PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] Section 172 request but no NIP?
PipK
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 16:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,398



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - December 2018
Date of the NIP: - 52 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 53 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - TYNEWYDD ROAD, BARRY
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 - I am posting this on behalf of my son and would be extremely grateful for any assistance that anyone is able to offer.
My son lost his job in early November last year and as a result had to sell his car. It was an oldish Peugeot of little value so when someone offered him cash for it he accepted and handed the keys over. It turns out he didn't know the purchaser, did not obtain any details and foolishly let the whole V5 go with the vehicle. Unfortunately he didn't seek any guidance from me on the sale due to the low value of the vehicle.
In January he received a letter with the heading;
Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988
Section 112(1) Road traffic regulation act 1984
Application for name and address of driver.

It seems the vehicle he sold was involved in an accident a month later and failed to stop, also a further charge is highlighted in this letter.

I am aware that this needs addressing within 28 days and I am aware of the ramifications if he doesn't reply but he is unable to provide details of the driver as he no longer owned the vehicle. What is his best course of action in this case?

Also there was no NIP with this correspondence or is the section 172 request regarded as a NIP?

I would be very grateful for any help with this and thank you in anticipation


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? - No
Was there a valid reason for the NIP's late arrival? - Unsure
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? - No
Were you driving? - No
Do you know who was driving? - No

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • As you are not the person keeping the vehicle you are required to provide such information as is in your power to give, especially the name and addresses of the person who was the person keeping the vehicle at the time of the offence (if you know it). You should also tell them the names and addresses of the possible drivers if you know them. You should ask the police to supply a photo.

    Although the reasonable diligence test doesn't apply to you, because you are the Registered Keeper and have a real connection with the vehicle, the police are likely to take a tougher line so you should send a covering letter explaining the circumstances in more detail. You should reply within the 28 day period.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:57:22 +0000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 16:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:06
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,576
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



Right now the driver needs to be named. If he does not know who was driving, he needs to supply the details of who he sold the vehicle to, and when. If he can't do that, he needs to give any information he has.

If he was still the RK at the time of the event being investigated, he may face a charge of FtF if he does not name the driver.

Some offences do not require a NIP. Other situations can involve no NIP either.

This post has been edited by peterguk: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:11


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:06
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,475
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



A NIP is not required in the event of an accident. As he's the registered keeper, he has no choice but to reply with all the information he can gather about the purchaser. How did he meet him or her, does he have a phone number, email address, description? Did he meet the buyer through a third party?

In the meantime, he needs to write to DVLA pronto to confirm he's no longer the RK.


--------------------
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
PipK
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:42
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,398



Thank you both for your replies, much appreciated
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 19:46
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,766
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



Your son's case has similarities with that of Debbie Atkinson and her scooter, which you might like to read LINK.
There is an important difference in that your son sold his car, not just permitted a test drive, and then failed to follow the procedure of notifying the DVLA.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PipK
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 00:58
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,398



Thank you Logician
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 06:00
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,772
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



To add, a later case (but before the Atkinson transcript was available) known as Whiteside gave what can be interpreted as a contrary view, Whiteside appears to give an ongoing obligation of reasonable diligence which Atkinson specifically refutes although in my opinion (not shared universally) it can be interpreted to give an obligation of reasonable diligence from when the S172 request is served even if the 'recipient' doesn't know it's served, as such it wouldn't put it at odds with Atkinson.

My interpretation of Whiteside would sit well with your son's case.


--------------------
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
PipK
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 09:45
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,398



Thank you Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PipK
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 08:42
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,398



My sincere apologies but it appears that junior hasn't been totally forthcoming with the truth.

It has come to light that he was driving the vehicle himself and drove away from the scene of the accident because he had no insurance, so it's a totally different ball game. Once again i'm sorry and i'm very grateful to those that took the time to respond, thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 09:21
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,772
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



In that case I’d strongly suggest him not playing silly buggers.

While the punishments for the offences are serious, they are a lot less than for perverting the course of justice which would almost certainly result in Jail time.

