Unsigned forms - The Scottish Experience?? Options

[r11co]

Has anyone here seen through to conclusion (either court or case dropped) the unsigned form process within a Scottish Jurisdiction?

There's precious little out there about it beyond 'Scotland is different'. It is up to a point but all the RTA's are the same ones that apply to the rest of the UK.

Help/advice/reassurance required

[Advertisement]

[peugeot]

I have sent back an unsigned form(Strathclyde) and was offered the fixed penalty which I have not accepted and so far have heard no more. The fixed penalty offer was made in November. Does anyone know if the 6 months rule with regard to the speeding is applicable in Scotland as the alleged offence was in July

[r11co]

I hope you wouldn't mind if we kept in touch, either through this forum or by email, so you can let me know how you get on

I am at the stage of not even having sent the form back yet - still within the 28 days period and I plan to wait till the last minute before sending it, so I'm a wee bit behind you!

I've no idea if the 6 month time bar applies in Scotland either

[firefly]

Gents

The application of the law in Scotland is unclear at present. As far as can be gathered, the law (section 172) is in a "virgin" state ie. Broomfield, Pickford, Yorke/Mawdelsy do not apply as these rulings were made in England.

What is clear however is that Section 172 does apply in Scotland and, in theory, the same logic applies to it being unsigned and returned.

I know of two friends who have sent their's back unsigned a number of months ago and have heard nothing since.

Watch this space..........

[peugeot]

Checked the date of the alleged speeding last night and realised that it was the 2nd of July.This means that the 6 months period has expired and I have heard nothing since the fixed penalty offer. I think I am in the clear?

[DW190]

Peugeot


Its not expired for the S172 yet.

That will be 30 January 2004.

DW190

[peugeot]

The fact they sent a fixed penalty offer would suggest that they were satisfied with the returned nip. To go to court after the expiry of the speeding would be stupid. A simple sorry I forgot to sign would look odd and the fact that an offer was made.

[peugeot]

Update for Strathclyde, I have heard nothing and the 6 months on the speeding and nip172 are past so not signing,sending back 172 as late as possible ( mines was actually late) and not accepting the FP offer is definately worth a try.

[I've had enough]

I have just sent back a D & Galloway NIP, just inside 28 days. Just for fun, I thought I would go unsigned and Yorke compliant as well as not being the RK.

Now we shall see.....

The D&G NIP has Form A (covering letter) and Form B (is the tabulated form). Form A asked specifically (and twice) for NAME and ADDRESS if you were the driver. Nothing else is asked for directly or indirectly on the covering letter. There is NO instruction on Form B, the filler-outer....

So we have complied in full and will get neither speeding nor 172 I hope.

Rgds, IHE.

[r11co]

In looking for information regarding the unsigned form issue in Scotland, and the events leading up to/outcomes of prosecution, one thing noticeable by its absence is a body of experience being voiced by people on this and other forums.

The unsigned issue has been publicised for well over a year now and I would have thought, even though Scotland is a nation with a population slightly less than that of Greater London, that there would be plenty of Scots some way down the line with the procedure who would have heard of this site (probably the best known on the 'net for the topic) and be discussing it here.

In the absence of more information, and going on the experiences of peugeot and the friends of firefly, could it be that few if any cases ever get that far??

[I've had enough]

Latest on my Scottish NIP.

I got my original unsigned (and Yorke Compliant, for what it's worth) NIP sent back with the DOB, Driving Licence Number and Signature fields marked with a handwritten "X" and highlighted in a delightful shade of pink.

The original covering letter (Form A) said "... if you were the driver... fill out NAME and ADDRESS.." and nothing else! And there was no instruction embedded in the actual form (Form B).

The NIP was returned with no covering letter or instruction of any form whatsoever.... just a pre-printed personal compliment slip from the Ch. Constable.

Probably because I sent the NIP response "Personal, Private and Confidential" to the Ch. C!!

So what next: nothing I guess. Just sit tight.

Wait for the twin summons: excess speed and S172.

Then my defence is:

1. Speeding: no evidence offered
2. S172: I complied strictly with all direct instructions and the RTA88 does not demand nor imply a signature

Anyone have a better idea?

[jeffreyarcher]

Probably because I sent the NIP response "Personal, Private and Confidential" to the Ch. C!!

Why did you do that?
There's absolutely no benefit whatsoever in drawing ttention to yourself.
That looks to me like you're thumbing your nose at the CC. If D&G pick on someone to test the water with, they've now got a volunteer.

