PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

37 in 30, Just visiting home for a couple of months - wish I hadn't bothered
leggo
post Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 20:56
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,696



Good evening Pepipoo,
Long time lurker, 2nd time poster (first one is not worth searching for). Anyway been reading your site for a while and amazed at the help and advice you share. I've (sort of) been waiting for a NIP to drop through the door for ages just to take up the fight, but even better than me being scammed, my brother has just rec'd a NIP, so I thought I'd post the info on his behalf.


NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Hampshire Constabulary
Date of the offence: - October 2006
Date of the NIP: - 30 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 31 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A3024, Bitterne Road West, Bitterne, Southampton
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - NK
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - Vehicle belongs to girlfiriend (at the time of alleged offence, now Ex girlfriend...).
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'm 85% sure I was driving at the time, but not 100%. First NIP sent to ex-girlfriend, she 'kindly' filled in my details at sent them straight back to the scammers. I'm sure some of you know these cameras, dual carriageway, 30 limit, and hidden around a bend. Typical "safety enforcement" set up!

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)? - No
Although you are not the Registered Keeper, were you the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it)? - No
Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - Yes
Do you know who was driving? - Unsure who was driving
As you were not responsible for the vehicle, somebody else has named you as the driver. Were you driving? - Unsure

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • You will be unable to complete the Section 172 statement, so write back with a letter referencing the NIP and explaining that you are unable to provide the name of the driver.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v1.0.2: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:04:47 +0000

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

These are the answers you've given so far:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - No
Although you are not the Registered Keeper, were you the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it)? - No
Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - Yes
Do you know who was driving? - Unsure who was driving
As you were not responsible for the vehicle, somebody else has named you as the driver. Were you driving? - Unsure


Right, here's the complicated bit.
My brother has been living and working in Spain for about 15 years. He's between jobs at the moment so been back home in the UK since October and going back to Spain in March 07 for his next job. No permanent address in the UK currently, just a rented flat ending in March.

He's 85% sure he was driving at the time but not 100%, NIP sent to girlfiriend (Now Ex) and she has named him as the driver.

He has a Spanish Driving licence (EU version), no points and he doesn't think the Spanish system puts points on your licence until next Julyish (lucky buggers if true).

Questions are:
1. Follow NIP Wizard advice?
2. Should he try to get a photo in the first instance to confirm if he was driving or not?
3. I'm not sure how the law works with foreign licence holders so maybe he should just completely ignore it?
4. As he's off to Spain in March, maybe send Pace reply (on day 26), ignore everything till March, go back to Spain, get a sun tan, forget about it, wait foe a time out and award himself a cerveza?

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Cheers
PS - he doesn't know it yet, but he'll be paying for my star tomorrow biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by andy_foster: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 - 14:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 20:56
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
crystal
post Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 21:08
Post #2


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,634
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
From: Staffordshire
Member No.: 4,437



Hi,

He should not ignore it as it will come back to bite him later.

edit..
If you are unsure then write and ask for a photo to help identify the driver, do this sooner rather than later.
This bit conflicts with andys post below and he is proabably right.

If you does not have a uk licence (or shadow counterpart) he cannot accept a COFP it has to go to court.
If found guitly he pays the fine and the points go on the shadow licence his spanish licence remains as it is.

If you wants to fight it he can send a pace w/s if it tuen out it was him driving, or he can complete the NIP for the quiet life.

If it turns out not to him and he knows who it is then you should name them otherwise explain in a letter he cannot help

Regards
Crystal

This post has been edited by crystal: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 21:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 21:13
Post #3


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,975
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



As your brother is not the person keeping the vehicle, he must (when so required by or on behalf od the Chief Officer of Police) provide any information in his power to give that might lead to the identification of the driver.

All he is required to do is to tell them what he knows. If he doesn't know whether it was him of the ex that was driving, he should write back, stating that the ex is the keeper of the vehicle, who the possible drivers are (to the best of his knowledge), and that he cannot be sure who was driving.
A brief explanation of the circumstances (including why he doesn't recall who was driving) would help - but no need to go overboard.


--------------------
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
crystal
post Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 21:21
Post #4


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,634
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
From: Staffordshire
Member No.: 4,437



Hi

I see the flaw in the plan being if the ex says it is definitly him and he is not sure how can he force the ex to check especially has he is not denying it is possible.

I suppose in part it will depnd on how it gets on with the ex and how helpfulthe scameras are.

Regards
Crystal

This post has been edited by crystal: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 21:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leggo
post Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 21:36
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,696



Hi Crytsal and Andy,
Thanks for your speedy replies.

