Need advice on inability to identify driver, M6/M42 Toll variable speed limit cameras |
Need advice on inability to identify driver, M6/M42 Toll variable speed limit cameras |
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:10
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 3 Dec 2013 Member No.: 67,147 |
Hi Guys,
I'm really sorry if this topic has been brought up before, but would really like specific advice for my circumstances. I was given a courtesy car by an Audi dealership while my car was having warranty worked done to it. I had the car for three weeks and there was an additional names driver on the rental who was sharing the driving with me for the several trips we had to make between London and Manchester during that time. As the main hirer of the vehicle, I received an NIP from Warwickshire Police which alleged that the hire car was travelling at 78mph past one of the variable speed limit cameras which was set at 60mph. The NIP was received 26 days after the alleged offence, but the police claimed to have served the Audi dealership within the 14 day period. There are many factors which have made it GENUINELY impossible for me to identify which one of us was driving at the time: 1) I received the NIP a long time after the alleged offence (26 days). The two of us regularly travel together from Manchester to London, and vice versa, and indeed made several trips like this during the rental period. We always share the driving in order to balance the driving burden between the two of us, and the time lag has made it even harder to be know who was driving at the time. The Police claim though to have served the NIP on the Audi dealership within 24 days of the alleged offence. 2) I have asked the police to provide photographs of the car to help identify the driver, but you can only see the rear and not who was driving. 3) That camera is literally at the half way mark between London and Manchester (where we usually swap seats), making it even harder to be sure exactly who was driving. I have never received an NIP in my life. I volunteer for a motorcycle emergency blood delivery service, and it is therefore even more important that it remains that way. On the other hand, the second driver is also not able to remember who was driving either and is therefore unwilling to take responsibility for the NIP. Warwickshire Police have ignored my appeal on these grounds and have informed me that the matter will be referred to the magistrates court. Please help me guys! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:10
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:20
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation.
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:22
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,506 Joined: 9 Jan 2008 From: manchester Member No.: 16,521 |
Hi Guys, I'm really sorry if this topic has been brought up before, but would really like specific advice for my circumstances. I was given a courtesy car by an Audi dealership while my car was having warranty worked done to it. I had the car for three weeks and there was an additional names driver on the rental who was sharing the driving with me for the several trips we had to make between London and Manchester during that time. As the main hirer of the vehicle, I received an NIP from Warwickshire Police which alleged that the hire car was travelling at 78mph past one of the variable speed limit cameras which was set at 60mph. The NIP was received 26 days after the alleged offence, but the police claimed to have served the Audi dealership within the 14 day period. There are many factors which have made it GENUINELY impossible for me to identify which one of us was driving at the time: 1) I received the NIP a long time after the alleged offence (26 days). The two of us regularly travel together from Manchester to London, and vice versa, and indeed made several trips like this during the rental period. We always share the driving in order to balance the driving burden between the two of us, and the time lag has made it even harder to be know who was driving at the time. The Police claim though to have served the NIP on the Audi dealership within 24 days of the alleged offence. 2) I have asked the police to provide photographs of the car to help identify the driver, but you can only see the rear and not who was driving. 3) That camera is literally at the half way mark between London and Manchester (where we usually swap seats), making it even harder to be sure exactly who was driving. I have never received an NIP in my life. I volunteer for a motorcycle emergency blood delivery service, and it is therefore even more important that it remains that way. On the other hand, the second driver is also not able to remember who was driving either and is therefore unwilling to take responsibility for the NIP. Warwickshire Police have ignored my appeal on these grounds and have informed me that the matter will be referred to the magistrates court. Please help me guys! Ok to clarify the 28 days are gone and your now awaiting a summons have you reterned ANY writen explination to them on the circumstances iof so EXACTLY what did you say -------------------- jobo
anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year, |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:25
Post
#4
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 3 Dec 2013 Member No.: 67,147 |
Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation. I understand, but I'm not running a corporation. These trips were made in a private capacity and it's unreasonable to expect someone to keep a log book for these purposes. Hi Guys, I'm really sorry if this topic has been brought up before, but would really like specific advice for my circumstances. I was given a courtesy car by an Audi dealership while my car was having warranty worked done to it. I had the car for three weeks and there was an additional names driver on the rental who was sharing the driving with me for the several trips we had to make between London and Manchester during that time. As the main hirer of the vehicle, I received an NIP from Warwickshire Police which alleged that the hire car was travelling at 78mph past one of the variable speed limit cameras which was set at 60mph. The NIP was received 26 days after the alleged offence, but the police claimed to have served the Audi dealership within the 14 day period. There are many factors which have made it GENUINELY impossible for me to identify which one of us was driving at the time: 1) I received the NIP a long time after the alleged offence (26 days). The two of us regularly travel together from Manchester to London, and vice versa, and indeed made several trips like this during the rental period. We always share the driving in order to balance the driving burden between the two of us, and the time lag has made it even harder to be know who was driving at the time. The Police claim though to have served the NIP on the Audi dealership within 24 days of the alleged offence. 2) I have asked the police to provide photographs of the car to help identify the driver, but you can only see the rear and not who was driving. 3) That camera is literally at the half way mark between London and Manchester (where we usually swap seats), making it even harder to be sure exactly who was driving. I have never received an NIP in my life. I volunteer for a motorcycle emergency blood delivery service, and it is therefore even more important that it remains that way. On the other hand, the second driver is also not able to remember who was driving either and is therefore unwilling to take responsibility for the NIP. Warwickshire Police have ignored my appeal on these grounds and have informed me that the matter will be referred to the magistrates court. Please help me guys! Ok to clarify the 28 days are gone and your now awaiting a summons have you reterned ANY writen explination to them on the circumstances iof so EXACTLY what did you say The vehicle referred to is owned by Audi, and was loaned to me by the dealer for two weeks while my car was having warranty work done to it. I was the main hirer of the vehicle, but there was also another named driver who used the car no less than me. The two of us regularly travel together from Manchester to London, and vice versa, and indeed made several trips like this during the rental period. We always share the driving in order to balance the driving burden between the two of us. The NIP received - dated 05/11/2013, but only received today (11th November 2013, 26 days after alleged offence) - was clearly in relation to one of the above shared driving trips. I would be grateful if you could provide photographs of the alleged offence in order to help us establish which of the two of us was driving at the time of the alleged offence. Otherwise, it will genuinely be impossible for us to establish whom your NIP should be served upon. The fact that I received the NIP so long after the alleged offence has made it even more difficult to establish who the driver was, but hopefully photographic evidence will help. However, once the driver’s identity is established, the confirmed driver may still require evidence that you met your statutory requirements to serve the notice within 14 calendar days of the alleged offence. I certainly have no intention on claiming liability for an offence, which, at this point, I am far from certain to have committed. The second driver has told me that, although he may also have been the driver at the time of the alleged offence, he is far from certain of this too and would like to see evidence that it was him - and not me - that was driving at the time. Please provide any relevant photographs that will help us establish who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence. Once established, the confirmed driver can then decide how they wish to deal with your intention to prosecute. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:28
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation. I understand, but I'm not running a corporation. These trips were made in a private capacity and it's unreasonable to expect someone to keep a log book for these purposes. Company or private ...you still require to know who was responsible for the alleged contravention . If you had what I suggested you wouldn't be in here asking for advice. What is unreasonable about it ? This post has been edited by StuartBu: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:38 |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:31
Post
#6
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 3 Dec 2013 Member No.: 67,147 |
Yes, the have told me that it has been referred to the magistrates so I am awaiting a summons Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation. I understand, but I'm not running a corporation. These trips were made in a private capacity and it's unreasonable to expect someone to keep a log book for these purposes. I don't think you do understand !!!! Company or private ...you still require to know who was responsible for the alleged contravention . If you had what I suggested you wouldn't be in here asking for advice. What is unreasonable about it ? It's not unreasonable for you to suggest it, but it's unfortunately it's not what most people do when driving in a private capacity. I guess I've learned now. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:33
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,506 Joined: 9 Jan 2008 From: manchester Member No.: 16,521 |
Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation. I understand, but I'm not running a corporation. These trips were made in a private capacity and it's unreasonable to expect someone to keep a log book for these purposes. I don't think you do understand !!!! Company or private ...you still require to know who was responsible for the alleged contravention . If you had what I suggested you wouldn't be in here asking for advice. What is unreasonable about it ? NO your NOT -------------------- jobo
anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year, |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:39
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Subsection 2 of Section 172 RTA says:
