PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] I blame the council.
soulman3333
post Sat, 24 Aug 2019 - 22:27
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 24 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,407



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - July 2019
Date of the NIP: - 5 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 7 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - stretton road much wenlock shropshire
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
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 - The road drops from a NSL to 30MPH well before any street lighting. There are 30MPH posts but the nearside is totally hidden by overgrown hedge and the offside is 95% covered so that you can only see it when crossing it. There are "tigers teeth" lines on the road and a 30MPH but only at the point where the 30MPH signs are. I was doing 38MPH but the police motorcyclist could have zapped me at the point of crossing the line as it were.

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)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also 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? - England

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.

    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: Sat, 24 Aug 2019 22:27:39 +0000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 35)
Advertisement
post Sat, 24 Aug 2019 - 22:27
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
TryOut
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 10:53
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,734



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 10:55) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 09:32) *
the court might regard the 30mph roundel on the road and the close view to the sign at the RHS as adequate guidance.

Do you have an authority that says that the court can take into account the sign painted on the road when assessing adequate guidance?

TSRGD 2016 Schedule 10 has the sign diagram 1065 when used with an upright sign diagram 670 as a speed limit sign at the commencement of a limit. It doesn't say it has to be used in conjunction with 2 upright signs, only "An upright sign".
Or do you mean by "an authority" that explains how a court has made this interpretation in the past. A roundel and one upright sign is provided for in the regulations, why ask a court for a wafty interpretation when the regulation is clear enough?
Maybe you think the 1065 roundel is just a decoration for artistic highways authorities to paint on the road at their whim and it has no real meaning.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 11:08
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,165
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (TryOut @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 11:53) *
TSRGD 2016 Schedule 10 has the sign diagram 1065 when used with an upright sign diagram 670 as a speed limit sign at the commencement of a limit. It doesn't say it has to be used in conjunction with 2 upright signs, only "An upright sign".
Or do you mean by "an authority" that explains how a court has made this interpretation in the past. A roundel and one upright sign is provided for in the regulations, why ask a court for a wafty interpretation when the regulation is clear enough?
Maybe you think the 1065 roundel is just a decoration for artistic highways authorities to paint on the road at their whim and it has no real meaning.

It’s a simple question - do you have an authority (meaning, from the High Court up) that says that a court can take into account the roundel painted on the road when determining whether adequate guidance of a speed limit has been given or not? It’s ok for you to say “yes, here it is” or “no”. I’m well aware of what the law says and I understand your argument about it - however, that does not mean that you are right and so I am asking, quite reasonably, whether you have an authority to support your argument or not.

I’ve expressed no view whatsoever on what I think the 1065 roundel is for - keep your opinions of what I may or may not think to yourself, particularly when expressed in a perjorative manner.


--------------------
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
The Rookie
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 11:26
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,446
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



In Coombes the court specifically stated
"This seems to me to be an assessment by the court of the cumulative effect of the roadside signs and roundels. The court made no explicit finding as to the precise location where the appellant had been recorded as travelling over the speed limit. Nor is there a finding that this location was any substantial distance from the start of the relevant stretch. In these unusual circumstances it seems to me impossible to do anything other than to conclude that in the appellant's case the requirement I have described was not met. "

Coombes seems to consider the Roundels as part of the signage that would give adequate guidance (though not necessarily right from the start of the limit due to the shorter distance away when they can be read as compared to vertical signage) without explicitly stating it.


--------------------
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
TryOut
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 12:40
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,734



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 12:08) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 11:53) *
TSRGD 2016 Schedule 10 has the sign diagram 1065 when used with an upright sign diagram 670 as a speed limit sign at the commencement of a limit. It doesn't say it has to be used in conjunction with 2 upright signs, only "An upright sign".
Or do you mean by "an authority" that explains how a court has made this interpretation in the past. A roundel and one upright sign is provided for in the regulations, why ask a court for a wafty interpretation when the regulation is clear enough?
Maybe you think the 1065 roundel is just a decoration for artistic highways authorities to paint on the road at their whim and it has no real meaning.

It’s a simple question - do you have an authority (meaning, from the High Court up) that says that a court can take into account the roundel painted on the road when determining whether adequate guidance of a speed limit has been given or not? It’s ok for you to say “yes, here it is” or “no”. I’m well aware of what the law says and I understand your argument about it - however, that does not mean that you are right and so I am asking, quite reasonably, whether you have an authority to support your argument or not.

I’ve expressed no view whatsoever on what I think the 1065 roundel is for - keep your opinions of what I may or may not think to yourself, particularly when expressed in a perjorative manner.

Does a court always need an authority from a higher court to make a decision based upon the law? A magistrates court can easily make an interpretation on the law as written; it doesn't need a high court authority to do so. If a high court authority exists that has already made the decision the magistrates could still decide not to follow that authority in the circumstances, they may well have their decision reversed or supported, but there isn't anything stopping them making a decision based upon the sign regulations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:30
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,165
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (TryOut @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 13:40) *
Does a court always need an authority from a higher court to make a decision based upon the law?


