NIP received . 35 in a 30. |
NIP received . 35 in a 30. |
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 ! |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 14:27
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:05
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 15 Joined: 15 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,548 |
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 |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 22:06
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 - 08:45
Post
#26
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
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 __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
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. |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Feb 2018 - 17:26
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:47
Post
#32
|
|
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). 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
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 10:54
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
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. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 12:48
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
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? -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 17:23
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
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 |
|
|
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 - 17:40
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
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. -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 23 Feb 2018 - 11:14
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:34 |