And now for something completely different, [Don't try this at home kids] |
Helping the motorist get justice 
Helping the motorist get justice
And now for something completely different, [Don't try this at home kids] |
 Sat, 16 Dec 2006 - 21:32
Post
#1
|
|||||||||
 Member  Group:  Life MemberPosts: 24,220 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624  |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Thames Valley Police Date of the offence: - November 2006 Date of the NIP: - 7 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 8 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A4010 Chapel lane, High Wycombe Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First 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 - If you drive past enough speed cameras at or above the threshold speed, eventually one will flash at you NIP Wizard Responses These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation: Have you received a NIP? - Yes Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes Were you driving? - Let's assume I was NIP Wizard Recommendation Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v1.0.2: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:01:54 +0000 *** 10/11/2006 - Received a NIP with a pre-written s.9 statement and an amusing collection of fairy tales
*** 06/12/2006 Ticked "Yes" to being the driver and details being correct, DVLA licence. Put in my licence number and DoB, but "forgot" to sign part 1 or complete the statement of truth. Posted the partially completed form. *** 16/12/2006 - Received a letter (with a complete set of NIP/s.172/fairy tales) asking me to complete part 1 so that they can send me a COFP.
Last time I received a NIP, I returned it unsigned, had a protracted exchange of surreal letters, then got bored and asked Uncle Bryan to "put up or shut up". He chose to shut up. This time, I'm just going to send him an appropriately worded letter, implying that I want this case to go to court, and I expect him to bottle out (again). It doesn't matter whether or not the law actually says that I must sign the form if you can bluff the scammers with a bit of reverse psychology  *** 10/01/2007 - Sent the following letter to "Uncle Bryan" QUOTE Dear Mr Pritchard, ***Thankyou for your letter dated 14/12/2006 (DocRef XXXXXX, FPN XXXXXX) in which you yet again share your somewhat individual interpretation of section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I reject your assertion that I have failed to comply with my statutory obligations with regard to your combined NIP/s.172 notice dated 09/11/2006. If having taken legal advice, you truly believe that I am guilty of an offence under section 172(3), I would suggest that it would be right and proper for you to prosecute me for that offence. If however, you do not believe that I am guilty of such an offence, I would suggest that your conduct in sending the letter was at best improper. In any case, I would ask that you refrain from sending me any further letters implying that I have committed a criminal offence, and/or using any form of threat, implied or otherwise, in an attempt to coerce me into any particular course of action that I might no otherwise take, with respect to this NIP/s.172, other than those that might be necessary for the conclusion of this matter - e.g. a summons or an apology. I would consider any such letters to constitute harassment within the meaning of the Prohibition of Harassment Act 1997 and malicious communications within the meaning of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Yours Sincerely, Me 16/01/2007 Received a further reminder offering another 14 days to comply
*** 10/02/2007 Received another letter from Uncle Bryan QUOTE Dear Sir, I refer to the Notice of Intended Prosecution/Section 172 Road Traffic Act, 1988 form sent to you recently in relation to an alleged traffic offence detected by camera technology. Guidance issued by the Home office makes it clear that such information must be provided on the driver/keeper statement, which should be completed and signed by the addressee. As we have not received a satisfactory response regarding this matter, in that you have failed to sign the Section 172 form. I would inform you that the file has now been passed to the Summons Production team and the case will be dealt with by a Magistrates Court. A summons will be issued against the registered keeper or nominated driver of the vehicle. The offence for which the summons will be issued is detailed at the foot of the Notice of Intended Prosecution form. (Failing to provide information, contrary to Section 172 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988). Unfortunately, no further correspondence will be entered into regarding this matter. Yours faithfully <pp squiggle> Bryan C Pritchard Manager "Yebbut, no but, shut up, the Home Office made me do it, I can't believe you said that" *** 18/05/2007 Still haven't received the summons promised more than 3 months ago, and my other case has been dropped, so I decided it was appropriate to give Uncle Bryan a little nudge... QUOTE Dear Mr. Pritchard, On April 17th 2007 you wrote to me (Document Ref: 611767) informing me inter alia that I would be summoned to a Magistrates Court to answer a charge of failing to provide the driver's details in respect of an alleged speeding offence on January 20th 2007, and that no further correspondence would be entered into regarding that matter. On April 27th 2007 you wrote to me (Document Ref: 625105) informing me inter alia that you had decided not to pursue a prosecution against me. I am finding it difficult to reconcile the 2 letters without coming to the conclusion that the earlier letter was sent maliciously in order to cause me distress and that you had no intention of prosecuting me. I note that you also decided it was not appropriate to prosecute me in 2005 with respect to an almost identical case (Notice No. 17912598, Document Ref: 109518). Whilst I suspect that most people potentially facing a prosecution would simply be grateful that they had been spared the ordeal, my over-riding concern is that I appear to have been blatantly lied to repeatedly, by someone acting in an official capacity on behalf of Thames Valley Police. However, I feel that it is appropriate to allow you the opportunity to explain your actions