QUOTE the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police But s4 says: QUOTE A person shall not be guilty of an offence if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was. There's no exact definition of 'reasonable diligence' but you will have to convince the Mags. Just asking for photo's alone is unlikely to cut it. (Mobile) Phone records are another possibility. You are probably already aware of the sentence imposed for a s172 offence? -------------------- 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, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:41
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,506 Joined: 9 Jan 2008 From: manchester Member No.: 16,521 |
Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation. I understand, but I'm not running a corporation. These trips were made in a private capacity and it's unreasonable to expect someone to keep a log book for these purposes. Hi Guys, I'm really sorry if this topic has been brought up before, but would really like specific advice for my circumstances. I was given a courtesy car by an Audi dealership while my car was having warranty worked done to it. I had the car for three weeks and there was an additional names driver on the rental who was sharing the driving with me for the several trips we had to make between London and Manchester during that time. As the main hirer of the vehicle, I received an NIP from Warwickshire Police which alleged that the hire car was travelling at 78mph past one of the variable speed limit cameras which was set at 60mph. The NIP was received 26 days after the alleged offence, but the police claimed to have served the Audi dealership within the 14 day period. There are many factors which have made it GENUINELY impossible for me to identify which one of us was driving at the time: 1) I received the NIP a long time after the alleged offence (26 days). The two of us regularly travel together from Manchester to London, and vice versa, and indeed made several trips like this during the rental period. We always share the driving in order to balance the driving burden between the two of us, and the time lag has made it even harder to be know who was driving at the time. The Police claim though to have served the NIP on the Audi dealership within 24 days of the alleged offence. 2) I have asked the police to provide photographs of the car to help identify the driver, but you can only see the rear and not who was driving. 3) That camera is literally at the half way mark between London and Manchester (where we usually swap seats), making it even harder to be sure exactly who was driving. I have never received an NIP in my life. I volunteer for a motorcycle emergency blood delivery service, and it is therefore even more important that it remains that way. On the other hand, the second driver is also not able to remember who was driving either and is therefore unwilling to take responsibility for the NIP. Warwickshire Police have ignored my appeal on these grounds and have informed me that the matter will be referred to the magistrates court. Please help me guys! Ok to clarify the 28 days are gone and your now awaiting a summons have you reterned ANY writen explination to them on the circumstances iof so EXACTLY what did you say The vehicle referred to is owned by Audi, and was loaned to me by the dealer for two weeks while my car was having warranty work done to it. I was the main hirer of the vehicle, but there was also another named driver who used the car no less than me. The two of us regularly travel together from Manchester to London, and vice versa, and indeed made several trips like this during the rental period. We always share the driving in order to balance the driving burden between the two of us. The NIP received - dated 05/11/2013, but only received today (11th November 2013, 26 days after alleged offence) - was clearly in relation to one of the above shared driving trips. I would be grateful if you could provide photographs of the alleged offence in order to help us establish which of the two of us was driving at the time of the alleged offence. Otherwise, it will genuinely be impossible for us to establish whom your NIP should be served upon. The fact that I received the NIP so long after the alleged offence has made it even more difficult to establish who the driver was, but hopefully photographic evidence will help. However, once the driver’s identity is established, the confirmed driver may still require evidence that you met your statutory requirements to serve the notice within 14 calendar days of the alleged offence. I certainly have no intention on claiming liability for an offence, which, at this point, I am far from certain to have committed. The second driver has told me that, although he may also have been the driver at the time of the alleged offence, he is far from certain of this too and would like to see evidence that it was him - and not me - that was driving at the time. Please provide any relevant photographs that will help us establish who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence. Once established, the confirmed driver can then decide how they wish to deal with your intention to prosecute. so following reciet of the pics, did you reply again ideally you should have done so naming both possible drivers it theoretically isnt to late to relise which one it was, if something triggered your memory even now, but it may take some to get the mags to accept you couldnt have done so within 28 days Subsection 2 of Section 172 RTA says: QUOTE the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police But s4 says: QUOTE A person shall not be guilty of an offence if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was. There's no exact definition of 'reasonable diligence' but you will have to convince the Mags. Just asking for photo's alone is unlikely to cut it. (Mobile) Phone records are another possibility. You are probably already aware of the sentence imposed for a s172 offence? yes but i dont thik he has replied at all -------------------- jobo
anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year, |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:42
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
As an aside, 26 days is fairly normal and would almost certainly imply the first NIP was issued within the required 14 days. Personally, I don't think that letter will have assisted.
