PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] Van at 70, should have been 60. What to do?
Ralphelvis
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 20:44
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,813



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - December 2018
Date of the NIP: - 31 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 33 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A92 Lochgelly to Cowndenbeath Road
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - Works Van
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 - Driver was my 17 year old son, passed test in July and got a job which requires van driving. Came off M90 motorway on slip road and sets cruice control at 70mph thinkiing that's the limit, but as he's driving a van he should have reduced to 60mph. He should have known, but didn't.

2 questions
a) is it worth returning the NIP unsigned and going down that route?
b) If we send it back signed, do we then have to take a COFP or could we ignore that and wait for Procurator Fiscal to call a case in court where we could go and say 'please don't prosecute, foolish but genuine mistake where new driver continued driving at motorway limit, needs a clean licence for job'. My gut feeling is that it'll either be ignored because it's just 1 mph over the chief constable's discretionary threshold, or it'll really irk some PF who thinks we are chancers. Is there any point in going down this route?


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
Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - Yes
Although you are not the Registered Keeper, were you the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - Scotland

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    Depending on your circumstances, you may wish to consider completing the form, but returning it unsigned. By doing so there is a risk that you will be convicted under s172, which would attract 6 penalty points and a fine; in most cases this is likely to exceed the penalty for the speeding offence itself.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 20:44:47 +0000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 20:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:02
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



Enforcement starts at 110% + 2mph, so in a 60, that's 68. The PF won't drop the case just because you say pretty please. If your son chooses court, it'll go to trial.

Who is the NIP addressed to? You or your son? Presumably your son, but you say the NIP was addressed to you.. He (not you) can either go signed, or not. His decision.

This post has been edited by peterguk: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:04


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:06
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,462
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:02) *
Who is the NIP addressed to? You or your son? Presumably your son, but you say the NIP was addressed to you.. He (not you) can either go signed, or not. His decision.

If the OP is the RK, why can't the OP name the son, but not sign the form?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ralphelvis
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:09
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,813



Thanks
NIP was originally sent to employer and registered keeper, who named my son, who has now been sent an NIP.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:17
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:06) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:02) *
Who is the NIP addressed to? You or your son? Presumably your son, but you say the NIP was addressed to you.. He (not you) can either go signed, or not. His decision.

If the OP is the RK, why can't the OP name the son, but not sign the form?


He could do. But post wasn't clear who NIP was addressed to and my reply was also not as clear as it could have been either.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 22:42
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,462
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Ralphelvis @ Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:09) *
Thanks
NIP was originally sent to employer and registered keeper, who named my son, who has now been sent an NIP.

Right, then your son can go down the unsigned route.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:17
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,258
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Does unsigned help him if the police can produce the employer's S172 response as evidence that he was the driver ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:02
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,462
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Redivi @ Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:17) *
Does unsigned help him if the police can produce the employer's S172 response as evidence that he was the driver ?

The police normally want a s172 signed by the accused, the reason is that you can't dispute your own s172, at least not without implicitly admitting a different and far more serious offence. With a third party s172, a defendant might simply say in evidence that they weren't driving, the author of the s172 wouldn't be in court to give evidence and absent any other evidence of who was driving, the court would have to accept that the accused might be innocent.

The police could press ahead with just a third party s172 but this is unlikely: while Scotland doesn't follow the CPS code for Crown prosecutors, I believe they follow similar principles and I suspect the PF would say there's insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:03


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:41
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,359
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Unless the employer was sat in the passenger seat, their evidence would only be hearsay at best, guesswork at worst, there is also no corroboration which is kind of crucial in Scotland (except for the driver’s own signed response).


--------------------
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
Ralphelvis
post Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 22:17
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,813



Hi
I'd be glad of some further advice.

We sent back the NIP at 28 days unsigned. It was sent back. We sent it again unsigned after another 28 days.

Shortly after 4th March (date on letter) we received a COFP which states 'I refer to previous communications whereby you admitted being the driver of a vehicle as detected below:-' followed by details of the offence.

Does this mean it's game over on this attempt at going unsigned?

If it is game over, would it be a foolish risk to think that Procurator Fiscal might not be bothered with the case as it's 10mph over the limit for the vehicle, or 2mph over the discretionary threshold?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 09:02
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,359
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



How does it mean game over for unsigned?

Where is the evidence of drivers ID?

Saying they have it, and actually having it are not the same thing!


--------------------
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
Ralphelvis
post Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 10:34
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 9 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,813



I thought it would be game over because they've not done as expected and come round to pressure into signing an S172, or admit under caution or with two witnesses (Scotland) that he's the driver, but gone straight to the next stage.

So the way this would continue if we don't pay the fixed penalty fine and take the points are
1. Report gets sent to procurator fiscal (PF)
2. PF calls a case
3. We go, but say we didn't pay the cofp because we had not signed the form to admit who was driving.
4. PF says 'is this you driving at 70 in a 60?' or words to that effect
5. Have to tell the truth
6. PF says you pains in the neck should have just paid it and now you're fined double

or
1. Report gets sent to PF
2. PF says 2mph over the discretionary threshold, we're too busy with dealing with stabbings, let this one go.

My understanding is that we're now in the situation where either of the above outcomes will happen. Happy to be corrected if wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 12:29
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,359
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



When it gets to court the issue is was the original offence committed or not (and can be proven beyond reasonable doubt), the CoFP is a nullity, so your 3 is meaningless.

Why do you think they haven't 'done as expected' (sic), a CoFP is common for unsigned.

You only have to tell the truth in court if you're a witness in the stand, there will be no need to be a witness, as the defence you just ask where is their proof of driver ID.

The Sheriff sets the fine not the PF!

or 2. won't happen.

Nope outcome 3 is most likely, they will threaten and bluff and bluster but will never see the inside of a courtroom, that's how the other cases on here (which you can search for and read up on) play out.



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

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: Wednesday, 22nd May 2019 - 05:53
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.