before I decide whether to make an official complaint. If you wish to do so, I suggest that you respond within 14 days of the date of this letter. Whilst not directly connected with the above, I note that you wrote to me on February 9th 2007 (Notice No. 21867836, Document Ref: 551818) informing me inter alia that I would be summoned to a Magistrates Court to answer a charge of failing to provide the driver's details in respect of an alleged speeding offence on November 2nd 2006, and that no further correspondence would be entered into regarding that matter. That was over 3 months ago and I still have not received the summons. Can you confirm that that letter was not also substantially untrue, and that the summons will be served in due course? *** 14/06/2007 N.B. By my reckoning, the s.172 timed out on 08/06/2007. Still no response from Uncle Bryan to my polite letter. Phoned TVP scammers to get the status of my case - status is that they last wrote to me on 09/02/2007... Phoned Banbury mags, spoke to Caroline in listings - nothing in my name (since 2005). Not exactly a huge surprise, but still a disappointment. This post has been edited by andy_foster: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 - 09:57 -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||
 |
| Advertisement |
Sat, 16 Dec 2006 - 21:32
Post
#
|
 Advertise here! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2006 - 22:48
Post
#2
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 2,012 Joined: 28 Jun 2004 From: High Wycombe Member No.: 1,353 |
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 16 Dec 2006 - 21:32)  Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A4010 Chapel lane, High Wycombe I go past this camera every day on my way to work. It's carefully sited on the down slope of a dip in the road, so if you approach it at 30mph, your car will speed up going down the dip and past the camera, unless you dab the brakes. No self respecting local would ever get flashed by that one, it's only folks who ain't from round these parts what get caught.
-------------------- We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0. |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 01:11
Post
#3
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 82 Joined: 27 Sep 2006 Member No.: 7,908 |
Speed camers!
the new Poker! All in! |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 09:00
Post
#4
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 382 Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Member No.: 359 |
I was just wondering how this was going?
Can I be your McKenzie friend ? :-) WTF -------------------- Points on License: 0
Bad Boy - and proud of it Fought : 6 Won : 5 (to be fair - 3 were away games) Lost : 1 (away game) Games Abandoned (my side folded rather than proceed to trial - all away games) : 2 Home game in progress : 0 Away Games in Progress: 0 NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents". |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 09:20
Post
#5
|
|
|
Member Group: Life MemberPosts: 24,220 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Ignoring the fact that this won't get to court, of course you can.
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Dec 2006 - 16:53
Post
#6
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 397 Joined: 11 Sep 2005 From: Lancs Member No.: 3,758 |
QUOTE "By complying with this instruction you may be eligible for the offer of a fixed penalty" Priceless!  Whats next....raffle tickets? 
-------------------- "Smoke me a Kipper........I`ll be back for Breakfast"
|
|
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Jan 2007 - 05:04
Post
#7
|
|
|
Member Group: Life MemberPosts: 24,220 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Having been woken this morning by an unmarked silver Omega playing with his siren at some ungodly hour, I decided to start composing my response to Uncle Bryan's reminder letter.
QUOTE Dear Mr Pritchard, Thankyou for your letter dated 14/12/2006 (DocRef XXXXXX, FPN XXXXXX) in which you yet again share your somewhat individual interpretation of section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I reject your assertion that I have failed to comply with my statutory obligations with regard to your combined NIP/s.172 notice dated 09/11/2006. If having taken legal advice, you truly believe that I am guilty of an offence under section 172(3), I would suggest that it would be right and proper for you to prosecute me for that offence. If however, you do not believe that I am guilty of such an offence, I would suggest that your conduct in sending the letter was at best improper. In any case, I would ask that you refrain from sending me any further letters implying that I have committed a criminal offence, and/or using any form of threat, implied or otherwise, in an attempt to coerce me into any particular course of action that I might no otherwise take, with respect to this NIP/s.172, other than those that might be necessary for the conclusion of this matter – e.g. a summons or an apology. I would consider any such letters to constitute harassment within the meaning of the Prohibition of Harassment Act 1997 and malicious communications within the meaning of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. Yours Sincerely, Me Any thoughts/suggestions? The plan is that he thinks I'm really up for going to court (and presumably have a viable defence - which would cause him major problems), and therefore drops it immediately. I had originally intended to taunt him with the impending judgement from the European Court of Human Rights - e.g. "if you want to prosecute me, best you do it before Strasbourg over-rules s.172 and you're out of a job" - partly because he might then actually summon me as a "parting shot", and the less I hold back from my driving principles, the more he might actually think I could win in court. Also, if he doesn't do anything for a while, chances are Mr Francis will come to the rescue. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Jan 2007 - 08:57
Post
#8
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 574 Joined: 29 Dec 2005 From: UK Member No.: 4,510 |
QUOTE (andy_foster) Dear Mr Pritchard, Thankyou for your letter dated 14/12/2006... Paaaaa!  The best (draft) letter to scammer I have ever seen! Send it... go on!
