PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP (alleged speeding (variable camera))
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



Hello,
NIP received within the 14 days of alleged offence.
"Exceed a variable speed limit - automatic camera device at **:** on **/**/2017 at M62, BETWEEN JUNCTIONS 25 & 26 WESTBOUND"
"The speed of the vehicle on this occasion was recorded at 63 mph"
"For variable speed limit offences only, the speed limit at the time was 50 mph."

OK, the time of the alleged offence was in the early afternoon in a week day. From what the evidential photographs depict (not many vehicles actually in the images), traffic was free flowing. It is unknown if there was a nearby accident/breakdown. The weather appears to be clear in the images and the condition of the road's surface looks to be dry. It is also unknown if there were any pedestrians/road workers or debris in the road.

I have had a look at the photographic evidence (the images are very small and of pretty poor quality - with the web page at 100% view, the images are about 4x3cm). The Public Access System portal states: "Please note that the quality of photographs viewed on this site may differ from the originals seen within the Central Ticket Office, as we have the ability to enhance the images.". I may write a letter requesting all evidence and photographs of the vehicle.

Paragraph 4 of S172 of the RTA 1988 intrigues me:

"A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."

Whilst I may have been driving and without admitting any guilt, I wonder if I can successfully use this paragraph as part of my defence.

The speed limits of the M62 and most other motorways are usually 70 mph. I realise that some motorways are considered to be 'smart' and that someone in a control room enforces, amongst other things, variable speed restrictions at the touch of a button. What I wonder is perhaps there was a small incident (I've tried to look this up) which required the speed to be lowered to 50 some maybe five or ten minutes earlier, but the person in the control room failed to raise the speed limit back to 70 or even 60, when it was perhaps considered safe to do so.

I still almost have the full 28 days to respond. Can I respond with a written letter stating that I do not know who was driving the vehicle at the alleged time of the offence, and that I wish to see all evidence and photographs of the vehicle so that I can help identify the driver? Is it English case law that I have to complete the reverse side of the NIP and return it?

I may scan and redact personal data from the NIP, if it helps at all to see it. Perhaps the wording of the NIP is inaccurate or there is something missing.

All advice is appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:30
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,879
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



The police are under no obligation to provide you with anything at the moment, least of all every piece of evidence they have.

If you know you were driving but wish to maintain that you did not know and could not find out then this will be a very short thread. You might well end up in prison for perverting the course of justice and/or perjury.

If the variable limit had been lowered but not raised you would have to prove that it was so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority would have done so. Good luck with that one.


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


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
peterguk
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:32
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,250
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



If yoiu were the driver, simply name yourself as the driver. If you were not, then name the driver. Messing around is likely to end in tears.

You're not entitled to any evidence at this stage - you are simply being asked to name the driver at the time stated on the NIP.

You can ask for photos to assist in identification of the driver, but whether they arrive in time or not, you are obliged to name the driver within 28 days. Be aware any photos that are supplied are to identify the vehicle, not the driver.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
squaredeal
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 17:44
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 768
Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,764



You won't get any further images; those on the web portal will be adequate to identify the offence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:02
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,630
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:16) *
Whilst I may have been driving and without admitting any guilt, I wonder if I can successfully use this paragraph as part of my defence.

As part of your defence against what? If you are talking about the speeding allegation it will certainly avoid a conviction for speeding as they have no evidence who was driving. When you say "I may have been driving" you seem to know quite a bit about the circumstances for someone who may not have been the driver.
QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:16) *
Can I respond with a written letter stating that I do not know who was driving the vehicle at the alleged time of the offence, and that I wish to see all evidence and photographs of the vehicle so that I can help identify the driver?

You can do but you've had all you are going to get for the moment
QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:16) *
Is it English case law that I have to complete the reverse side of the NIP and return it?

Near enough. You are obliged to provide the driver's details and this obligation is explained in the very Section 172 that you have already seen.
QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 16:16) *
What I wonder is perhaps there was a small incident (I've tried to look this up) which required the speed to be lowered to 50 some maybe five or ten minutes earlier, but the person in the control room failed to raise the speed limit back to 70 or even 60, when it was perhaps considered safe to do so.


Whether or not this is the case is irrelevant. You have an obligation to keep within the posted limit. Even if it was imposed totally without justification that does not provide you with a defence.