We don’t sit in judgement (those that try don’t get to stay around), we aim to help, even if it’s just suggesting the lesser of two evils.


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 10:15
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,475
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PipK @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 08:42) *
My sincere apologies but it appears that junior hasn't been totally forthcoming with the truth.

Unfortunately we get that a lot when parents are posting on behalf of their children

QUOTE (PipK @ Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 08:42) *
It has come to light that he was driving the vehicle himself and drove away from the scene of the accident because he had no insurance, so it's a totally different ball game. Once again i'm sorry and i'm very grateful to those that took the time to respond, thank you

His best course of action would be to come forward, be as contrite as possible and face the music. Trying to fabricate evidence to evade criminal liability (such as falsely claiming on a s172 form that the vehicle had been sold) will likely result in a prison sentence. If it was a minor accident and if he comes forwards and accepts that he panicked and drove off in a moment of madness, he might get away with points or a ban and a large fine.

If the accident was serious and people were injured or worse he should urgently consult a specialist motoring solicitor (not a general purpose criminal law solicitor), again in this scenario telling lies will make things exponentially worse and almost certainly result in prison time.

If he's made the mistake of supplying false information to the police already, he should contact them immediately to say that he wishes to reconsider his nomination, and that when he got the paperwork he panicked and did a stupid thing in a moment of madness; this would greatly increase the chances that they will only deal with the underling traffic offences and not pursue a PCOJ charge. In this scenario, whether he comes forward before they figure it out could make all the difference.


--------------------
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
PipK
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 10:52
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,398



Thank you both so much for your replies.

I've made him fully aware of the consequences of falsifying information and that in itself resulted in the whole truth coming out. I had my suspicions but as he's my son I gave him the benefit of the doubt. He has verbally given false information to a police officer that called to the house but he informs me that no notes were taken and nothing was signed, the officer was looking for information prior to the section 172 being issued.

The accident wasn't serious and nobody was injured fortunately. I know he has to stand up and face the consequences of his actions i'm just glad he asked my advice on it and we can now do the right thing.

Just one thing if you don't mind, would it be worth using a specialist such as Patterson Law to put a case forward for him or is it pretty much set in stone, 3 offences hence 3 convictions and 3 fines?

Once again thank you to those that have contributed here, you've been very helpful
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 11:52
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,772
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I wouldn’t get a solicitor until you know what he faces, offences mentioned on the initial paperwork are not necessarily all progressed.

Full cooperation can see some of the charges not progressed, depending on circumstances and the officer concerned.

See what he’s actually ‘summoned’ (usually a Simgle Justice Procedure Notice now) and then decide what is best.


--------------------
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
PipK
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 11:56
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,398



Thank you again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkatmosphere
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 11:57
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 59
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,643



No matter who he chooses to represent him, I think it would be best to for him to go into the station that is dealing with this and coming clean at the earliest with his representation would be merits to him than a more serious charge of PCOJ.

To also touch on, that if the vehicle had no level of insurance at all, and now the driver can be ID'd the insurance company for the defendant would most certainly come looking for the costs of this claim or the MIB, these claims can be as much as small mortgage or as little as a few thousand pounds.


--------------------
There are a lot of laws in this country, but there isn't any justice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:29
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,200
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



I would strongly advise that he seeks legal advice before speaking to the police.


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


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
PipK
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 12:43
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,398



So go the the police station and come clean or just complete the section 172. Does going to the police station negate the need to complete the 172 or does completing the 172 negate the need to go to the station?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 14:30
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,766
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



I would not just turn up at the police station where it is unlikely anyone would know anything about it. I would complete the s.172 notice nominating himself as the driver. Either a) he will then receive a SJPN for careless driving and failing to stop/report or b) the police will want to talk to him. If a) he may or may not want to instruct a solicitor, if b) he should instruct a solicitor because they may be getting more serious.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PipK
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 14:41
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,398



Thank you Logician
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irksome
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 15:00
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 305
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



Complete the s.172 and see what happens, the police might not even follow up some of the aspects.
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: Thursday, 21st February 2019 - 14:54
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.