PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP received . 35 in a 30.
jayen44
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 14:27
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,548



Hi all , not been here for a long time....

I have received a NIP for 35 mph in a 30 zone. This was apparently seen by 'manned equipment' .... ?

It states '' for the alleged offence of Exceed 30mph speed limit in contravention of a Local Traffic Order - manned equipment'' .

So..... Can I require them to provide photographic or video evidence to support their allegation ?? Also , from reading the accompanying letter
, it states ''Images of the offence will not be disclosed at this stage'' .... Why will they not provide proof of their claim ? Can I require them to
provide such information , as up to date calibration certificates etc etc ??

In my view , they not only are refusing to back up their claim , but they want one to self incriminate too !! Is that not an extremely one sided
manner in which to carry on ??

From the date / time of the alleged offence , it took them less than 48 hours to get a letter to me ! Chomping at the bit or what ? ;-)
In any event , I have zero money to be paying extortion attempts , having been out of work since june last year ! .... So ... how to proceed ??

Can I send them a letter explaining my present circumstances ? Will they even listen ? I just hate the one sided attitude of their communication !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 36)
Advertisement
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 14:27
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Ocelot
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 19:34
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,140
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
From: Surrey
Member No.: 1,326



As others have said, I'd accept the speed awareness course if I were you, which won't even get you any points (assuming you haven't done one in the last 3 years). It is a lot less hassle than a Court visit (or being shot).


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jayen44
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:05
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,548



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 18:11) *
QUOTE (jayen44 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:44) *
Can I request that they just send me to jail ??

You can request what you like but they won’t because they have no power to jail you for speeding. However, should you wilfully refuse to pay any fine imposed then they can jail you for that, which will wipe out the fine.

A point to note here: we are not agony aunts and unless other goings on in your life are legally relevant to your issue the official position is we’re not really interested. I mention this to highlight that you ought not to get your hopes up of any tea and sympathy, in the further hope that you don’t then react badly when you don’t get it. Equally, some posters ought to reflect that some comments here could be viewed as sanctimonious, and should I be in the wrong mood might result in bannings. The OP is apparently in a bad enough place as it is, they don’t need virtual finger wagging as well.




Southpaw ... I am well aware that you/this forum are not 'agony aunts'. I came here on this matter , to pick your legal brains , as it were , to ascertain if there might be a legal / lawful method of 'getting around' / nullifying this unnecessary penalty.
Simply pointing out the reality of my situation.
It would seem that there is not . So , unless my finances rapidly improve , it looks like jail may be the only option..... Still , as you say , 'you're not interested'.
I shall not clutter up your forum any further on this matter. Thank you.

This post has been edited by jayen44: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:45
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (jayen44 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:05) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 18:11) *
QUOTE (jayen44 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:44) *
Can I request that they just send me to jail ??

You can request what you like but they won’t because they have no power to jail you for speeding. However, should you wilfully refuse to pay any fine imposed then they can jail you for that, which will wipe out the fine.

A point to note here: we are not agony aunts and unless other goings on in your life are legally relevant to your issue the official position is we’re not really interested. I mention this to highlight that you ought not to get your hopes up of any tea and sympathy, in the further hope that you don’t then react badly when you don’t get it. Equally, some posters ought to reflect that some comments here could be viewed as sanctimonious, and should I be in the wrong mood might result in bannings. The OP is apparently in a bad enough place as it is, they don’t need virtual finger wagging as well.




Southpaw ... I am well aware that you/this forum are not 'agony aunts'. I came here on this matter , to pick your legal brains , as it were , to ascertain if there might be a legal / lawful method of 'getting around' / nullifying this unnecessary penalty.
Simply pointing out the reality of my situation.
It would seem that there is not . So , unless my finances rapidly improve , it looks like jail may be the only option..... Still , as you say , 'you're not interested'.
I shall not clutter up your forum any further on this matter. Thank you.

I’d urge you to reread my post in the spirit it was intended.


--------------------
Moderator

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
Churchmouse
post Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:06
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 15:33) *
Essentially it is 'self incrimination' but has jumped all the necessary hurdles as per the sticky here. Failing to name the driver will net 6 points and a larger fine.

Thank you for not perpetuating the nonsense that it isn't 'self incrimination'. Obviously, it is exactly that. However, the courts in this country, and the ECHR, have decided that it is expedient to compel a "little bit" of self-incrimination, sometimes, if there's a good reason.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 08:41
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



It's not self incrimination, it is admitting no offence, it is supplying evidence as to the driver identity of a vehicle whose driver is alleged to have committed an offence , nothing more.

If the case cannot be proven reference that alleged offence then it was never nor ever could be self incrimination.


--------------------
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
Fredd
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 08:45
Post #26


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 08:41) *
It's not self incrimination, it is admitting no offence, it is supplying evidence as to the driver identity of a vehicle whose driver is alleged to have committed an offence , nothing more.

Yes, that's the legal fiction, which has been adopted for purely pragmatic, and understandable, reasons. It's also complete nonsense.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:09
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



It is a nonsense. It is clearly a statement made tending to show that the maker is guilty of an offence. An incriminating statement need not prove every element of the offence.


--------------------
Moderator

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
cp8759
post Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:42
Post #28


Member


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



On the flip side, the only alternatives are to either make traffic laws impossible to enforce where a police officer can't stop the driver at the time, or create a presumption in law that the RK was driving unless he names someone else (As many other countries do).