As has been explained this will get very messy if you fanny about. If you fail to name the driver you will face a S172 prosecution (six points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for up to five years if you are convicted). It may even get worse than that if your motives are discovered to be perverse. Contrarily, if you simply nominate yourself as the driver the speed alleged qualifies for a Speed Awareness Course and if you have not done one in the last three years it will cost you about £90 and half a day of your time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:25
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:02) *
As part of your defence against what? If you are talking about the speeding allegation it will certainly avoid a conviction for speeding as they have no evidence who was driving. When you say "I may have been driving" you seem to know quite a bit about the circumstances for someone who may not have been the driver.


Yes - against the speeding allegation.

Not really - I don't know a great deal.

QUOTE (NewJudge)
Whether or not this is the case is irrelevant. You have an obligation to keep within the posted limit. Even if it was imposed totally without justification that does not provide you with a defence.

As has been explained this will get very messy if you fanny about. If you fail to name the driver you will face a S172 prosecution (six points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for up to five years if you are convicted). It may even get worse than that if your motives are discovered to be perverse. Contrarily, if you simply nominate yourself as the driver the speed alleged qualifies for a Speed Awareness Course and if you have not done one in the last three years it will cost you about £90 and half a day of your time.


Well, for sure I don't really want to pervert the course of whatever justice is. I do find these things nothing short of ridiculous. 63 on a MOTORWAY. I think most 'safety cameras' are simply there to generate more money for a Force's budget. What if I cannot remember who was driving?

I read about DSI Adrian Roberts successfully defending his self (his not remembering who was driving), albeit that was some 16 years ago. I may provide them with a list of possible drivers at the time, and suggest that they stop wasting time with this minor BS.... it's a MOTORWAY and traffic was good etc.

Yes, I think 63 qualifies for a "Speed Awareness Course". I think the formula is +10% of the speed limit (50) + max of 9 mph, so 63 should be 1 mph within this range. I have never attended a speed awareness course and have 0 penalty points on my license. I think the fee might be somewhere in the region of £78.50.


What will I do next? I think I will write off a letter to them via recorded post. If they don't respond with anything within about three weeks, I guess I may then complete the NIP and return it via recorded post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:29
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,250
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:25) *
and suggest that they stop wasting time with this minor BS.... it's a MOTORWAY and traffic was good etc.


Your opinion of your driving means diddly squat.

Why are you blaming the police for doing their job?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:31
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:29) *
Why are you blaming the police for doing their job?


Where have I blamed the police?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fedup2
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:43
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,343
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,873



You need to wise up fast or your going to end up in a whole load of pain for no reason at all.If you want to play games with the system then crack on,but if you want real advice then name the driver,you will then get offered a course if you qualify and you might even learn something and come out the otherside with no additional points.

FTF carrys 6 points and a big fine.It is however your call...........
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:46
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



QUOTE (fedup2 @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:43) *
You need to wise up fast or your going to end up in a whole load of pain for no reason at all.If you want to play games with the system then crack on,but if you want real advice then name the driver,you will then get offered a course if you qualify and you might even learn something and come out the otherside with no additional points.

FTF carrys 6 points and a big fine.It is however your call...........


I understand.

FTF or FTP? Failure To Provide?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:51
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,082
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



You're here asking for advice, which is a good start. However, you're clearly resisting the advice you have been given, which is somewhat inconsistent with your original reason for starting this thread, isn't it?

We have seen people in exactly your position dozens and dozens of times, many going through the "five stages of grief", just like you... But, unfortunately, as of 2017 all of the easy outs have been sewn up and there are no clever new strategies with any real chance of success. You can think what you want about the unfairness of it all (some of which I happen to agree with), but the reality is, if you mess around with what is, after all, a criminal proceeding, your experience will not be very positive. If you were the driver you are fortunate that you can do a course or pay a fixed penalty and avoid any serious consequences for your minor lapse of concentration/observation--but you can also make it worse. Good luck.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fedup2
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:53
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,343
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,873



QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:46) *
QUOTE (fedup2 @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:43) *
You need to wise up fast or your going to end up in a whole load of pain for no reason at all.If you want to play games with the system then crack on,but if you want real advice then name the driver,you will then get offered a course if you qualify and you might even learn something and come out the otherside with no additional points.

FTF carrys 6 points and a big fine.It is however your call...........


I understand.

FTF or FTP? Failure To Provide?