Just so i'm sure of his best course of action (as he's unsure he was driving):

Send a letter back saying he's unsure if he was driving and renaming the RK (his ex) and himself as possible drivers on the day. A brief description of why he's unsure will help.

Leave the ball in Hants Constabulary's court. I assume they write back to both, possibly with a photo showing the driver?

If it's not him (or you can't tell) then no worries, if it is him and he wants a fight, then reply with Pace?

Thanks again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bluedart
post Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 22:04
Post #6


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 5,243
Joined: 9 Jul 2004
From: Devon
Member No.: 1,388



QUOTE
QUOTE (crystal @ Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 21:21) *
Hi

I see the flaw in the plan being if the ex says it is definitly him and he is not sure how can he force the ex to check especially has he is not denying it is possible.

I suppose in part it will depnd on how it gets on with the ex and how helpfulthe scameras are.

Regards
Crystal

QUOTE
and how helpfulthe scameras are.

Will they ever be helpful?
Money,money, money. It's the name of the game. It's a rich man's world.


--------------------
Peter
What I'd like to see police/local authorities do is deal with important issues and not these sorts of victimless crimes when society is riddled with problems.

If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the others here for?

'The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.' - Albert Einstein
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leggo
post Wed, 6 Dec 2006 - 19:43
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,696



QUOTE (leggo @ Tue, 5 Dec 2006 - 21:36) *
Just so i'm sure of his best course of action (as he's unsure he was driving):

Send a letter back saying he's unsure if he was driving and renaming the RK (his ex) and himself as possible drivers on the day. A brief description of why he's unsure will help.

Leave the ball in Hants Constabulary's court. I assume they write back to both, possibly with a photo showing the driver?

If it's not him (or you can't tell) then no worries, if it is him and he wants a fight, then reply with Pace?



Hi all,
Just making sure I'm getting it right before writing.

Am I correct in the above post or there is a chance he may just be issued with a summons as he has a foriegn licence and can't be dealt with in the usual (just cough up for the dosh for the COFP) way?

Any help greatly appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crystal
post Wed, 6 Dec 2006 - 19:50
Post #8


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,634
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
From: Staffordshire
Member No.: 4,437



Hi,

Its the right course of action if he is unsure. They may issue a summons probably not before futher communication.

is he on speaking terms with the ex ?

Regards
crystal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leggo
post Wed, 6 Dec 2006 - 20:03
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,696



QUOTE (crystal @ Wed, 6 Dec 2006 - 19:50) *
Hi,

is he on speaking terms with the ex ?


He says he could be if he tried! Not a very helpful answer sorry.

I assume it's better to be on speaking terms so she 'plays the game as well'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leggo
post Tue, 12 Dec 2006 - 21:05
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,696



Hi all,

Things have taken a slightly different angle now perhaps.

Having had the chance to have a decent chat with my brother, I've found out he also has a UK driving license as well as a Spanish licence (not sure how this is possible or if it's even legal icon_redface.gif ).

Anyway, he's less sure he was driving at the time now, having driven his own car back from the Canary Islands only a couple of days earlier (hence no need to use the other car). Also, thinking about the day and what he did, even if he was driving the car, there would be no need to go past the camera for the alleged 'crime'. But again, he's not sure if he was driving or not, but thinks he was (sorry - best I can get out of him, bro's a bit vague...).

So my questions are:

1. As per previous advice he writes a brief letter naming himself and the RK as possible drivers on the day and a brief description as to why he's unsure if it was him or not.

2. In this letter does he ask for photos to assist in the identification of the driver or not?

3. Does this letter count as supplying the information required within 28 days under S172 or is it possible he could get 'done' for failure to supply the correct info (28 days from date of NIP would be the 27 Dec)?

Thanks in advance for any help
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crystal
post Thu, 14 Dec 2006 - 19:33
Post #11


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,634
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
From: Staffordshire
Member No.: 4,437



Hi

Sounds ok to me, remember to use special delivery

Regards
Crystal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 14 Dec 2006 - 19:58
Post #12


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,975
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Hampshire Police will probably send him a photo whether he asks for one or not.
The beauty of not being the PKV is that you do not have to exhaust reasonable diligence, you only have to tell them what you know. If he receives a photo of the front of the car it will almost certainly show whether it was him or her driving - assuming that they are the only 2 possibilities.