--------------------
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
Churchmouse
post Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 17:26
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:42) *
On the flip side, the only alternatives are to either make traffic laws impossible to enforce where a police officer can't stop the driver at the time, or create a presumption in law that the RK was driving unless he names someone else (As many other countries do).

Are those the "only alternatives"? Many countries seem to make do without perverting the course of logic or resulting in mayhem on the roads. The only thing this judicial fudge enabled was automated law enforcement--of which we now have more than enough, in my opinion.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 18:04
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



It is obviously a fudge because for other offences the police can't just ask if you were there, then if you refuse charge you with another offence which conveniently has double the sentence of the first offence.

Bearing in mind it has little use for more serious offences (where FTF would be a preferable option) it is essentially well meaning piece of legislation which has been roundly abused and used much more than was ever envisaged. Nothing will be done about it though as police and government are still gleeful about being allowed to keep it by ECHR in the first place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mozzer1975
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:31
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,400



what happened to the PACE witness statement of yesteryear? is this still a viable option?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:47
Post #32


Member


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



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 17:26) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:42) *
On the flip side, the only alternatives are to either make traffic laws impossible to enforce where a police officer can't stop the driver at the time, or create a presumption in law that the RK was driving unless he names someone else (As many other countries do).

Are those the "only alternatives"? Many countries seem to make do without perverting the course of logic or resulting in mayhem on the roads. The only thing this judicial fudge enabled was automated law enforcement--of which we now have more than enough, in my opinion.

--Churchmouse

So how do you propose to deal with an offence captured on camera of, say, a car going through a red light, where
a) There isn't an officer to stop the offending vehicle there and then, and
b) There isn't a clear photograph of the driver?

As I've said, most European countries seem to just assume the RK was driving unless he nominates someone else, I fail to see how that is any better than the s172 approach.


--------------------
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
peterguk
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:54
Post #33


Member


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



QUOTE (Mozzer1975 @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:31) *
what happened to the PACE witness statement of yesteryear? is this still a viable option?


A quick Google will tell you that option disappeared years ago.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 12:48
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:47) *
As I've said, most European countries seem to just assume the RK was driving unless he nominates someone else, I fail to see how that is any better than the s172 approach.


Actually I think it is much better in some circumstances, although most of the time it makes no difference.

1. The s.172 penalty is unrelated to the offence, which leads to unfortunate consequences: a) the penalty has to be set at a high level or for more serious offences it would be advantageous to take the s.172 penalty, so those who commit it carelessly or accidentally often suffer much more than they would for the underlying offence b) for very serious offences it is still advantageous to take the s.172 penalty and avoid the consequences. There is no support for varying the s.172 penalty to reflect the underlying offence.

2. Those RKs who do not know who was driving and are honest enough to say so, get clobbered with a very severe penalty. We know enough to advise always to nominate a single driver but there is of course no such advice given on the S.172 request and people continually fall into that trap.

3. Every week, very nearly every day, we have to advise people to go through the rigmarole of a stat dec to correct a situation that need not have arisen. How many more people simply accept a penalty because they have no advice to do otherwise?



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 17:23
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 13:48) *
3. Every week, very nearly every day, we have to advise people to go through the rigmarole of a stat dec to correct a situation that need not have arisen. How many more people simply accept a penalty because they have no advice to do otherwise?

As that is invariably due to non receipt of the letters, I’m not sure how that would be changed by the RK being liable as they still would miss the communication?


--------------------
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
Logician
post Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 17:40
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 17:23) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 13:48) *
3. Every week, very nearly every day, we have to advise people to go through the rigmarole of a stat dec to correct a situation that need not have arisen. How many more people simply accept a penalty because they have no advice to do otherwise?
As that is invariably due to non receipt of the letters, I’m not sure how that would be changed by the RK being liable as they still would miss the communication?


But the conviction and fine in their absence would be for offence actually committed, not a s.172 offence, so the points would be correct. Admittedly, they might still want to make a stat dec so that they could get the discount off the fine for a guilty plea, but they would not have to go through the rigmarole of attending court and doing the deal with the prosecutor. If people post here we can set them on the right course, but no doubt there are some who think that as they committed the index offence and did not identify the driver, they committed both offences and there is nothing for it but to take the points and fine for both.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:14
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:47) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 17:26) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 12:42) *
On the flip side, the only alternatives are to either make traffic laws impossible to enforce where a police officer can't stop the driver at the time, or create a presumption in law that the RK was driving unless he names someone else (As many other countries do).

Are those the "only alternatives"? Many countries seem to make do without perverting the course of logic or resulting in mayhem on the roads. The only thing this judicial fudge enabled was automated law enforcement--of which we now have more than enough, in my opinion.

--Churchmouse

So how do you propose to deal with an offence captured on camera of, say, a car going through a red light, where
a) There isn't an officer to stop the offending vehicle there and then, and
b) There isn't a clear photograph of the driver?

As I've said, most European countries seem to just assume the RK was driving unless he nominates someone else, I fail to see how that is any better than the s172 approach.

What is your definition of "most European countries", and which ones are they? The RAC seems to think that several I can recall, e.g., Germany and Italy, hold drivers responsible, like we do in the UK.

Yes, of course, automated prosecution is very handy for automated traffic enforcement, but that's not the normal way traffic laws are enforced (except maybe in the UK!)

--Churchmouse
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 - 08:34
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