royalmarineguy12...
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



here is a brief timeline

june 2018 - speeding offence detected by camera. NIP sent to address
june 2018 - email response to police providing details of driver minus details unknown (d/l number and dob)
Sep 2018 - further requirement sent to me - stating driver named by me hadn't been located.
Sep 2018 - replied car was with partner- partners friend had taken the car without partners knowledge at party both attended. partners friend admitted taking vehicle.
jan 2019 - file reviewed - decision to prosecute - because full details not provided (no dob and d/l num) of partners friend - friendship had ended (short term affair)

partner was having an affair which has no ended. no contact btn 2 parties.

I did all I could provided details of person my partner claimed to have the car at the time of offence. Partner signed it and explained the situation. Charge claims no details provided for partner (who had car on date NOT Time of offence) even though in letter they asked for driver at the time of offence which we provided. I was at home nursing baby.

now I have choice to go guilty plus fine or go to trial.

I think they are being unreasonable - under s172 of RTA - I provided details of person /partner claimed was driving - partner signed this statement as true.

shall I go to trial or are my chances slim?


thank you all
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 12:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:49
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,012
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



But, provided it is accepted he was not the person keeping the vehicle, he only has to provide “…any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver”. He provided all the information he had. Not only did he provide sufficient information which may lead to identification of the driver, he actually provided that identification. There is no obligation for him to make enquiries (and in any case those he enquired of could simply refuse to answer any of his questions). I don't see what more he could have done. The police may suspect he was pulling a flanker but they had a simple remedy available to them to test their suspicions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:54
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,106
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Erm no, I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver" especially given that an S172 request to a non keeper doesn't place a diligence requirement on the keeper. I'm not saying a court will view it like that, but I think it's far from certain that they won't.

I think this is synonymous with Flegg not giving details of other possible drivers (well riders)......


--------------------
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
Mr Rusty
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 09:04
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 571
Joined: 13 Mar 2004
From: Somewhere oop north
Member No.: 984





QUOTE
I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver"


The OP did say in post #1 "Sep 2018 - replied car was with partner-" - Is this enough, with a letter from the partner, to satisfy that this information is provided
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 09:13
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,106
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Mr Rusty @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 10:04) *
QUOTE
I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver"


The OP did say in post #1 "Sep 2018 - replied car was with partner-" - Is this enough, with a letter from the partner, to satisfy that this information is provided

We can only guess right now, however the Police have said not (See post #1), we don't know if the partners name and address were given (or in the case of address made at least obvious) although the OP's comment implies not.
QUOTE
Charge claims no details provided for partner (who had car on date NOT Time of offence) even though in letter they asked for driver at the time of offence which we provided.


This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 09:15


--------------------
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
royalmarineguy12...
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 11:35
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 14:08) *
And their stance says?


SJPN - intention to prosecute

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 09:13) *
QUOTE (Mr Rusty @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 10:04) *
QUOTE
I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver"


The OP did say in post #1 "Sep 2018 - replied car was with partner-" - Is this enough, with a letter from the partner, to satisfy that this information is provided

We can only guess right now, however the Police have said not (See post #1), we don't know if the partners name and address were given (or in the case of address made at least obvious) although the OP's comment implies not.
QUOTE
Charge claims no details provided for partner (who had car on date NOT Time of offence) even though in letter they asked for driver at the time of offence which we provided.



hi all,

So I am the registered keeper of car (car in my name), Partner is insured to drive car and often does.

NIP arrived and I informed partner and said I was putting details on form - he supplied details of person that was driving at the time of offence - claimed innocence. details of driver provided with signed declaration from him stating he had car but another drove at time

I believed this satisfied what was being asked of me - dob and dl number are things partner didn't know so I didn't fill in.

2nd NIP arrived because they were unable to trace driver - similar response as before to police (with signed statement/cover letter from partner and he even told them how the incident happened)

I chose this course of action as Police mentioned in letter I was supposed to know who was had car and the person that had car (partner) elected to provide details of person that was driving at time and sign letter to that effect.

what else could I have done in the scenario? asserting that my partner was driving at time would be untrue/inaccurate because 1. I didn't know for sure 2. I was informed that they weren't driving 3. provided details of person driving.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AntonyMMM
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 11:45
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,356
Joined: 17 May 2010
Member No.: 37,614



What you should have done...

