PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP>Failing to Provide Driver>Not Guilty >Court
Jacko123
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 19:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,377



Hi
Any assistance here would be great, I will try my best to condense the summary, its my first ever post, thx for any help I get.

Augast last year a nip was sent to the registered address of the vehicle in relation to speeding, 42mph in a 30 mph zone, offence happened at 2am, myself and wife are the only people with keys to the vehicle, we were not driving, car was at home, I have no points, wifey has 3.

NIP went to the registered address, I had failed to change the address on the log book!.....I then receive the NIP at my new address on the 12th October after the concerned police force track down my address due to insurance being at current address.

In haste/stupidly I completed part B of the form wrong, I completed it from the view point of me not being the driver, after reviewing the form before I sent it off I realised my mistake and had to cross through the sections, I had to write on the form that I wasnt the driver, the reply was within the 28 days, be it some what messy.

I followed up with a letter stating that I wasnt the driver and the car was located at my address, this was sent recorded delivery, the police accept receipt, they received the letter on the 24th November, later than the 28 days. At this point I believed the issue was closed, I had returned the forms and sent off a covering letter, in my view a mistake had been made ie a misread plate and they had rectified...........

On the 28 November a cloned car form was allegedly sent, although I have never received.

On the 20th December I receive a charge sheet of speeding and failing to provide driver information, I responded not guilty to both charges, fast forward to today and i receive disclosure info from the police, seems the speeding charge has been dropped, however the failing to provide driver information still stands.

The disclosure form shows the reason for the charge is incomplete form provided and failing to return the cloned car form.

I assumed that given I had sent a covering letter that would be sufficient, the police insisting that I respond/complete NIP section with A or B of the form was clearly not fit for purpose in this scenario, I could not of returned either part correctly.

My concern is that I failed to change address on the logbook, hence the failure to provide driver information charge is dated in September, a month after the initial NIP was sent, does this mean that anything that happened after September is irrelevant?

Also, how does the cloned car form fit in, in the discloure doc its showing that it was sent on the 28th November, it doesnt actually show it being posted, ive checked all of my paperwork, (which I file before shredding in bulk) and I definately havent received. If per the disclosure form all I had to do was take a handful of photos on my phone and send over to an e mail address it would have taken 5 mins to complete.

Ive been far to complacent here as I belived the issue would resolve itself as I clearly wasnt the driver, low and behold im now off to court on Friday, any suggestions please, any assistance grealtly appreciated?

Oh btw i'm self employed so losing a days pay to boot.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 19:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 19:52
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,999
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Have you ever seen any photo's to confirm the clone/misread?


--------------------
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
Jacko123
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:01
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,377



Hi,thx for quick response, they wouldnt provide a photo, I was epexcting to see a photo as part of the disclosure, they have dropped the speeding charge, so only the failing to provide identity now stands.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:03
Post #4


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,267
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Having asserted that you were not the keeper of the vehicle involved in the alleged offence, unless the police can prove otherwise your obligations under s. 172 RTA 1988 are those of "any other person" - to give any information that is in your power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver (if so required by or on behalf of the CHief Officer of Police), and to do so within 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice.

Whilst it would generally be up to the prosecution to prove that you had further information in your power to give, it is assumed that anybody would have some information to give even if it was simply that they had no knowledge of such a vehicle (or in your case that your vehicle was not the one involved). Providing such information after the expiration of the 28 days would generally be evidence that you had such information in your power to give (unless it can be shown that it was not reasonably practicable to provide such information any sooner).

Whilst the police can make reasonable requirements as to the manner in which the information should be provided (e.g in writing, and signed by the addressee), substantial compliance is good compliance (a covering letter providing all the relevant information is as good as the form provided (and in many cases more appropriate)).

Technically, you could well be guilty due to failing to provide any information within the original 28 days, and not providing information that was in your power to give until after the expiration of the 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice to your current address. The former ought not to be a major problem as the police effectively gave you a specified extension, but the latter might be more problematic.


