PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] Unsigned advice - Scotland
buellbolt
post Tue, 12 Mar 2013 - 17:40
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Member No.: 10,062



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - January 2013
Date of the NIP: - 13 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 17 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A9, Edinburgh/Perth Road, Dunblane, District of Stirling at a part near to Allan Water
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? - Company Car
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 - Was overtaking a bus to get clear of the spray and once I got past it, saw the van right in front of me

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:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    Depending on your circumstances, you may wish to consider completing the form, but returning it unsigned. By doing so there is a risk that you will be convicted under s172, which would attract 6 penalty points and a fine; in most cases this is likely to exceed the penalty for the speeding offence itself.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:40:46 +0000
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 12 Mar 2013 - 17:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 12 Mar 2013 - 17:42
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,888
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



So, what would you like advice on?


--------------------
Moderator

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
buellbolt
post Tue, 12 Mar 2013 - 17:47
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Member No.: 10,062



I sent back the original Form on day 27 Recorded delivery, completing all relevant parts except my signature.
I have received a letter back from them, dated 1st march (enclosing my form, which they have stamped 1st march) asking me to sign it where indicated.
The letter also states that the time has run out on the notice however 10 days grace time has been added.
This letter was received sometime between 6th-8th March when I was away on holiday and I have not done anything with it.
As I have 0 points, I did consider signing it and sending back. Does the 10 day 'grace time' start from date of letter or date of receipt?
Should I ignore this altogether or should I send it back unsigned and wait and see what happens?
T
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quicksilver
post Tue, 12 Mar 2013 - 17:49
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 310
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Member No.: 8,512



A favourite hunting ground of Central Scotland Scamerati! Downhill and round a shallow left hand curve. By the time you see them it is too late.

They hunt here at least once per week!

Q.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 12 Mar 2013 - 17:56
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,888
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



There can only be one (lawful) s. 172 requirement made, which is the one you responded to. You can now sit and wait and see what they do.


--------------------
Moderator

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
buellbolt
post Thu, 11 Apr 2013 - 17:33
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Member No.: 10,062



Came home from work to find a card through the door from my local force asking me to contact them......thank god I was out cause would've answered door!Will they try and find out where I work and come there?Starting to panic now although moving house in 20 days so hoping to get to that date!How many times are they likely to try my house before giving up?T
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Thu, 11 Apr 2013 - 18:01
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



QUOTE
How many times are they likely to try my house before giving up?T


Depends where you live, if in Central Scotland then you will get the most visits, less in another Scottish area (this could all have changed with the new centralisation ) and less again if in England.

You can't answer the door and any one who does has to say you are not in and not aware of when you will be, so the car needs to be away too.

With zero points why bother.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
buellbolt
post Thu, 11 Apr 2013 - 18:31
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Member No.: 10,062



Why bother?Too far gone now to think about that although tempted just to contact them and get it over and done withI live alone, no chance of anyone answering door, so just need to make sure I'm not around when they come looking, I'm not in Central although still in Scotland
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 11 Apr 2013 - 19:17
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,818
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Hard to judge what they will do, it will be down to the officer dealing with it......


--------------------
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
CuriousOrange
post Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 08:22
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,575
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Member No.: 21,353



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 12 Mar 2013 - 18:56) *
There can only be one (lawful) s. 172 requirement made, which is the one you responded to. You can now sit and wait and see what they do.
See above.

The claims that you can't answer the door are based on the flawed idea that you'll be served an S172 verbally and you'd have to reply, even though you'd have already replied to that same S172, the verbal one simply being a reiteration.


Of those unsigned OPs who have come through these hallowed doors (and updated us) who have answered the door to the police, none had an S172 requirement made verbally. All were pressured into signing the form. Those who didn't sign heard nothing more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
buellbolt
post Sat, 13 Apr 2013 - 10:30
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Member No.: 10,062



Visit number 2 very early this morning. Having a bit of a hangover, I couldn't face the confrontation so stayed in bed despite the door getting knocked very loudly for a good few minutes.Heard them looking through the letterbox too.Finally left me a calling card then went away.Wish they showed this much enthusiasm when looking for burglars, thieves, etc etcDon't know if my bottle will last, that's 2 visits in 3 days
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
buellbolt
post Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 10:44
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Member No.: 10,062



Another day, another visit!Before 8am too!That's 3 times in 4 daysWill they just keep trying until they get me in?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 10:51
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,818
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Fri, 12 Apr 2013 - 09:22) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 12 Mar 2013 - 18:56) *
There can only be one (lawful) s. 172 requirement made, which is the one you responded to. You can now sit and wait and see what they do.
See above.

The claims that you can't answer the door are based on the flawed idea that you'll be served an S172 verbally and you'd have to reply,

I disagree here, a verbal request IMO still has to be responded to, what the case law said as I recall was that there was no 'ongoing S172' in that they couldn't use a later request it to extend the timeout date.


--------------------
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
ukboxer
post Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 11:00
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 84
Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Member No.: 56,672



QUOTE (buellbolt @ Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 11:44) *
Another day, another visit!Before 8am too!That's 3 times in 4 daysWill they just keep trying until they get me in?


If you want to keep this going just do what you do and dont be in stay in bed or just dont answer. Given the fact that you are moving it may take the heat off but they may follow you to your new address too.

Also be aware that they may wait round the corner to catch you whilst driving.

Have you searched this forum for others in the same situation? Have a good search there are success stories with this 'loophole'

This post has been edited by ukboxer: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 11:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
glasgow_bhoy
post Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 11:17
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,460
Joined: 8 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,424



Being on 0 points and having this situation is why I'd be put off going unsigned I think.

