PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

616 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

andy_foster
Posted on: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 21:39


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:50) *
QUOTE (jp1738 @ Thu, 15 Feb 2018 - 20:47) *
I want to avoid the points (if possible) but clearly don't want to make things worse. Is it enough for me to send in the drivers details that are requested on the form without using the form itself or are there blank ones I can download and print off or something? If i send in the details can I do this without accepting the fixed penalty and the points?

Thank you


Read Fredd's post no. 4.


Perhaps you should read the post you are replying to. The OP cannot use the form as he has sent it back. That is why he is asking if he can provide the information without the form, or whether he can obtain a black form from elsewhere. Telling him to read (or re-read) an earlier post advising him to use the form is particularly unhelpful.

@OP - there is no requirement to use the form provided, as long as you comply with the substance of the requirement (Jones v DPP). Ideally, you would be able to use the form and not risk any unnecessary complications, but as you have already sent back the form that is no longer an option. Never seen blank s. 172 forms posted anywhere, and each force uses their own forms, so your best option would seem to be to provide the required
information in a latter or other document of your own creation - including the required signature, and relevant reference numbers, etc.

edit: In order to accept a fixed penalty, you would need to send off your licence and pay the penalty. I am struggling to imagine how a form could be worded to prevent you naming the driver without doing that.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1358340 · Replies: 13 · Views: 543

andy_foster
Posted on: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 19:48


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 18:01) *
You appear to be outside the six months within which they can charge you, so vanishingly unlikely. Especially as from a not guilty plea they wouldn’t know who to charge anyway!


Is there anything in this thread that lead to you that somewhat dubious conclusion?

QUOTE (CheshireMatt123 @ Thu, 8 Feb 2018 - 14:46) *
The original incident is said to have occurred on 05/10/2017 and I know that it was me driving from the date and location.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1357905 · Replies: 25 · Views: 1,263

andy_foster
Posted on: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 22:32


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


Is the NIP addressed to your wife?
Do you (or she) have the V5C (log book)? Unless you (or your wife) physically have the V5C, the consensus will be that you (or your wife) are not the RK. The consensus is rarely wrong on this.
If you have the V5C, is the address correct, and what is the date after the DocRef No. at the bottom of page 2? N.B. We do not need the DocRef. No. itself.

The obligation under s. 172 is personal, but performance need not necessarily be. In other words, if the driver is named, and it is somebody other than the person to whom the notice is addressed, the obligation to name the driver has been complied with, regardless of who actually provided the information. Where this sometimes goes awry is when the driver names themselves in response to somebody else's s. 172 notice and then fails to do so again when they receive their own notice under the misapprehension that their earlier response satisfies the subsequent requirement.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1357528 · Replies: 13 · Views: 607

andy_foster
Posted on: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 23:45


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:45) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 22:38) *
legally once posted recorded delivery the letter has been irrefutably served.

According to...?


As you well know, NML has, whether directly or through some other well-meaning idiot, conflated the specific provision of service by recorded delivery of NIPs under s. 1 RTOA 1988 with things that are not NIPs being served under the provisions of s. 1 RTOA 1988.

As much as it can be fun to play with your food, I'm not convinced that the thread or the OP are likely to benefit from it.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1357127 · Replies: 52 · Views: 2,149

andy_foster
Posted on: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 - 09:19


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


Banker (possible typo?) convicted of impersonating a police occifer after riding an ex police bike with most of the stickers still on it and wearing an old police uniform with a "POLITE notice" hi-vis vest.
Link to terrorism is utter bollox. Link to him being an utter c*ck-womble massively understated.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2018-02-08/...ceiving-public/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/08...victed-alleged/
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1356161 · Replies: 5 · Views: 192

andy_foster
Posted on: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 22:49


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Trampilot @ Wed, 7 Feb 2018 - 12:01) *
Can't believe no-one has mentioned "threesome" ...


rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 16:35) *
I've googled it and watched some movies that suggest I should sleep with her, get caught by Mrs NML but she'll be super turned on by it and join in. But this seems like a high risk strategy.

  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1355299 · Replies: 48 · Views: 1,850

andy_foster
Posted on: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 23:14


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Akira @ Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 18:08) *
I've attached the PCN the officer gave me.


That's not a PCN.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1354544 · Replies: 33 · Views: 1,403

andy_foster
Posted on: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 - 22:38


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


And don't forget flying cars!
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1354527 · Replies: 36 · Views: 955

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 21:38


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (spacey3 @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 20:10) *
I wanted to get an opinion and maybe some guidance on an issue that has happened to someone that has (unfortunately for me) asked me to assist them.


Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance.

At the risk of being somewhat blunt, you clearly have little understanding of the issues, and are unlikely to be able to meaningfully assist your friend. Rather than you relaying your understanding of whatever he has told you, and then struggling to answer our questions, why not simply get him to post here with a first hand account?

QUOTE
Nevertheless, I was wondering, what information do we have to provide as a minimum to the police to prove that the registered keeper was not the driver at the time?


Further to the above, (from what you have told us) your friend is not the RK, you do not know who the RK is, or who was driving, but you seemingly believe that it is both possible and prudent to prove that the unknown RK was not the unknown driver.

As your friend is not the person keeping the vehicle (if your account of his account can be assumed to be accurate enough to assume that), all he needs to do in response to the s. 172 requirement is to provide "any information that is in his power to give and that might to the identification of the driver.". Whilst your account of his account of what he did provide appears to fall slightly short of this, it is not immediately apparent why he now feels that he needs to provide further information (or prove anything). Is there something that you have neglected to tell us, or something that he has neglected to tell you?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1354108 · Replies: 4 · Views: 751

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 20:51


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 19:51) *
Hadn’t spotted that auto correct....I do know how to spell obiter....


It wasn't your post though - unless you are using more than one account.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1354091 · Replies: 36 · Views: 955

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 19:29


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 19:17) *
Actually it is an offence not to carry your licence, all be it one that can be disposed of by presenting it within 7 days.


If you are going to be unnecessarily pedantic, please try to get it right.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1354056 · Replies: 21 · Views: 1,473

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 19:22


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Katkitty @ Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 19:04) *
So does the his override the 10%+2 guidelines then?


Some nutjob (who is unfortunately in a position of far greater power and influence than befits his mental state) has made a suggestion. Mere suggestions do not themselves over-ride guidelines, but can sometimes lead to guidelines being changed.

QUOTE
Pardon my question but this story is flying around Facebook and now work.


The story flying around facebook is mainly about smart motorway cameras operating when there is no variable limit - IOW enforcing the national speed limit. There is no reason to believe that this will be done below the 'ACPO' guidelines threshold speeds. Somewhat unusually for a story doing the rounds on facebook, it seems likely that the rest of it might well be substantially true.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1354052 · Replies: 36 · Views: 955

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 - 19:12


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:08) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 11:49) *
The supreme court has already made orbiter comments that the appropriate sentence for 31 in a 30 is an absolute discharge...

So they were circling around the point, then? happy.gif



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 3 Feb 2018 - 18:19) *
Well no, it means it wasn’t relevant to the appeal finding.


*Whoosh*

That would be obiter. Other than the fact that there is only one "r" in "obiter", the clue was in the smiley.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1354047 · Replies: 36 · Views: 955

andy_foster
Posted on: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 22:12


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 22:04) *
I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I thought the "I was stationary at traffic lights therefore was not driving" defence has been tried before without success.


Unless it was tried in the High Court for a mobile phone offence (or sufficiently similar), then whether or not it has been tried before and succeeded or failed is of little relevance.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1353092 · Replies: 23 · Views: 1,852

andy_foster
Posted on: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 - 19:10


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


Remind me, which approved speed detection devices are rated as accurate to +/- 0.01mph?
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1353027 · Replies: 36 · Views: 955

andy_foster
Posted on: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 20:29


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Stan134 @ Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 12:30) *
I drove into a line of static traffic opposite the barriers just as the traffic light turned red. I did not have time to put my seatbelt on as I had to drive through barriers into the static traffic.
My car was at a standstill
I reached for mobile phone to check time


I would argue that the mobile phone legislation should be interpreted purposively, and that for the purposes of that legislation you were neither using your phone or driving.

If the purpose of the legislation is to prevent drivers causing danger to other road users (and themselves) by failing to adequately control their vehicles whilst being distracted by using a hand-held mobile phone for interactive communication purposes, not only is looking at the clock not using it (for interactive communication purposes), but stationary vehicles generally do not require much to adequately control them.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1352659 · Replies: 23 · Views: 1,852

andy_foster
Posted on: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 - 19:57


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


There seems to be a lot of misleading information in this thread, with a few nuggets of relevant law buried under it.

The suggestion that all potential drivers are likely to be summoned for s. 172 if the driver is not unequivocally named seems a tad far-fetched. It is entirely possible that they could all decide to play silly buggers and be summoned and convicted, but that would not merely be failing to name the driver.

As has already been mentioned, the obligation on a person who is not the person keeping the vehicle (any other person) is not specifically to name the driver (although the requirement would be to do so if that was information in their power to give - IOW they knew who was driving), but to provide any information that is in their power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver. If the police do not like the information provided, it would be up to them to prove that the person had further relevant information within their power to give - although some common sense assumptions can be made.