No but if one is purporting to give advice as to what the law is authorities are very useful in giving that advice. I take it from the above that you don’t have such an authority - which is fine, I merely asked.

QUOTE
A magistrates court can easily make an interpretation on the law as written; it doesn't need a high court authority to do so. If a high court authority exists that has already made the decision the magistrates could still decide not to follow that authority in the circumstances, they may well have their decision reversed or supported, but there isn't anything stopping them making a decision based upon the sign regulations.

Yes, I know how the courts work. If the magistrates decided not to follow clearly binding authority then this would be somewhat ill-advised on their part. It’s a bit of a facile argument to say, in effect, “well, the law may say that but the court could ignore it [but be overturned on appeal]”. As a matter of law, it is not open to a lower court to rule contrary to binding precedent - the fact that it can do so (but be subject to appeal) is not really the point.


--------------------
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
TryOut
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 19:22
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,734



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 16:30) *
QUOTE (TryOut @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 13:40) *
Does a court always need an authority from a higher court to make a decision based upon the law?


No but if one is purporting to give advice as to what the law is authorities are very useful in giving that advice. I take it from the above that you don’t have such an authority - which is fine, I merely asked.

QUOTE
A magistrates court can easily make an interpretation on the law as written; it doesn't need a high court authority to do so. If a high court authority exists that has already made the decision the magistrates could still decide not to follow that authority in the circumstances, they may well have their decision reversed or supported, but there isn't anything stopping them making a decision based upon the sign regulations.

Yes, I know how the courts work. If the magistrates decided not to follow clearly binding authority then this would be somewhat ill-advised on their part. It’s a bit of a facile argument to say, in effect, “well, the law may say that but the court could ignore it [but be overturned on appeal]”. As a matter of law, it is not open to a lower court to rule contrary to binding precedent - the fact that it can do so (but be subject to appeal) is not really the point.

Looking at the images the court doesn’t really need to refer to an authority to see that a driver would be guided in an adequate way that the limit was 30. As I wrote some time ago, the images the OP provides are too far away from the signs to be meaningful and fair.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 19:27
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,165
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (TryOut @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 20:22) *
Looking at the images the court doesn’t really need to refer to an authority to see that a driver would be guided in an adequate way that the limit was 30. As I wrote some time ago, the images the OP provides are too far away from the signs to be meaningful and fair.

So you say. At least we cleared up the authority question.

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 19:34


--------------------
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
Logician
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 21:17
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



The fact that special authority is required from the DfT when roundels are used on their own as repeaters, as for example in the New Forest, perhaps indicates that they are not regarded as adequate guidance even for that limited purpose in normal circumstances.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackcross
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 00:33
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 26 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,487



I’m not sure that case law or other authority will get anyone all the way home here, with all deference due to SP.

There is no serious dispute that a roundels exists, both on the road surface and on a sign.

The issue is, it seems to me, whether the court accepts that the roundel(s) would have been reasonably apparent to a motorist who was paying attention to their surroundings.

A roundel completely obscured by bushes is likely to be less persuasive than one standing clear of vegetation. Similarly a newly painted roundel on the road surface (we have a lot of ten round my way) is likely to be more persuasive than some faded relic of 2010...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 22:05
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,199
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 22:17) *
The fact that special authority is required from the DfT when roundels are used on their own as repeaters, as for example in the New Forest, perhaps indicates that they are not regarded as adequate guidance even for that limited purpose in normal circumstances.

We've had a similar point being made in the PCN forum, and I'm not sure it's very compelling. It suggests that a special authorisation from the SoS is somehow "less good" than a general authorisation under the current iteration of TSRGD. IMO it hardly matters if a sign is authorised by special or general authorisation, if it's authorised under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 then it's a lawful traffic sign and that's that.

Again with due reference to sp, I don't see any reason why a court would not take a painted and authorised road marking into account when determining whether a speed limit is correctly conveyed, it clearly seems to be relevant to the issues the court needs to determine.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 22:07


--------------------
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
southpaw82
post Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 10:13
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,165
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 23:05) *
Again with due reference to sp, I don't see any reason why a court would not take a painted and authorised road marking into account when determining whether a speed limit is correctly conveyed, it clearly seems to be relevant to the issues the court needs to determine.

I didn’t express an opinion one way or the other, I merely asked if the point had been decided by a higher court and got a very interesting [non]response.


--------------------
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
Logician
post Wed, 11 Sep 2019 - 12:00
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,215
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 23:05) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 22:17) *
The fact that special authority is required from the DfT when roundels are used on their own as repeaters, as for example in the New Forest, perhaps indicates that they are not regarded as adequate guidance even for that limited purpose in normal circumstances.
We've had a similar point being made in the PCN forum, and I'm not sure it's very compelling. It suggests that a special authorisation from the SoS is somehow "less good" than a general authorisation under the current iteration of TSRGD. IMO it hardly matters if a sign is authorised by special or general authorisation, if it's authorised under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 then it's a lawful traffic sign and that's that. Again with due reference to sp, I don't see any reason why a court would not take a painted and authorised road marking into account when determining whether a speed limit is correctly conveyed, it clearly seems to be relevant to the issues the court needs to determine.


