[NIP Wizard] Van at 70, should have been 60. What to do? |
[NIP Wizard] Van at 70, should have been 60. What to do? |
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 20:44
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 9 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,813 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - December 2018 Date of the NIP: - 31 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 33 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A92 Lochgelly to Cowndenbeath Road Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - Works Van 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 - Driver was my 17 year old son, passed test in July and got a job which requires van driving. Came off M90 motorway on slip road and sets cruice control at 70mph thinkiing that's the limit, but as he's driving a van he should have reduced to 60mph. He should have known, but didn't. 2 questions a) is it worth returning the NIP unsigned and going down that route? b) If we send it back signed, do we then have to take a COFP or could we ignore that and wait for Procurator Fiscal to call a case in court where we could go and say 'please don't prosecute, foolish but genuine mistake where new driver continued driving at motorway limit, needs a clean licence for job'. My gut feeling is that it'll either be ignored because it's just 1 mph over the chief constable's discretionary threshold, or it'll really irk some PF who thinks we are chancers. Is there any point in going down this route? 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)? - No Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - Yes Although you are not the Registered Keeper, were you 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? - Scotland NIP Wizard Recommendation Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 20:44:47 +0000 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 20:44
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:02
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
Enforcement starts at 110% + 2mph, so in a 60, that's 68. The PF won't drop the case just because you say pretty please. If your son chooses court, it'll go to trial.
Who is the NIP addressed to? You or your son? Presumably your son, but you say the NIP was addressed to you.. He (not you) can either go signed, or not. His decision. This post has been edited by peterguk: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:04 -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:06
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Who is the NIP addressed to? You or your son? Presumably your son, but you say the NIP was addressed to you.. He (not you) can either go signed, or not. His decision. If the OP is the RK, why can't the OP name the son, but not sign the form? -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:09
Post
#4
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 9 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,813 |
Thanks
NIP was originally sent to employer and registered keeper, who named my son, who has now been sent an NIP. |
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 21:17
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
Who is the NIP addressed to? You or your son? Presumably your son, but you say the NIP was addressed to you.. He (not you) can either go signed, or not. His decision. If the OP is the RK, why can't the OP name the son, but not sign the form? He could do. But post wasn't clear who NIP was addressed to and my reply was also not as clear as it could have been either. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2019 - 22:42
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Thanks NIP was originally sent to employer and registered keeper, who named my son, who has now been sent an NIP. Right, then your son can go down the unsigned route. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 12:17
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Does unsigned help him if the police can produce the employer's S172 response as evidence that he was the driver ?
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:02
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Does unsigned help him if the police can produce the employer's S172 response as evidence that he was the driver ? The police normally want a s172 signed by the accused, the reason is that you can't dispute your own s172, at least not without implicitly admitting a different and far more serious offence. With a third party s172, a defendant might simply say in evidence that they weren't driving, the author of the s172 wouldn't be in court to give evidence and absent any other evidence of who was driving, the court would have to accept that the accused might be innocent. The police could press ahead with just a third party s172 but this is unlikely: while Scotland doesn't follow the CPS code for Crown prosecutors, I believe they follow similar principles and I suspect the PF would say there's insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. This post has been edited by cp8759: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:03 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 - 13:41
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Unless the employer was sat in the passenger seat, their evidence would only be hearsay at best, guesswork at worst, there is also no corroboration which is kind of crucial in Scotland (except for the driver’s own signed response).
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 22:17
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 9 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,813 |
Hi
I'd be glad of some further advice. We sent back the NIP at 28 days unsigned. It was sent back. We sent it again unsigned after another 28 days. Shortly after 4th March (date on letter) we received a COFP which states 'I refer to previous communications whereby you admitted being the driver of a vehicle as detected below:-' followed by details of the offence. Does this mean it's game over on this attempt at going unsigned? If it is game over, would it be a foolish risk to think that Procurator Fiscal might not be bothered with the case as it's 10mph over the limit for the vehicle, or 2mph over the discretionary threshold? Thanks |
|
|
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 09:02
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
How does it mean game over for unsigned?
Where is the evidence of drivers ID? Saying they have it, and actually having it are not the same thing! -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 10:34
Post
#12
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 9 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,813 |
I thought it would be game over because they've not done as expected and come round to pressure into signing an S172, or admit under caution or with two witnesses (Scotland) that he's the driver, but gone straight to the next stage.
So the way this would continue if we don't pay the fixed penalty fine and take the points are 1. Report gets sent to procurator fiscal (PF) 2. PF calls a case 3. We go, but say we didn't pay the cofp because we had not signed the form to admit who was driving. 4. PF says 'is this you driving at 70 in a 60?' or words to that effect 5. Have to tell the truth 6. PF says you pains in the neck should have just paid it and now you're fined double or 1. Report gets sent to PF 2. PF says 2mph over the discretionary threshold, we're too busy with dealing with stabbings, let this one go. My understanding is that we're now in the situation where either of the above outcomes will happen. Happy to be corrected if wrong. |
|
|
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 12:29
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
When it gets to court the issue is was the original offence committed or not (and can be proven beyond reasonable doubt), the CoFP is a nullity, so your 3 is meaningless.
Why do you think they haven't 'done as expected' (sic), a CoFP is common for unsigned. You only have to tell the truth in court if you're a witness in the stand, there will be no need to be a witness, as the defence you just ask where is their proof of driver ID. The Sheriff sets the fine not the PF! or 2. won't happen. Nope outcome 3 is most likely, they will threaten and bluff and bluster but will never see the inside of a courtroom, that's how the other cases on here (which you can search for and read up on) play out. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 22:05
Post
#14
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 9 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,813 |
Hi again.
I'm wondering where we stand now. Offence was committed on 10th December. Employer gave name NIP came through for the driver, sent unsigned NIP came through again, sent unsigned. COFP came through in March but was not responded to. No further contact (yet) It's 6 months plus a day since the offence. Does that mean the original speeding offence can't be prosecuted or would they go from the March date of the COFP and we need to wait longer? Thanks. |
|
|
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 22:15
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
If they were to pursue then it would be a s172 offence.
The 6 months would start around 1 month after the request was made. So quite a way to go! -------------------- 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, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 12 Jun 2019 - 06:51
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
they will threaten and bluff and bluster but will never see the inside of a courtroom, that's how the other cases on here (which you can search for and read up on) play out. What I have seen on these forums is that they drop the case at court on the day of the trial if the accused turns up and maintains their not guilty plea. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 14:22
Post
#17
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 9 Jan 2019 Member No.: 101,813 |
Just an update.
Now well over 6 months since last communication from Police Scotland which was a COFP after two unsigned NIPs were returned. No police have turned up at the door and licence is showing clean. Suspect being 2mph over the discretionary threshold might have helped. Thanks to the experts here for advice. |
|
|
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 14:45
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
Suspect being 2mph over the discretionary threshold might have helped. I don't think so. The offence that would have been pursued through the court is S172 ("Failing to provide driver's details"). The speed alleged (or in fact what the alleged offence was at all) is irrelevant. This post has been edited by NewJudge: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 - 14:46 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:47 |