--------------------
Andy

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacko123
post Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:16
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,377



Thx Andy, that makes sense, in your opinion, is the cloned car form also an issue here, or just the time element of the letter?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 06:12
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,652
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The cloned car form is an irrelevance in terms of guilt or innocence, it was either your car or it was not, filling out a form some time late doesn’t change that, and it was outwith the original 28 days anyway.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacko123
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 17:47
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,377



Hi Rookie, the charge is failing to provide driver info, the charge seems to have come about from the NIP being incomplete, although I was never able to complete it correctly, or A and B didn’t apply to me , the second point was that the cloned car form wasn’t returned, although i have never received.

Any suggestions on defence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 20:55
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,652
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Well what EXACTLY did you reply with? You would have to give information in your power to give, so did you do that? Did you make it clear it wasn’t your car at the time and place mentioned?


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacko123
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 05:45
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,377



Hi, I completed and returned the form signing side B , however I completed the form from the viewpoint that I was not the driver, which basically meant I supplied my details as the driver! on completion I noticed the error and crossed through my name.

I followed up with a letter that was received after the 28 days.

Hope that helps, thx.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 08:53
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,652
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I repeat what EXACTLY did you tell them? Did you tell them your car wasn't there? Where it was at the time? Where the keys were?

The forms are all different so 'signing side B' is meaningless.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacko123
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 11:18
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,377



Hi, here’s what I did, update on the form and the letter.

Form :
In my case A would be comleting the form from the viewpoint of me being the driver, B would be from the viewpoint that I was not the driver. I completed side B , however I wrongly put my name in the drivers section, I subsequently crossed out my name in the driver section, signed, dated and returned.

Letter:
The additional lettter was sent saying the car was located at my home address at the time, with both keys in my possession, and that I was not the driver.

Thx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 12:56
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,652
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



OK, so that letter they got within 28 days (despite what you put in your opening post) of you getting the NIP, but was that a new NIP to your new address or forwarded from your old address?

That said it will come down to proving it was either a clone or a plate misread, for that you need the Police photo's and or Video (what was the method of capture?) and comparing to your car.

Your issue here is that most people who are saying there is a clone of their car running around would be a lot more proactive in dealing with it than you were.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kickaha
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 15:04
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,341
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,126



Was the location of the speeding one where you or your wife could have been at but on a different date and/or time?

It is possible that the details on the form are wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacko123
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 15:08
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,377



The form arrived within 28 days, letter was received late.

The NIP received at my current address was new and received in October, the prior was sent in August to my old address, the 28 days started again basically.

Not sure how I can prove, that’s the entire point, I wasn’t driving and it wasn’t my car, although they are not providing photo evidence, according to the disclosure pack anyway.

Just to be clear charge is failing to provide driver info, it looks like the issue here is that I didn’t reply to the clone car form in time, although they had the NIP response and covering letter.

Cloned form asked for it to be returned in 14 days- as stated i have never received this form( not until I received the charge sheet anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 15:58
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,707
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The clone car form isn't the s172 , so isn't relevant at all, that I am aware of
They appear to be going on it was your car therefore FtF is the correct charge. That's my guess anyway.
Presumably therefore the basis of your defence is that a) it wasn't your car therefore b) you gave all information in your possession, as you were not the keeper

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 15:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:55
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,159
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:58) *
The clone car form isn't the s172 , so isn't relevant at all, that I am aware of
They appear to be going on it was your car therefore FtF is the correct charge. That's my guess anyway.
Presumably therefore the basis of your defence is that a) it wasn't your car therefore b) you gave all information in your possession, as you were not the keeper

I agree. The question will be whether he gave all information in his power to give.


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


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
Jacko123
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 16:55
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,377



Thank you for the clear response, that is my understanding and the basis of my defence case.

Thanks for the assistance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 18:15
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,130
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



You still haven't answered this question

Was the location of the speeding one where you or your wife could have been but on a different date and/or time?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jacko123
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 19:01
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,377



Hi, yes potentially, at a different date, it’s not on a main route but definitely been passed it before.

What is the significance?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 13 Jun 2018 - 20:38
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,652
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



If the enforcement session was on a different date to that stated the ‘clone’ may be your car in the photo.


--------------------
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 8-0 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: Monday, 25th June 2018 - 19:21
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.