Warwickshire Police have ignored my appeal on these grounds and have informed me that the matter will be referred to the magistrates court. There isn't an 'appeal' process at this stage. It's a notice and a request - failing to provide drivers details almost always ends up in a summons. This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:45 -------------------- 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, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:43
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation. I understand, but I'm not running a corporation. These trips were made in a private capacity and it's unreasonable to expect someone to keep a log book for these purposes. I don't think you do understand !!!! Company or private ...you still require to know who was responsible for the alleged contravention . If you had what I suggested you wouldn't be in here asking for advice. What is unreasonable about it ? NO your NOT My NOT? OK how would you prefer I had worded it . :-) The fact still remains ..if folk sharing cars put their brains in to gear and kept a note of who was driving such a mess would not happen and they would save themselves a load of grief .. Instead we have the usual load of replies in here with respondents twisting ,turning and jumping through hoops to sort the situation . Everyone knows there are cameras etc round every corner ready to bite them on the bum so be ready for the consequences with a bit of preparation. . This post has been edited by StuartBu: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:55 |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:47
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 780 Joined: 25 Jul 2013 Member No.: 63,869 |
Have you checked your mob phone logs, as the passenger may have made or received calls, where as the driver may not have and would have received only. I know bluetooth / hands free etc, but may be a thought worth pursuing
This post has been edited by jewels2009: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:48 |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 13:58
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,529 Joined: 5 May 2011 From: UK Member No.: 46,399 |
QUOTE That camera is literally at the half way mark between London and Manchester (where we usually swap seats) The NIP will have the location of the camera. Is it before or after the services you stop at? Who normally keeps the car at home? Who normally sets off driving. Who fuels it? What was the reason for the trip? Was there anyone who saw who was driving when you set off or arrived? There are numerous similar questions YOU will be asked at court so the bench can establish if you exercised reasonable diligence. You appear to be saying that as the photo doesn't help you don't know and can't work it out. A court is unlikely to accept such an assertion without details of why. A 3 week delay from the incident to the NIP for a journey which is not a daily occurrence is not so far away that someone couldn't work out who was driving. Your voluntary work is irrelevant and the courts will not take it into account in either their deliberations as to guilt or their penalty should you be convicted. The problem is yours not your friends I'm afraid. |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:04
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22,678 Joined: 23 Mar 2009 Member No.: 27,239 |
You say it was almost exactly where you change places so I assume you changed at the services
Is the location before or after the services ? Do you have a regular routine regarding who starts the journey ? I'm not at all surprised at the police reply given the tone of your letter As you're still within the deadline to reply to the S172 request, put some more effort into it Who is more likely to be driving at the speed ? Can you agree to flip a coin ? What does anyone think of a reply along the lines : If the location is North of the services, the driver was X If it was South of the services, the driver was Y |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:13
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,529 Joined: 5 May 2011 From: UK Member No.: 46,399 |
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 14:25
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
Although the wording of the statute is that you have to exercise reasonable diligence in identifying the driver, in practice that means everything possible as courts have become very cynical about the defence that there were two possible drivers. sgtdixie has suggested some possible lines of approach which you should follow. You should understand that you are very likely to be convicted of the s.172 offence unless you provide the name of a single driver, and the penalty is 6 points and a large income related fine, plus high costs, so you need to make every effort.
You seem to be hoping from salvation from the 14 days rule, but that applies only to the speeding offence, not the s.172. You misunderstand the burden of proof there, you would have to prove the first NIP was not served within 14 days, rather than the prosecution proving that it was. -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 15:38
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,226 Joined: 3 Sep 2007 Member No.: 13,453 |
No-one is suggesting you're not telling the truth, but a thorough 'examination' on here is a good 'rehearsal' for the summons you may soon receive, so look at these questions how a cynical magistrate might view the 9th person of the day......
An adult can usually recall detail from a few weeks ago An adult driver can easily drive from London to Manchester without changing drivers (c200 miles) We're creatures of habit so someone will have taken the car home the previous day and therefore been in the drivers seat at the outset. Although there's a few services on the M1/M6 there aren't that many as as it's a journey you did many times, it's not unreasonable to assume any driver change was done at the same location. You - as the keeper - are facing c£500 fine and an insurance crippling 6 points. This wasn't a business trip so whoever was with you is in theiry a friend - between two friends I suspect there will be an expectation of beibg able to deduce who was driving. Which of you would ignore temporary restrictions by such a large degree? Good luck, you're facing an uphill - but not impossible - task. The stakes are high vs a simple SAC or 3 points? -------------------- www.BMWEnthusiasts.co.uk
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:14
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Ok to clarify the 28 days are gone and your now awaiting a summons yes but i dont thik he has replied at all Just to clarify, NIP recieved 11/11, the 28 days are still 'live' and haven't expired. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:15
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
If JJ sees this thread, i predict his response will be:
"If i offered you £1M to come up with the driver, i dare say you'd work it out." -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2013 - 16:28
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,506 Joined: 9 Jan 2008 From: manchester Member No.: 16,521 |
Doesn't help you but yet another case where keeping a log of times,dates and places would have avoided this situation. I understand, but I'm not running a corporation. These trips were made in a private capacity and it's unreasonable to expect someone to keep a log book for these purposes. I don't think you do understand !!!! Company or private ...you still require to know who was responsible for the alleged contravention . If you had what I suggested you wouldn't be in here asking for advice. What is unreasonable about it ? NO your NOT My NOT? OK how would you prefer I had worded it . :-) The fact still remains ..if folk sharing cars put their brains in to gear and kept a note of who was driving such a mess would not happen and they would save themselves a load of grief .. Instead we have the usual load of replies in here with respondents twisting ,turning and jumping through hoops to sort the situation . Everyone knows there are cameras etc round every corner ready to bite them on the bum so be ready for the consequences with a bit of preparation. . i would have preferred you word it in a way that was actually TRUE ? -------------------- jobo
anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year, |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 06:29 |