[I've had enough]

Ah well. I did it in the hope that it might make the NIP yet "less admissable" and so that they would have one more thing to explain about how they were conducting their process.

I guess it has no material value and as you say, could irritate them! I have never had a speeding ticket before nor have I ever been accused of a criminal offence and I find it difficult. Jefferyarcher indulge this S172 newbie while he finds his feet.

On the facts as to what they have done, they have not required a signature (or other details) as far as I can see.

So do I sit tight and wait, or correspond? I don't want to write and ask them what they want me to do. That would produce a simple request to fill in signature. Whilst that would be refused on the basis that I don't have to give one, I am in a stronger position just now surely?

Following jefferyarcher's implicit "non-irritation" injunction, I guess I also do not write back saying "thanks for your confirmation of receipt"!

So I think I sit tight and wait.

[r11co]

I'm inclined to agree with jeffrey here.

The cover letter we got from Strathclyde only asks for name and address of driver, but the form has space for DOB/ licence number etc. and I was tempted to leave them out, but following peugeot's (above) experience and going by the huge piles of returned NIPs I saw in the office, I'm inclined to think it is better not to draw attention to yourself and hope they foul up and send out a Fixed Penalty offer.

[r11co]

OK, so, now we have the Francis verdict (explanation to follow) in England, does anyone know if it is directly applicable up here?

From what little I could gather from people returning unsigned forms to Strathclyde Camera Enforcement, the usual routine was for the Unit to send a fixed penalty notice which, if you'd stretched out your time for returning the NIP to the maximum and then ignored the FPN, eventually time expired for speeding and s.172 because they didn't follow up (probably because of the sheer volume of NIPs the office deals with considering the huge geographical area the Unit operates for).

If they were going to pursue a 'non signer' it would be on the authority of Brown 'v' Stott (another questionable decision that really needs to go to a higher court), so any opinions on the state of play now?

[jeffreyarcher]

If they were going to pursue a 'non signer' it would be on the authority of Brown 'v' Stott (another questionable decision that really needs to go to a higher court), so any opinions on the state of play now?

Strewth! I don't know how many times it's been posted here, Stott v Brown is sod all to do with unsigned forms.

[r11co]

Strewth! I don't know how many times it's been posted here, Stott v Brown is sod all to do with unsigned forms.

You know that, I know that, but, as Firefly pointed out in another thread and as I discovered myself when I actually visited the Strathclyde Camera Enforcement Unit, they are (or at least were) using it as 'authority' for their "b & b" letters.

They don't seem to think it has 'sod all' to do with not providing the info they need to convict, so assuming they think they are on to something - any guesses?

It surprises me how little information we have on the Scottish situation. Either drivers/RKs are 'fessing up and paying up or they are managing to get away with it with little hassle, but either way they aren't turning up here so it has to be clear-cut one way or the other.

Either that or they aren't smart enough to find this forum

[jeffreyarcher]

You know that, I know that,

Then why did you say

If they were going to pursue a 'non signer' it would be on the authority of Brown 'v' Stott

<...> but, as Firefly pointed out in another thread and as I discovered myself when I actually visited the Strathclyde Camera Enforcement Unit, they are (or at least were) using it as 'authority' for their "b & b" letters.

They seem to think it doesn't have 'sod all' to do with not providing the info they need to convict, so assuming they think they are on to something

Have you seen a Strathclyde B&B with respect to an unsigned form citing Stottt v Brown as an authority that you have to sign? If you have, you must be one of a rare breed indeed.

- any guesses?

It refers to pre Stott v Brown times. Stott v Brown ended that defence.

[r11co]

Have you seen a Strathclyde B&B with respect to an unsigned form citing Stottt v Brown as an authority that you have to sign? If you have, you must be one of a rare breed indeed.

No I haven't. I went on hear-say for that - my mistake

OK, putting the Brown issue aside, and going back to my original question - how does Francis apply to Scotland (if at all)?

[firefly]

as Firefly pointed out in another thread and as I discovered myself when I actually visited the Strathclyde Camera Enforcement Unit, they are (or at least were) using it as 'authority' for their "b & b" letters.

I have never said that! I said that Stott v Brown is authority for the argument that you shouldn't have to sign an NIP on the grounds of self-incrimination. Stott v Brown has nothing whatsoever to do with an unsigned form and didn't rule on it (as such).

And Strathclyde were using Broomfield, not Brown v Stott. You may have mis-read my thread.