--------------------
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
leggo
post Sat, 16 Dec 2006 - 11:51
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,696



Thanks again Andy and Crystal, I'll get him to post the letter off and see what happens.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Sat, 16 Dec 2006 - 13:32
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,472
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Another angle on this is that the registered keeper is now the Ex girlfriend and not on the best of terms by the sound of it.
This would make an attempt to name your bruv as the driver somewhat suspect by a "hostile witness" wouldn't you think.
It's the RK who has to give the most precise details of the possible drivers so when the NIP is returned I'd send an explanation with it stating that the person who named him is hostile to him.
I think that would shut them up, at least as far as Bruv is concerend. It might bounce back to the ex though, but she's as welcome to come here as anyone else is.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leggo
post Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 01:17
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,696



Happy New Year all,

Well, my bro has received a letter with a photo and there couldn’t be a better likeness of his ugly mug, so it’s definitely him driving (though over the last couple of weeks he had convinced himself he was elsewhere at the time…).

Interestingly, we had both assumed that the location of “A3024 Bitterne Road West, Bitterne, Southampton” was one of the 2 fixed cameras, either side of the 30mph (grrr!) dual carriageway, shown quite nicely here. But alas no, the photos were taken elsewhere.

So I scoured online maps to find out where it was because the A3024 must change its road name about 5 times in almost as many miles in the hope that if the road name was wrong on the NIP, then it may help. There are some distinct road markings at the edge of the road dashed and solid white lines together), which I couldn’t find anywhere else on either side apart from at a bus stop / lay by. The lane markings in the photo changing from ‘small dashes’ to ‘long dashes’ just confirmed it.

Yes you guessed it – a mobile unit set up what must only be 250m before you get to the fixed units. I’ve attached the photo with any identifying info blacked out (though I couldn’t resist giving him the ‘reader’s husbands look’ laugh.gif ) just in case there's anything else of use in it.


On to the questions:

Location:
I would like to know if it is worth asking Hants Constabulary if they can confirm the exact location of the camera / van? The reason is that if it was set up where I think it was (151m away from the photo) then the only safe place to set up at a junction is on the central divide (with the junction between the camera and vehicle). Also, even with no junction, there is no way there can be a direct line of sight unless the road is completely clear as a direct line would cross both oncoming traffic lanes. I'll be off to get some photos soon.

Plus it must be illegal to park on this divide, so is it worth pursuing this angle?

Photo attached.


Timing:
The letter containing the photo was dated the 22nd December, envelope franked the same day, sent via 2nd class post. My bro is unsure when he received it as he was away for Xmas. He found it on his return home so by my reckoning (allowing for hols) that’s received some time between the 27th and 30th Dec. With 28 days allowed ‘from service’ of the NIP (this would be 28th Dec), It’s already too late.

So where does he stand now and how much time does he have for a response? The letter that came with the photos just mentioned, “We await your urgent response.” This is quite important as he flies out to the Canaries tomorrow morning for 10 days, so no chance for a decent, thought out reply before then. Should he just send a letter saying:
“Dear Dick Turpin,
NIP ref No: XXXXXXXXX
Sorry Mate but I’ll be out of the country for about the next 2 weeks and will decide my next course of action regarding the alleged offence on my return”?
Cheers
My Bro.
Surely it’s a valid communication (tidied up of course)?
I’ve told him to keep his boarding cards.

Next course of action?
He wants to fight via the Pace witness statement and as he is due to go back to Spain in March, is there a chance that if it stalls until then, he can use a ‘living and working out of the country’ reason for not being able to receive / respond letters in good time (e.g. Scammers – Royal Mail – Correos – Bro – Correos – Royal Mail – Scammers x a couple of times = time out hopefully)?

Sorry for the long post, just want to give you all the info.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leggo
post Wed, 3 Jan 2007 - 11:54
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,696



QUOTE
Road Traffic Act 1991, Section 172


(7) A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made—

(a) it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and

(b) the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.


Just want to make sure I get this right and don't fall foul of anything. The 28 days from the NIP were up on the 28th December, he's back in this country on the 9th Jan. Am I right in that the fact that as my brother was unsure of the driver and sent a letter, received a photo showing him and then went out of the country, he has satisfied (b) in "that he gave (will give on his return) the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period"? He will send off PACE on his return.

Also, is it worth pursuing the illegally parked mobile unit? Anyone got any experience/information on this aspect?

Many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 3 Jan 2007 - 13:42
Post #17


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,975
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (leggo @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 01:17) *
Timing:
The letter containing the photo was dated the 22nd December, envelope franked the same day, sent via 2nd class post. My bro is unsure when he received it as he was away for Xmas. He found it on his return home so by my reckoning (allowing for hols) that’s received some time between the 27th and 30th Dec. With 28 days allowed ‘from service’ of the NIP (this would be 28th Dec), It’s already too late.