Nominate your partner - giving their details, and signing the form. The car was in their possession and you have no direct knowledge of anything else.
Your partner would then have received a s172 form on which THEY would then nominate this other person.

However, it is clear you did provide information on who you had been told was driving, so it is for the court to decide whether what you provided did comply with the law. The police/CPS seem to feel otherwise.

As mentioned before - police/courts can be quite sceptical about mysterious third parties who are claimed to have been driving when faced with a speeding charge and who then turn out to be abroad or otherwise un-contactable( as MP Fiona Onasanya has recently discovered), so your defence will depend on your credibility, and particularly that of your partner, when you give evidence.


This post has been edited by AntonyMMM: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 11:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 13:49
Post #27


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,492
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (AntonyMMM @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 11:45) *
What you should have done...

Nominate your partner - giving their details, and signing the form. The car was in their possession and you have no direct knowledge of anything else.
Your partner would then have received a s172 form on which THEY would then nominate this other person.

How could they have honestly completed the form simply naming their partner as the driver, when they had explicitly been told that their partner wasn't the driver and who was? Some of the comments on here are verging on the fanciful.


--------------------
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
NewJudge
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:26
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,012
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:54) *
Erm no, I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver..."

But I understood (though may be wrong) that the police had the keeper's details. If the OP has provided all the information he has surely that discharges his responsibility (especially if that information seems more than sufficient for the driver to be traced). The police came back with a request for the driver's DoB and DL number, information which the OP did not have and was not in a position to obtain. Only then did they decide to prosecute the OP. His "nomination" of the driver was only from third party information as he was not in a position to identify the driver.

Perhaps the OP could say whether or not the police were provided with the details of the person keeping the vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
royalmarineguy12...
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:30
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:26) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:54) *
Erm no, I think it could be argued that the details of the keeper constituted “information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver..."

But I understood (though may be wrong) that the police had the keeper's details. If the OP has provided all the information he has surely that discharges his responsibility (especially if that information seems more than sufficient for the driver to be traced). The police came back with a request for the driver's DoB and DL number, information which the OP did not have and was not in a position to obtain. Only then did they decide to prosecute the OP. His "nomination" of the driver was only from third party information as he was not in a position to identify the driver.

Perhaps the OP could say whether or not the police were provided with the details of the person keeping the vehicle.


in the letter sent as part of the NIP response, he gave his name and address and signed the document
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:48
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,012
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:30) *
in the letter sent as part of the NIP response, he gave his name and address and signed the document

So not actually "provided" by you, but sent together with your response? My own view is that the police had all the information that you could give them to enable the driver to be identified. If the police wanted a driver nomination from your partner they could have sent a S172 request. I think it would be a harsh court that decides you failed in your duty because the information concerning the keeper was not "provided" by you. If they wanted a statement or letter from you providing what they already knew they should have asked and they didn't. Others, of course, may have a different view so watch this space.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:54
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,106
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



OK, that does change things and I think as non keeper you have a good case.


--------------------
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
royalmarineguy12...
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:59
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 19:33) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:54) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:46) *
What's the latest document you have received?

A letter outlining their stance and how they want to prosecute. It also asks what i decide to plea and how i can plea ( a guilty plea bargain for reduced fine)

I agree with NewJudge, the police cannot expect you to carry out an investigation on their behalf, you gave the information that was available to you. It sounds like you have an SJPN, if you upload a redacted copy we can confirm. If it is an SJPN, and assuming you want to fight it, you need to plead not guilty. I would also enclose, together with the form, a formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case.


How do I go about sending the formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case?

This post has been edited by royalmarineguy123: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:09
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,732
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:59) *
How do I go about sending the formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case?

