Not sure who was driving Options

[Sloth15]

I’ve been very unlucky to receive two separate NIPs - I saw the second van and was waiting for that NIP but instead got one for the week prior AND the one I saw.

The first one however me and my husband we’re moving stuff out of a friends house down the road and taking it in turns so we have no idea who was driving at the last time and neither of us saw the van. I haven’t sent the NIP back yet as I don’t know what to do? In an ideal world it’ll have been him obviously but if it was me I’ll (un)happily take my punishment as it was my own fault.

What do we do to establish who was driving??

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

How long have you got to nominate?

Usual advise is to request a photo to assist in the identification. They don’t have to supply but often will - but bear in mind any photos are to identify the vehicle and the offence only.

[Sloth15]

How do I request a photograph, do I need to fill in the NIP still or write a separate letter?

It’s gone through my lease company then been sent to me. It says within 28 days of the service of the notice however no date on the envelope of letter!

[Jlc]

You can't fill in the NIP and ask for a photo...

Either call them up or write/e-mail depending on what contact details they have given.

Ok, when did you receive the request? Days or weeks ago?

[The Rookie]

Easy first step is to check your phone records, if either of you have an activity at about that time it may rule one or other in or out, card receipts can also be useful.

[BertB]

Easy first step is to check your phone records, if either of you have an activity at about that time it may rule one or other in or out, card receipts can also be useful.

As can your timeline on Google maps, if you have location tracking enabled on your phone.

[Redivi]

Use the contact details and ask for any photographs "to identify the driver"

If they don't help, do what you can using for example phone records as already suggested

If that doesn't help, decide who was more likely to be the driver
When all else fails, flip a coin

Whatever you do, name one person for each offence with no ifs or maybes
As long as there is one and only one name, the system is happy

Any other response will see you in court charged with the very nasty £500/6 points S172 offence instead of a day on a £100 course

There have been many threads where the OP was prosecuted because he tried to give the honest answer
A friend of mine was convicted for it

If you do find yourself naming two separate drivers, it's best if you can back it up
You don't want to turn a 3 points fixed penalty into a Chris Hulme-style PCJ offence

[Sloth15]

I sent a letter saying I was struggling to identify the driver and asking if they have any evidence which could assist. I sent this signed for and kept the receipt but only have two weeks to return the NIP and still haven’t had a reply. Should I send it back filling in part 5? My husband and I have checked phone records and neither of us communicated with anyone within twenty mins either side of the offence so still no further forward and not sure how else we would know without a picture

Please see the form attached below and also the question relating to this on the enclosed FAQ




This post has been edited by Sloth15: Wed, 15 May 2019 - 20:02

[Jlc]

Are you ok with it going to court?

We usually advise to avoid using the word 'evidence' but it's probably not fatal. The lack of supplied picture (it may not identify the driver anyway) alone will not amount to sufficient diligence.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 15 May 2019 - 20:09

[Sloth15]

Are you ok with it going to court?

We usually advise to avoid using the word 'evidence' but it's probably not fatal. The lack of supplied picture (it may not identify the driver anyway) alone will not amount to sufficient diligence.

I would like to avoid going to court if at all possible as I already am experiencing quite bad anxiety. If they have me as the keeper, will this resolve more quickly if I say it was me driving even though I can’t be sure or do I have to be 100% sure? I’d rather not due to my other outstanding NIP but as I first said if it was me I committed an offence and will accept the punishment accordingly

[Logician]

See the advice in post #7. Wait as long as you can for a photo, but do not risk exceeding the 28 days you have to reply. If no photo comes, name the most likely driver, but you must name a single driver unequivocally, otherwise a s.172 conviction is very likely, which is much worse than a simple speeding conviction.

You commit an offence if you deliberately name the wrong driver, but no offence naming the most likely driver even if that later proves to be wrong, but there is little chance of it being proved wrong, because if you cannot be certain of the driver, how can anyone else be?



This post has been edited by Logician: Wed, 15 May 2019 - 20:45

[NewJudge]

I sent a letter saying I was struggling to identify the driver and asking if they have any evidence which could assist. I sent this signed for and kept the receipt

I think you have possibly introduced a problem for yourself. Depending on the wording in your letter and their interpretation of it, the ticket office may have taken your letter as your response to the request for driver's details. If they have done that their next step will be to initiate court action for the offence of "Failing to Provide Driver's details". As already mentioned, if convicted this offence carries six points and a hefty fine. There is a defence which requires you to show that you did not know who was driving and could not, using reasonable diligence, find out. It is not an easy defence with which to succeed.

I would contact the ticket office to inform them that you are still making enquiries to establish who was driving. I would then make sure you make a timely and unequivocal reply as suggested by naming the most likely driver.

[The Rookie]

You commit an offence if you deliberately name the wrong driver, but no offence naming the most likely driver even if that later proves to be wrong

Naming the wrong driver is clearly an S172 offence?

That said if the possible drivers genuinely can’t work out who is driving from the available evidence it’s next to impossible anyone else will be able to beyond reasonable doubt.

[NewJudge]

Naming the wrong driver is clearly an S172 offence?

I suppose technically it is as the recipient failed to provide the driver's details. But I imagine (depending on the circumstances) a more likely charge to follow would be Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.

[Logician]

Naming the wrong driver is clearly an S172 offence?

I suppose technically it is as the recipient failed to provide the driver's details. But I imagine (depending on the circumstances) a more likely charge to follow would be Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice.

How can it be that if you name the driver you believe is most likely to have been driving? You are attempting to further the course of justice, although unsuccessfully.

[NewJudge]

How can it be that if you name the driver you believe is most likely to have been driving? You are attempting to further the course of justice, although unsuccessfully.

I thought Rookie was referring to deliberately naming somebody you know was not driving. Probably my misunderstanding.

[The Rookie]

It was, I was working on the basis that the ‘best guess’ was wrong, that would not be perverting but if it could be proven would be an S172 offence, noting that if the possible drivers couldn’t be sure it’s unlikely it could be proven anyway.

[Logician]

I am not convinced a statement naming the wrong driver would breach s.172, unless it was made knowingly and wilfully, which is the standard for perjury.

[The Rookie]

At risk of going off topic...

(2)Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a)the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police

So on the face of it giving the wrong details is not giving "such information as to the identity of the driver" as the person nominated wasn't the driver. I don't believe Mens rae is needed for that to be an offence.

I accept that you could read

(4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was

such that you could use the RD defence for naming the wrong driver, however I think you would struggle to convince a court that naming the wrong driver as opposed to know driver amounted to " could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was".

[andy_foster]

IMHO...

Technically, the course of justice would seem to align itself with the legal requirement under s. 172. If the addressee is unsure who was driving, then they should provide any information that is in their power to give, etc. which would include the details of the possible drivers. There can be no reasonable diligence defence to an s. 172 charge if the accused has not complied with the alternative requirement to provide any information, etc. (?Flegg).

The general consensus here (which I believe to be technically flawed, although probably pragmatic) is that pleading guilty to speeding to avoid the s. 172 charge (doing a deal with the prosecutor) when you know that you were not driving is somehow perverting the course of justice, but effectively stating that you know who was driving when you are merely guessing, in order to avoid an s. 172 charge, is perfectly hunky dory.

Still, as long as the scammers get a result, who cares?