Que?

Raises an interesting question (other than what on earth are you talking about) - is the requirement under s.172(2)(b) ongoing? As s.172(7) refers to subsection (2), not merely (2)(a), then it probably is.
If the requirement is ongoing, the 28 days are the original 28 days, and "as soon as is reasonably practicable" means what it says.
If he received the photo before he flew to the Canaries, it's hard to see how ignoring it and waiting until he got back is "as soon as is reasonably practicable" - unless he was rushing out of the door to get to the airport when it was delivered.
That said, if they receive a response in a "reasonable time", they are unlikely to push it.


--------------------
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
leggo
post Wed, 3 Jan 2007 - 14:38
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,696



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 3 Jan 2007 - 13:42) *
QUOTE (leggo @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 01:17) *
Timing:
The letter containing the photo was dated the 22nd December, envelope franked the same day, sent via 2nd class post. My bro is unsure when he received it as he was away for Xmas. He found it on his return home so by my reckoning (allowing for hols) that’s received some time between the 27th and 30th Dec. With 28 days allowed ‘from service’ of the NIP (this would be 28th Dec), It’s already too late.


Que?

Raises an interesting question (other than what on earth are you talking about) - is the requirement under s.172(2)(b) ongoing? As s.172(7) refers to subsection (2), not merely (2)(a), then it probably is.
If the requirement is ongoing, the 28 days are the original 28 days, and "as soon as is reasonably practicable" means what it says.
If he received the photo before he flew to the Canaries, it's hard to see how ignoring it and waiting until he got back is "as soon as is reasonably practicable" - unless he was rushing out of the door to get to the airport when it was delivered.
That said, if they receive a response in a "reasonable time", they are unlikely to push it.


Sorry I didn't word it very well.

Yes the requirement is still ongoing so the 28 days I refer to is from the serving of his NIP. Apart from an unsure driver letter he hasn't sent any other response as yet.

He was away for Xmas, so did not receive the letter and photo showing him as the driver until he got home on the 2nd Jan. He then flew out to the Canaries on the 3rd (1200hrs check in). He will respond on the 9th Jan on his return to the UK so I guess that all falls into the "as soon as is reasonably practicable" category.

I was just wondering how strict they were on this time frame, e.g. will there be 'something nasty' waiting on his doormat, like a summons.

Muchas gracias
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
leggo
post Thu, 18 Jan 2007 - 20:40
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Member No.: 7,696



Hi all,

A bit of advice please.

My brother has just dropped off the latest letter dated 03/01/07 from the scammers to me.

"Dear Sir,

I refer to the Notice of Intended Prosecution / Section 172 Road Traffic Act, 1988 from sent to you over 4 weeks ago under the above reference, whcih related to an alleged road traffic offence.

The form in question legally required you to supply details of the driver of the vehicle, it also carried a warning that by not complying you are commiting an offence. This offence could be dealt with through fixed penalty procedures but a court appearance could folow, where the maximum fine would be £1,000, endorsement and possible disqualification.

To date no satisfactory reply has been received from you at this office.

Your failure to identify the driver of the vehicle has therefore made you liable for the offence which is contrary to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988.

You are advised to immediately respond to the request by identifying the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident.

yours, etc, etc."


On to my specific questions:

1. As he received his original NIP on the 29th November and is now well over the 28 days allowable to respond (by about 3 weeks...), is it worth him following the PACE route? He has half a valid reason in that he was out of the country for 10 days and then had other comitments, but he could have 'got his finger out' and returned it a bit earlier.

2. I assume this can still be dealt with under the fixed penalty system (as then the scammers get their cash easier and quicker), so in this case would he be better just taking the 3 points and learn to fight back properly next time..?

Thanks in advance for any advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crystal
post Thu, 18 Jan 2007 - 22:59
Post #20


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,634
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
From: Staffordshire
Member No.: 4,437



Hi

Well he is certain open to a S172 prosecuton, and you are right if he names the driver on the form I would say there is a high chance they will just send a COFP.

If you send PACE he will probably get a COFP

If it cot to court and O'halloran/Frnacis had won hw could maybe argue that he could not respons because of his rights, (not sure how well this would work) for S172 and for speeding it would be the usual.

How much is he preapred to risk ?

Regards
Crystal
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: Friday, 7th August 2020 - 01:39
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.