Received NIP and Interviewed for Damage Only RTC Options

[refill]

Date of the NIP: 23 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: 24 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important):
Was the NIP addressed to you? Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Recorded
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have?
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

The alleged offence is that my car hit another car at a car park and caused some minor damage (scratch or crack as described by the police officer).

I contacted the police immediately after receiving the NIP and was told they want to have a “chat” with me. They then “interviewed” me at home. The police officer claimed that the NIP is still valid as they have witness(es). I said I could not remember what happened on that day as it was almost one month ago. After the interview, I was told there is no need to fill the form (S172) on the NIP about the driver’s information.

Potential driver could be me (with a full license) or my partner (with a provisional license). Neither of us was aware of the incident and there is no damage to my car.

I would appreciate your advice on the following questions:
1. Is the police officer’s claim true that the NIP is still valid because they have witness(es) giving the delay caused by the police system itself?
2. As I did not identify the driver in the interview and was told not to fill the form on the NIP, will I be prosecuted for 'fail to identify the driver'?
3. If I chose one of us (which might be inconsistent with the witness statement), will I be prosecuted for “perjury”?
4. If I chose my partner as the driver at the time, will he also be prosecuted for driving “not accompanies by a qualified person” as my license is less than 3 years?

Many thanks for your kind help."

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? - Yes
Were you driving? - Unsure
Do you know who was driving? - Unsure who was driving

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

• If you can show that after reasonable diligence you have been unable to determine the identity of the driver, you will not be guilty of S172 failure to provide.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:27:21 +0000

This post has been edited by refill: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 - 20:02

[Advertisement]

[refill]

Would the police decide not to prosecute if I apologise and agree to pay all the cost for fixing the damage caused by the incident?

I am having a hard time due to family issues and find this is very stressful. I am willing to accept whatever penalty to avoid the prosecution.

Can you guys give some advice? Thanks.

[bama]

That offer is the same as pleading guilty IMV . a slam dunk win for the Police/CPS as a consequence should they choose to shoot a fish in a barrel.

[Gan]

The last thing you want to do.

Admission of guilt that increases chance of conviction and certainly invalidates your insurance. Have you not received a claim from the other driver yet ?

This post has been edited by Gan: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 - 18:42

[refill]

no , I haven't recieved the claim. Does a claim mean not going to the court?

I am applying immigrantion to Australia. My application is unlikely to be sucessful with a conviction of careless driving offence. That is why I have to avoid the prosecution. I don't mind fines or points.

[Gan]

Makes no difference.

I'm just surprised that the other driver hasn't traced you and made a claim yet. Possibly waiting to see if you're prosecuted which would make a claim almost certain to succeed.

[refill]

The police said the other driver did not realise the damage until getting home. But I don't understand that how he can find the witness.

Do not assume visit the car park and take a look. Ask the unit manager. Pete D

Went to the car park yesterday and ask the unit manager. There is no CCTV footage for the car park.

[jobo]

Makes no difference.

. Possibly waiting to see if you're prosecuted which would make a claim almost certain to succeed.

why is that ???

[Glacier2]

Because it is on record that the defendant was in the wrong.

[Gan]

Makes no difference.

. Possibly waiting to see if you're prosecuted which would make a claim almost certain to succeed.

why is that ???

Insurance companies take the view that, if enough evidence exists to prosecute, their client would be found liable on the balance-of-probabilities standard in a civil case.

[Glacier2]

And a conviction would be the icing on the cake for any claimant.

[refill]

I remember that at the end of the interview the police officer suggested me to talk to a solicitor. Does it imply that the police is going to prosecute me? Or it's just bullying? I just keep thinking about this NIP and interview. My life is falling apart.

[Ocelot]

Thanks for your comment. I hate the word "choose" as well. The fact is I do not remember. I just don't know whom to identify at the end of the day to avoid both "fail to identify" and "perjury". The police officer mentioned the witnesses but no CCTV footage of the reversing. It seems that I am very likely to be prosecuted then.

I thought you had to lie under oath to commit perjury. Maybe he meant to pervert the course of justice?

[southpaw82]

Perjury can be committed by lying on a return required by Act of Parliament (such as an NIP) - s. 5 of the Perjury Act 1911.