Be aware they might turn up at your workplace- afterall, they know where you work thanks to the chain of NIP's.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Rusty
post Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 11:45
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 570
Joined: 13 Mar 2004
From: Somewhere oop north
Member No.: 984



You could always call their bluff for a high-risk strategy.

Point out that you have provided the "information" as to who was the driver, and that you have no intention of producing a self-incriminating witness statement either signed or verbal, and ask them to make you the "test case" if they like to demonstrate that a person is obliged by law to provide a self-incriminating witness statement.

The whole business is a fudge and always has been. When you provide the signature it is supposed to be "information" and then transmogrifies into a "witness statement" for the purposes of prosecution. It never was unanimous even in the ECHR.

Downside is 6 points and a larger fine if you fail, and the unsigned route would then be closed.

This is not very good advice BTW, because I am not sure I would be brave enough!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CuriousOrange
post Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 19:18
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,575
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Member No.: 21,353



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 11:51) *
I disagree here, a verbal request IMO still has to be responded to
If that were true, it would lead to the following absurdities, either side of the border:

1) A person could return a legitimate reply to a written request on Day 26. At the end of the Day 28 they have committed no offence. On Day 30 the police arrive and make the same S172 requirement verbally which the person declines to answer. They would have now committed an offence at the end of Day 28 not by their actions before but by their actions after.

How can I have never have committed a crime today, and then commit a crime yesterday by my actions tomorrow?

2) A person could return a legitimate reply to a written request near the end of the 28 day period. They then receive a day later a reminder that repeats the same S172 requirement but ignore it, since they have replied and the two merely crossed in the post. They are prosecuted, the prosecution accept that they received the first reply and it was legitimate but because the second requirement wasn't replied to the offence has been committed. The person is found guilty.

(1) Illustrates the illogic of the idea. (2) is no different in substance to being visited by the police.

Again, all they seem to do during these visits is pressure the respondent to sign the form.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 19:28
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,818
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



But all that assumes that an unsigned response is adequate in law, neither you nor I know either way, however as stated the case law didn't investigate this point but actually looked at 2 written requests and merely addressed the issue of whether a second request extended the time for laying an information, it dodn't address ANY other point as I recall.

We have seen court cases progressed for a failure to reply to a subsequant verbal request, none progressed (to hearing) for unsigned only.


--------------------
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
CuriousOrange
post Mon, 15 Apr 2013 - 09:20
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,575
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Member No.: 21,353



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 20:28) *
But all that assumes that an unsigned response is adequate in law
No it doesn't, at all. Re-read it: I said it applies both sides of the border, and I said a "legitimate reply". A signed one would also fall within the examples I gave. I can return in good time a signed fullsome and complete reply to my English S172 requirement naming myself. Today is Day 29 and I've committed no S172 offence, but according to you I can commit it yesterday by not answering the police if they ask me again tomorrow.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 20:28) *
...the case law didn't investigate this point but actually looked at 2 written requests...
Save the timescale to respond, which is explicit in the legislation, there is no difference between a written requirement and a verbal one. If you do/don't have to respond to a subsequent written requirement you do/don't have to respond to a subsequent verbal. (As it was, the case involved an initial verbal requirement followed by a postal one.)


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 20:28) *
...and merely addressed the issue of whether a second request extended the time for laying an information, it dodn't address ANY other point as I recall.
It's always risky quoting just parts of the case, but
QUOTE
[The submission of the Apellant was that] The Crown was entitled to prosecute the respondent in relation to any occasion on which there was sufficient evidence that he had committed an offence in terms of section 172 of the 1988 Act.
QUOTE
It was the submission of the respondent that there could be only one requirement made under section 172 and one offence if that requirement was not appropriately responded to.
QUOTE
In our view, the statutory intention emerging from our consideration of that legislation is that there can be but one requirement which would occur when the requirement was first validly made, if oral, or twenty eight days after service of a requirement in writing, from which date the statutory time limit would start to run.

What the 'must reply to a second verbal S172' camp seems to rely on is the next part:
QUOTE
In saying that we do not intend to suggest that there should never be more than one actual requirement.
But they then elaborate
QUOTE
We can understand that where, for example, a written requirement is made and apparently ignored, it may be appropriate for a personal requirement to be made by police officers. That might be done with a view to obtaining useful information which could lead to the prosecution of the original offence.
In the example they give, a legitimate reply has not been given. I would say that they wanted to clarify that having ignored a requirement the first time it was made a person couldn't then reply on the second time of asking and fight the original offence in court on the basis that the second asking was illegal. But that is not the same as saying that they can reiterate the requirement and you commit an offence each time you don't reply, no matter if you replied correctly and with all the information they require on the first occasion, or even on all occasions bar one.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 14 Apr 2013 - 20:28) *
We have seen court cases progressed for a failure to reply to a subsequant verbal request, none progressed (to hearing) for unsigned only.
Are you sure about that? If so, find me one.

Every thread I've seen where the OP has answered the door, they aren't even given a verbal S172. (I'm pretty sure I recall sgtdixie saying south of the border they're specifically asked not to do that when chasing up drivers for their Scottish brethren.) They're pressured to sign, but nothing happens when they don't. I haven't seen any of these unsigned threads go to trial, police visit or no.

The whole point is that if in the unsigned case a verbal requirement is not responded to, the prosecution is in the same position of having to argue that the unsigned response was inadequate, and the lack of response to the verbal requirement falls by the wayside. Whereas you've been claiming that the same requirement made verbally must be responded to regardless and the court don' have to consider the legal status of the unsigned form.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TonyS
post Mon, 15 Apr 2013 - 09:51
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 849
Joined: 24 Mar 2013
From: Scotland
Member No.: 60,732



With these "unsigned" cases, what's to stop them issuing the penalty/summons for the original offence to the person named in the (unsigned) declaration in any case?
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: Friday, 19th July 2019 - 13:26
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.