If the OP writes back, telling them what he does know, I would be very surprised if he were to be prosecuted. The remaining issue would seem to be whether the owner of the vehicle (who is presumably the person keeping it) would be able to persuade the court both that he does not know who was driving, and that he could not with reasonable diligence determine the identity of the driver.

As regards the wording of the NIP, it is untrue and the police are often less than diligent. Arguably that should not be the case, but as has been explained repeatedly, it is a non-issue as regards your obligations.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1352645 · Replies: 21 · Views: 1,314

andy_foster
Posted on: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 - 23:23


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


Disqualifying under the SJP would be perhaps least inappropriate in situations where the accused has not responded at all, and is all but certain not to attend any hearing.

As regards the intention of Parliament, it appears to have given a discretionary power to single justices. I would hope that the courts would not feel bound to apply such discretion to do something so contentious just because Parliament says that they can if they want.

IOW, if the courts are lawfully applying common sense to 'troubled' legislation, leave them to it.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1352264 · Replies: 13 · Views: 911

andy_foster
Posted on: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 22:59


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


CAN THE ADMINS OF THIS SITE DO A BETTER JOB OF MONITORING WHO IS ALLOWED IN HERE PLEASE?

WE HAVE A NEW MEMBER. AN ELDERLY BLOKE. HE'S BEEN PRIVATELY MESSAGING MEMBERS SENDING THEM NAKED PICTURES OF HIMSELF IN NASTY POSES ALONG WITH CLOSE UPS OF HIS GENTLEMAN SAUSAGE.

HE IS OFFERING AN iPHONE 7+ IN EXCHANGE FOR SEXUAL FAVOURS.

I AM ESPECIALLY BOTHERED BECAUSE IT TURNED OUT TO BE AN iPHONE 5S AND OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH IT CAUSE ITS SUPER SLOW AND THE CAPS LOCK IS STUCK ON
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1351920 · Replies: 7 · Views: 891

andy_foster
Posted on: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 19:47


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (ben1974 @ Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 13:30) *
The policeman has stated on the NIP that I was shown the VDU evidence,


What NIP?
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1351866 · Replies: 38 · Views: 1,791

andy_foster
Posted on: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 19:41


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (BrianM @ Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 14:46) *
Interesting speeding allegation


Where? I can't see one.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1351862 · Replies: 19 · Views: 1,087

andy_foster
Posted on: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 19:04


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sun, 28 Jan 2018 - 12:01) *
What is also urgently needed is a crackdown on rogue councils and others like TfL who ruthlessly game the system. Adjudicators or maybe a new regulator is needed to stop enforcement when signage is ruled to be inadequate, and for very strong guidance on what constitutes "de minimis", especially for bus lane contraventions, restricted bus stops, and yellow box junctions.


What is needed is a system where those who do the enforcement don't get to keep the penalties (or otherwise directly profit from issuing them). I know it sounds a bit far fetched, but imagine if somebody could come up with a system where operatives - lets call them Traffic Wardens - were employed by the police and the fines went to the treasury. There would be no incentive to 'game the system' (a phrase whose use in this context I consider analogous to describing Adolf Hitler as being slightly anti-Semitic).
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1351529 · Replies: 17 · Views: 532

andy_foster
Posted on: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 18:19


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 27 Jan 2018 - 10:30) *
There's clearly no appetite on the CPS's side to acknowledge that there's a systemic issue with disclosure, rather than it being a problem somehow limited to current rape cases.


I was very recently involved in a criminal trial (speeding). The accused had received a notice from the police "Court Presentation Officer" stating that there was no unused material, which the accused considered strange as he knew that there was a video recording of the incident. However, having been shown the clip when he was stopped by the police, he did not feel that it was anything that the bench need to trouble themselves with.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1351245 · Replies: 60 · Views: 2,873

andy_foster
Posted on: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 23:29


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


QUOTE (Mrslow @ Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 23:02) *
Any comments on the likely outcome, will it be admissions directly to court due to the speed band?


In a 30 limit, the guidelines are to offer fixed penalties for up to 49. 50 and above will be dealt with through a court process.

  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1350370 · Replies: 39 · Views: 1,954

andy_foster
Posted on: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 23:24


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,158
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624


If the driver knew that he was not insured, it would indeed be TWOC. However, if the driver believed that he was insured, then he would believe that he was permitted and would not be guilty of TWOC.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1350369 · Replies: 27 · Views: 2,702

616 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 19th February 2018 - 02:03
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.