Have a read of this: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure...015-part-08.pdf

But in short, there is no formal process or wording that must be used, and the details must be provided "Where a defendant requests those details". Just send them a simple letter along the lines of:
-------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the defendant in the case of R v (insert your name) and in accordance with CrimPR 8.2 I hereby request the initial details of the prosecution case. In particular I ask that you provide any written witness statement or exhibit that you considers material to plea. I remind you that under CrimPR 8.2(2)(a) you must now provide these details as soon as practicable.
----------------------

Post up a redacted copy of their answer, as and when you receive it. They key document here is going to be the witness statement of the person in the police back office who processed the paperwork.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:09


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:41
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,012
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



If you have a SJPN all you need to do in response to that is to reply by saying you will plead Not Guilty. The matter will then be listed for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. You can include your request for IDPC as outlined by cp, above. At your first hearing you will be asked to formally enter and also state the basis of your Not Guilty plea.Your trial will be listed for a later date. Make sure you ask for the attendance of the ticket office employee as suggested by cp in an earlier post.

One thing that has occurred to me is that you have not really explained how you were not the "person keeping the vehicle" at the relevant time. As I'm sure you realise, your defence rests on that being so (as it lessens burden to provide information and the action you had to take when asked for it). It may be worth thinking about how you intend to demonstrate that to the court if it is challenged.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 20:28
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,158
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:48) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:30) *
in the letter sent as part of the NIP response, he gave his name and address and signed the document
So not actually "provided" by you, but sent together with your response? My own view is that the police had all the information that you could give them to enable the driver to be identified. If the police wanted a driver nomination from your partner they could have sent a S172 request. I think it would be a harsh court that decides you failed in your duty because the information concerning the keeper was not "provided" by you. If they wanted a statement or letter from you providing what they already knew they should have asked and they didn't. Others, of course, may have a different view so watch this space.


Although the offence is always called 'failing to provide...' the actual legislation uses the word 'give' but either way I think that by enclosing with his reply a signed letter from the driver identifying himself as such, the OP has fulfilled his obligation under the Act.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
royalmarineguy12...
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 22:00
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:09) *
QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 15:59) *
How do I go about sending the formal notice under Part 8 of the criminal procedure rules asking for disclosure of the initial details of the prosecution case?

Have a read of this: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure...015-part-08.pdf
Many thanks! I will be posting the documents on Monday by special delivery and i will be sure to post their response.
But in short, there is no formal process or wording that must be used, and the details must be provided "Where a defendant requests those details". Just send them a simple letter along the lines of:
-------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the defendant in the case of R v (insert your name) and in accordance with CrimPR 8.2 I hereby request the initial details of the prosecution case. In particular I ask that you provide any written witness statement or exhibit that you considers material to plea. I remind you that under CrimPR 8.2(2)(a) you must now provide these details as soon as practicable.
----------------------

Post up a redacted copy of their answer, as and when you receive it. They key document here is going to be the witness statement of the person in the police back office who processed the paperwork.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
royalmarineguy12...
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:59
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,787



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 16:41) *
If you have a SJPN all you need to do in response to that is to reply by saying you will plead Not Guilty. The matter will then be listed for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. You can include your request for IDPC as outlined by cp, above. At your first hearing you will be asked to formally enter and also state the basis of your Not Guilty plea.Your trial will be listed for a later date. Make sure you ask for the attendance of the ticket office employee as suggested by cp in an earlier post.

One thing that has occurred to me is that you have not really explained how you were not the "person keeping the vehicle" at the relevant time. As I'm sure you realise, your defence rests on that being so (as it lessens burden to provide information and the action you had to take when asked for it). It may be worth thinking about how you intend to demonstrate that to the court if it is challenged.



thank you. I intend to get witness statements from relatives/neighbours and also download my entire phone location log and exhibit that to prove I was not driving the car at the time. I will also ask my neighbour ,who has CCTV on his premises. if he can get footage from the day in question.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:15
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (royalmarineguy123 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 08:59) *
I was not driving the car at the time.


That is not the same as being the keeper at the time.

The driver, keeper and RK can all be different individuals.

Who do you believe was the keeper at the time of the offence?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:31
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,165
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Proving you weren't driving isn't necessarily a defence to a s172 charge.

The keeper has an obligation to use reasonable diligence to identify the driver. Anyone else has a lower obligation to provide any details that may lead to the identification of the driver.

Either way, you provided driver details it seems. (To satisfy the more onerous requirement)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:31


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 09:32
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,106
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Exactly, you need to focus on why you were not the keeper, not that you weren't driving (which doesn't appear to be in dispute), note it's very hard to challenge someones assertion they were not the keeper, after all who would they get as witness?



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

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Tuesday, 20th August 2019 - 23:50
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.