I am not at all sure that "that's that". In Coombes one of the questions identified by the Crown Court for decision by the High Court was:

(5) Did the "30" roundels painted onto the road surface at the beginning of the restricted stretch of road constitute "signs" for the purposes of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and, if so, did that mean that the defence provided by s.85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 was not available to the Defendant (now Appellant)?

The defence case was:

18. Mr Cranfield recognises that the roundels cannot be said to have been in any way obscured. However, he points out that under the Directions, the relevant authority merely has a discretion to use the roundels in conjunction with the mandatory roadside signs. It follows, he submits, that they are irrelevant to the defence under s 85(4).

The prosecution case was:

In the present case the roundels had been lawfully placed in conjunction with the roadside signs. While it may have been difficult for the Appellant to see one of the roadside signs the Crown Court found that he should have seen the other roadside sign and there was no obstruction at all of the roundels painted on the road surface. Thus there were at least three signs which complied with the directions, and in those circumstances the appellant could not rely on s 85(4).

The conclusion of the court on this and other questions was "These questions do not call for answer on the facts of this case."

The main finding of the High Court in allowing the appeal was:

  1. In the present case the Crown Court found, in effect, that had the appellant been travelling at 40 m.p.h. as he approached the signs at the start of the relevant stretch, then if he had not had local knowledge he would not have had time to reduce his speed below 30 m.p.h. when he entered the relevant stretch. This seems to me to be an assessment by the court of the cumulative effect of the roadside signs and roundels. The court made no explicit finding as to the precise location where the appellant had been recorded as travelling over the speed limit. Nor is there a finding that this location was any substantial distance from the start of the relevant stretch. In these unusual circumstances it seems to me impossible to do anything other than to conclude that in the appellant's case the requirement I have described was not met.



  1. It follows that in my view the appeal must be allowed. It is unnecessary to determine whether it would be sufficient for a defendant to say in respect of one only of the roadside signs that it did not "indicate" the limit in the sense that I have described. Nor is it necessary to determine whether it would be sufficient that such a failure arose for reasons that might not reasonably be expected.



It therefore seems that the question of the effect of roundels has been raised but not fully resolved. The High Court did not overturn the fining of the Crown Court that one visible sign and the roundels together were not sufficient to convey adequate warning in this particular case but were not helped by the absence of any information about the exact position on the road that Mr Coombes was in when his speed was measured.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
soulman3333
post Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 12:47
Post #33


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 24 Aug 2019
Member No.: 105,407



Tryout said....
"As I wrote some time ago, the images the OP provides are too far away from the signs to be meaningful and fair."

Well I took the photos from a point that I considered to be the appropriate distance from the signs that, if they were visible, a normal driver would start to reduce speed. Even the first photo shows the approach of tigers teeth so they aren't that far away.

I had reduced my speed from NSL to 38MPH which is an indication that I was trying to obey the reduced limit but feel that if the signs had been visible at the point where a normally sighted driver would normally have first seen them, I would have managed to reduce my speed to 30MPH at the point of crossing the limit, not some yards later.

It's a strange case where we are expected not to start accelerating from a 30 into an NSL until we actually cross the boundary but expected to start decelerating some 100 yards or so BEFORE crossing the boundary when approaching a reduction of speed limit. It seems that the law is slanted this way in favour of the money makers, more so than common sense or road safety.

As I stated earlier, I'm not trying to get out of my responsibilities of doing the course/paying a fine but feel aggrieved that people are causing normally innocent motorists to become criminals by someone else's incompetence.

I have a police complaints form that I will be sending in complaining that the officer did not check the signs were visible on commencement of his duty, as he should have done and I am still looking into what redress I have against the council but have just come back from a holiday so haven't had much time recently.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 13:02
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,165
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (soulman3333 @ Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 13:47) *
It's a strange case where we are expected not to start accelerating from a 30 into an NSL until we actually cross the boundary but expected to start decelerating some 100 yards or so BEFORE crossing the boundary when approaching a reduction of speed limit.

huh.gif


--------------------
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
Jlc
post Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 13:11
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,349
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 14:02) *
QUOTE (soulman3333 @ Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 13:47) *
It's a strange case where we are expected not to start accelerating from a 30 into an NSL until we actually cross the boundary but expected to start decelerating some 100 yards or so BEFORE crossing the boundary when approaching a reduction of speed limit.

huh.gif

Doesn't seem strange to me either. How would one define the allowances to accelerate/decelerate?


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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 13:50
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,446
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 14:02) *
QUOTE (soulman3333 @ Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 13:47) *
It's a strange case where we are expected not to start accelerating from a 30 into an NSL until we actually cross the boundary but expected to start decelerating some 100 yards or so BEFORE crossing the boundary when approaching a reduction of speed limit.

huh.gif

Damn I near wet myself........ is this serious or are you trolling?


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

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: Wednesday, 18th September 2019 - 14:30
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.