Who cares,just fill in the NIP and do the course!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:54
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:51) *
You're here asking for advice, which is a good start. However, you're clearly resisting the advice you have been given, which is somewhat inconsistent with your original reason for starting this thread, isn't it?

We have seen people in exactly your position dozens and dozens of times, many going through the "five stages of grief", just like you... But, unfortunately, as of 2017 all of the easy outs have been sewn up and there are no clever new strategies with any real chance of success. You can think what you want about the unfairness of it all (some of which I happen to agree with), but the reality is, if you mess around with what is, after all, a criminal proceeding, your experience will not be very positive. If you were the driver you are fortunate that you can do a course or pay a fixed penalty and avoid any serious consequences for your minor lapse of concentration/observation--but you can also make it worse. Good luck.

--Churchmouse


I am not resisting any advice, believe me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:56
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,250
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:46) *
FTF or FTP? Failure To Provide?


FtF = Failure to Furnish. Same as FtP.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 19:13
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:56) *
QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:46) *
FTF or FTP? Failure To Provide?


FtF = Failure to Furnish. Same as FtP.


Furnish. Hmm. It'd be nice to furnish some details and get this thing quashed!

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:51) *
But, unfortunately, as of 2017 all of the easy outs have been sewn up and there are no clever new strategies with any real chance of success.


From what you said here, it sounds like in this current year there has been a ruling or more closing down any loopholes. Out of interest, can you provide me with any details surrounding this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 19:13
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,250
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 19:06) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:56) *
QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:46) *
FTF or FTP? Failure To Provide?


FtF = Failure to Furnish. Same as FtP.


Furnish. Hmm. It'd be nice to furnish some details and get this thing quashed!


It's not going to go away. So name yourself and do the SAC, or name the driver. and drive within the law. Simples.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 19:30
Post #17


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,400
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



This forum is here to help motorists use the law to their advantage, regardless of whether or not they are actually. It is not here to help motorists break the law - particularly by perverting the course of justice. If you want to know how serious perverting the course of justice to get out of a minor motoring matter is, just google "andyroo pepipoo".

English case law provides that you must comply with the substance of any reasonable requirement as to the manner in which the information should be provided under s. 172 RTA 1988 - generally that it should be in writing and signed There is no overarching requirement to use the form provided.


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

If you're going to try to contradict me, please at least try to get your facts straight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 20:38
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,630
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:25) *
I read about DSI Adrian Roberts successfully defending his self (his not remembering who was driving), albeit that was some 16 years ago.


Yes there are many examples of people successfully defending a S172 allegation. Here’s one from 2003:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1447758/Ha...eding-fine.html

and here’s another very much more recent example:

http://www.cetusnews.com/news/High-Court-Q....BkywjTTez.html

You will note that both of these cases involved similar circumstances where driving the vehicle was said to be shared between a husband and wife. There are other circumstances where a court could conclude that it was not reasonably possible for the keeper to identify the driver. Do the circumstances in which you find yourself have any unusual features which might lead a court to conclude you could not name the driver at the time of an alleged offence said to have occurred less than two weeks earlier? If not I would suggest you arrange to comply with the request by filling in the form you have been sent. That way you will reduce the pain to a minimum.

QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 18:25) *
I may provide them with a list of possible drivers at the time, and suggest that they stop wasting time with this minor BS....


If you do that you may hear nothing further...until you receive notification of court proceedings where you will face prosecution for the S172 offence. If you are lucky you may receive a follow-up letter asking if you'd like to reconsider your decision. If you're unlucky and enquiries are made which establish that those whom you nominated could not possibly have been driving you may face a somewhat more serious charge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 20:45
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,233
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Ignatius @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 19:25) *
Not really - I don't know a great deaI may provide them with a list of possible drivers at the time, and suggest that they stop wasting time with this minor BS

and when you are in court facing 6 points and a fine of circa £500 plus costs/surcharge (and about another £800 if you plead not guilty and lose) will you tell them the same? Do you think that will get you an acquittal?


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ignatius
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:03
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 13 May 2014
Member No.: 70,605



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 20:38) *
Do the circumstances in which you find yourself have any unusual features which might lead a court to conclude you could not name the driver at the time of an alleged offence said to have occurred less than two weeks earlier?


Yes, I think so. My mother and I share the vehicle.

This post has been edited by Ignatius: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 21:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Closed 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, 18th December 2018 - 22:13
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.