PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Nominated as driver on NIP for a similar registration number
smarties99
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 15:52
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 12 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,895



Hi,

Really weird one! Received a NIP in the post recently, placing me almost 200 miles away from my home.

The car in question is a very similar registration to a car I own, but not the same. Initially I thought that whoever issued the NIP had made a typo when looking up my registration number, and then sent the NIP to owner of the wrong car. I looked at the pictures online, completely different car to the one I own. The pictures match the reg on the NIP.

However, I've phoned the number on the NIP today to discuss, and it turns out that someone has nominated me as the driver!

It appears what they have done is to somehow look up the owner address details of a car with a similar plate to their own, and then submit that as the nominated driver.

I can't begin to imagine why they would do this, or how they thought I wouldn't notice that the reg was wrong and that my address was miles away from where the offence occurred.

It's also puzzling that someone would be able to look up owner details so readily - surely that means they have access to police or DVLA databases?

The processing centre seem to have accepted what I have said and can see when they look up my real reg it comes up with the same address as nominated, and have asked me to send a letter explaining my POV and attaching some photos of my own car, which I've done.

I've raised some concerns within the letter and asked for them to be addressed.

I just wondered if anyone had any thoughts on this somewhat puzzling NIP? Am I likely to hear anymore about it?

Thanks :-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 28)
Advertisement
post Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 15:52
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 09:04
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (bill w @ Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 23:05) *
Just an offbeat thought, I wonder if the OP has recently received a PCN from a PPC.
Don't they have electronic access to the DVLA keepers database?

Yes. It would be a massive breach of the KADOE contract though, as well as the DPA/GDPR.


--------------------
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
smarties99
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:19
Post #22


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 12 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,895



100% certain that I haven't misread the NIP, it clearly states on the top that "we have already complied with the requirement to serve a NIP on the last known keeper of this vehicle within 14 days of the alleged offence". The date of the offence was over two months ago, so why would they NIP me as the RK (if they had somehow returned an erroneous reg/address) when the 14 days have clearly passed?

If I log into the online portal to view the speed camera images, again it clearly states that the NIP was served to the RK and that a nomination was made.

The lady on the phone at the police call centre also confirmed that they had NIPd the RK and he had made a nomination.

I see no reason for the police force to lie and try their luck with me? The photos depicted are of a totally different car but with an almost identical plate save for two digits swapped around. What would they have to gain by doing so? It clearly wouldn't stand in court if they attempted to prosecute me.

Not sure why there is so much reluctance to believe that the RK has unlawfully accessed my details by looking up a similar plate and nominating the driver (or paying someone to do so on his behalf?) The only logical explanation I can come up with is that there is some (misguided, hopefully) belief by the RK that nominating someone with a very similar plate might either 'trick' me into paying, or cast some doubt over the accuracy of the electronic systems if pursued in court?

How anyone can believe that the plate similarity is a coincidence beggars belief! laugh.gif

EDIT: Just to add in answer to a question asked - no, I haven't received any PCNs recently

EDIT: See below screen grab taken from the online portal. The RK NIP was sent the day after the offence. I was nominated 70 days after the offence.



This post has been edited by smarties99: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sparxy
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:22
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 876
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
From: Midlands
Member No.: 34,394



QUOTE (smarties99 @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:19) *
Not sure why there is so much reluctance to believe that the RK has unlawfully accessed my details by looking up a similar plate and nominating the driver (or paying someone to do so on his behalf?) The only logical explanation I can come up with is that there is some (misguided, hopefully) belief by the RK that nominating someone with a very similar plate might either 'trick' me into paying, or cast some doubt over the accuracy of the electronic systems if pursued in court?


I think what everyone is trying to do is ensure they give the correct advice. It is not unheard of from previous cases on here that details are misunderstood, or that op's misunderstand what the police actually mean.

I wonder how automated the police's systems are - has someone returned their initial form stating "Not the driver", or maybe sold the vehicle, and has not given any more details, and the police then searched insurance, or another database manually and maybe typed the VRM in wrong?

Have you searched the other parties reg online, or had a look at MOT history, maybe it has been recently sold? MOT history might show an MOT much sooner than the renewal date, which unless the vehicle is sold probably isn't something tom, dick or harry would do.