|
|
|
|
|
Wed, 10 Jan 2007 - 10:27
Post
#9
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 176 Joined: 23 Jun 2005 From: Hertfordshire Member No.: 3,239 |
QUOTE (andy) but "forgot" to sign part 1 or complete the statement of truth. Posted the partially completed form on December 6th. eh ? I though all responses has to be signed, hence the PACE statment ? Why are you sure that this won't end in court ? Or am I being thick ? (which is quite possible  )Either way, hats of to you Andy
-------------------- | NIP wizard | FAQs |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2007 - 11:16
Post
#10
|
|
|
Member Group: Life MemberPosts: 24,220 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Another reminder received [first post updated].
Either my letter was lost/delayed in the post in TVP scammers are less than ruthlessly efficient. Hmm, wonder which... -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2007 - 17:34
Post
#11
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 5,109 Joined: 16 Dec 2003 From: Manchester Member No.: 675 |
Emmmm.
QUOTE Message from the dark side you have!
-------------------- Chris
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Bush Acoustic Music Club Acoustic Folk at the Nursery Inn Tameside folk concerts |
|
|
|
|
Tue, 16 Jan 2007 - 18:29
Post
#12
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 142 Joined: 10 May 2006 From: Watford Member No.: 5,662 |
Nice one Andy - like your style
I think you should put that letter as a sticky
|
|
|
|
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2007 - 13:16
Post
#13
|
|
 Member Group: Bad Boyz & GirlzPosts: 794 Joined: 15 Mar 2004 Member No.: 995 |
QUOTE e.g. a summons or an apology You sir are what they refer to as a troublemaker !?!
-------------------- "... and if I may put it to you, sometimes weasel words are used so that unless you ask the right question, you don't get the answer. Do you follow what I am saying here? Do you follow that?"
|
|
|
|
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2007 - 08:43
Post
#14
|
|
|
Member Group: Life MemberPosts: 24,220 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Uncle Bryan has now promised me a summons for s.172. First post updated.
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
|
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2007 - 09:26
Post
#15
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 3,410 Joined: 14 Nov 2004 From: Inside somewhere ;-) Member No.: 1,871 |
QUOTE A summons will be issued against the registered keeper or nominated driver of the vehicle. The offence for which the summons will be issued is detailed at the foot of the Notice of Intended Prosecution form. (Failing to provide information, contrary to Section 172 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988). Er, Yebbut nobody has been "nominated" They can't have been, thats why S172  I'll give you this, I love the Yebbut the Home Office says........ This post has been edited by Insider: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 - 09:27 -------------------- Regards, Insider
Forum Moderator Your Help & Assistance Required Please sign the SafeSpeed online petition against Speed Cameras and make your views known as a motorist - CLICK HERE Please sign the online petition against road pricing/tolls and make your views known as a motorist - CLICK HERE |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 18 May 2007 - 14:07
Post
#16
|
|
|
Member Group: Life MemberPosts: 24,220 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Sent letter to Uncle Bryan. First post updated
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 18 May 2007 - 17:03
Post
#17
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,012 Joined: 28 Jun 2004 From: High Wycombe Member No.: 1,353 |
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 18 May 2007 - 15:07) Sent letter to Uncle Bryan. First post updated A quality letter!!! Their reaction when opening that envelope would probably make good viewing on YouTube, pity we won't get to see it. -------------------- We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0. |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 18 May 2007 - 18:50
Post
#18
|
|
|
Member Group: Life MemberPosts: 711 Joined: 11 Aug 2004 From: Somewhere in Paradise.... NOT. Member No.: 1,508 |
Strewth.... you have some large cojones my friend.... this type of 'badger baiting' can get you into bad books..........!!
Your apparent confidence is impressive. The first round is definitely on me if we ever get to meet at the bar in a suitable hostelry - even if this all unwinds against you - in tribute to your indefatigable defiance!!! 
-------------------- "I love it.... I need it..... I bleed it.....
Eight cylinders, all mine.... Alright, hold tight, I'm a highway star......" bleeooowwrrgghhhh!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 18 May 2007 - 19:22
Post
#19
|
|
 Member Group: Life MemberPosts: 703 Joined: 14 Dec 2004 From: Bristol Member No.: 2,032 |
Maybe, just maybe, Uncle Brian will begin to understand what it is like to be on the receiving end
|
|
|
|
|
Fri, 18 May 2007 - 20:16
Post
#20
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 56,261 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Well if they havne't laid papers for speeding, its either too late, or just about, about a month left for them to put up or shut up on the S172...
Good game, good game.... Simon -------------------- 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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Tuesday, 16th April 2024 - 16:48 |