I will let the others advise on the next course of action but certainly an interesting case to follow!

This post has been edited by Sparxy: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:55
Post #24


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (smarties99 @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:19) *
Not sure why there is so much reluctance to believe that the RK has unlawfully accessed my details by looking up a similar plate and nominating the driver (or paying someone to do so on his behalf?) The only logical explanation I can come up with is that there is some (misguided, hopefully) belief by the RK that nominating someone with a very similar plate might either 'trick' me into paying, or cast some doubt over the accuracy of the electronic systems if pursued in court?


To do so would be quite difficult, very illegal and almost certain to be caught out. And it is inconceivable that such a scam could work.



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

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 23:06
Post #25


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (TonyS @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 08:45) *
Does the reason actually matter in the end?


Yes.

As regards the s. 172 requirement and the alleged motoring offence, the OP's obligation is basically to tell the police that it wasn't his car - which he has already done.

However, if he is the victim of identity theft, and possibly the target of some kind of vendetta (naming him simply to try to escape liability for the motoring offence makes no sense), then that is a far bigger issue, and unlike the s. 172 issue, still a live one.

I note that the web portal shows 'vague' information which corresponds to what he has been told over the phone. I would be asking whether the person on the other end of the phone is merely relying on similar 'information', or has seen the purported nomination. However, if I was the OP and had taken what I had been told at face value, I would be kickinfg and screaming until the bigger issue was properly investigated/resolved.


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

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 08:17
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (smarties99 @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:19) *
"we have already complied with the requirement to serve a NIP on the last known keeper of this vehicle within 14 days of the alleged offence".

That proforma is probably added to every 'second NIP in the chain', in reality your unlikely to find out how and why the error occurred.

You can ask DVLA if anyone has applied for keepers details but that won't tell you if anyone with access to the PNC has, as they access a duplicate and DVLA don't know who has used that access (but the Police can).


--------------------
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
disgrunt
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 08:48
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 634
Joined: 8 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,778



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 23:55) *
QUOTE (smarties99 @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:19) *
Not sure why there is so much reluctance to believe that the RK has unlawfully accessed my details by looking up a similar plate and nominating the driver (or paying someone to do so on his behalf?) The only logical explanation I can come up with is that there is some (misguided, hopefully) belief by the RK that nominating someone with a very similar plate might either 'trick' me into paying, or cast some doubt over the accuracy of the electronic systems if pursued in court?


To do so would be quite difficult, very illegal and almost certain to be caught out. And it is inconceivable that such a scam could work.


Yes, nobody would be that thick to think it could work.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...y-a8632071.html

Of course it could be a coincidence, the probability is probably a lot greater than you would imagine (like a massive version of the birthday problem)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 08:58
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Naming someone unlikely to ever be traced to deny it is one thing, naming someone easily found to deny it is another, most cases use naming either someone overseas who cant be forced to respond or naming someone who for some other reason can't be traced. That's why I'm with Andy on this and ascribe it as far more likely to be incompetence and not malice.

These examples will show that
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=120923


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 15:55
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 22:55) *
QUOTE (smarties99 @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:19) *
Not sure why there is so much reluctance to believe that the RK has unlawfully accessed my details by looking up a similar plate and nominating the driver (or paying someone to do so on his behalf?) The only logical explanation I can come up with is that there is some (misguided, hopefully) belief by the RK that nominating someone with a very similar plate might either 'trick' me into paying, or cast some doubt over the accuracy of the electronic systems if pursued in court?


To do so would be quite difficult, very illegal and almost certain to be caught out. And it is inconceivable that such a scam could work.

People do stupid things. The owner of a PPC or accident claims company was convicted of breaching GDPR because he used his DVLA access to get the details of a registered keeper who's personalised number plate he wanted to buy. Just because the scam would never work, doesn't mean nobody will try it.

Ultimately if the police a right that the OP has been nominated, it appears likely they will pursue this as attempt PCOJ, so no doubt they will get to the bottom of it eventually. Ultimately all access to both DVLA and the PNC copy is fully logged so if details were obtained unlawfully there will be evidence of that.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
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, 29th March 2024 - 12:00
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here