Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: NIP - Help needed !!!!!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
superlight
1. The name of the Constabulary: Humberside Police
2. Date of the offence: 11.02.06
3. Date of the NIP: 16.02.06
4. Date you received the NIP:17.02.06
5. Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): A63 Hull
6. Was the NIP addressed to you?: Initially sent to my employers - they replied with my name and address
7. Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery?: First
8. Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? If not then what is your relationship with the vehicle?: No, company car
9. How many current points do you have? : Zero
10. 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 road in question is a road used very regularly by myself and my partner, we are both unsure as to who was driving at the time - the car was recorded at 48mph in a 40mph zone.

I`m very new to all this so as much help as possible would be appreciated

Humberside police sent the initial NIP to my Employers (received 17.02.06). My Employers made me aware and returned the NIP with my details on. I received another NIP (1st class) on 24.02.06. I replied the next day stating I could not ascertain who was driving and requested a copy of the photographs.

They replied on 10.03.06 (1st class) stating the photographs were taken of the rear of the car and the driver could not be identified. They included another NIP stating I should identify the driver, if not they will proceed with Sect 172 of the RTA


Any help ideas would be most appreciated
andy_foster
Read the We Can't Recall Who Was Driving thread in the FAQ
superlight
Many thanks Andy !!!
superlight
Can you shed some more light on the "timeout" Ive read about

How long should I leave it before replying etc??

I honestly don`t know who was driving so should I return the second NIP unsigned stating that I have tried to ascertain the driver ??
andy_foster
For a speeding prosecution, they have to lay an information with the court (for issuing a summons) within 6 months of the alleged offence.
To do this, (in theory at least) they need to know who was driving.

If you don't nominate a driver, you are likely to be summoned for that instead - and they'd have 6 months from the end of the 28 days after your NIP/s.172 was served.
superlight
So would the speeding be forgotten about and they`d pursue under sect 172??

What sort of fines / points do they issue if they prove who the driver was
andy_foster
QUOTE (superlight @ Sat, 11 Mar 2006 - 15:39) *
So would the speeding be forgotten about and they`d pursue under sect 172??


Probably/usually/sometimes

QUOTE (superlight)
What sort of fines / points do they issue if they prove who the driver was


Do you mean if they prosecute and convict for speeding? For 48 in a 40 expect 3 points. £60 fine and £35-£250 costs (depending on how much you piss them off).
superlight
what about fines / points for sect 172?

If they cant prove who was driving can they still prosecute me as the keeper of the car- -If it does go to court what is the usual outcome if I have shown that I have tried to ascertain who was driving ??
andy_foster
If convicted, 3 points (MS90 endorsement code), ~£250 fine £35-£80 costs.

If you have made every reasonable attempt to determine who was driving, provide a paper trail, and are a credible witness, you should be fine.
firefly
QUOTE (superlight @ Sat, 11 Mar 2006 - 14:44) *
5. Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): A63 Hull

Are you sure this is what it says?

After all, the A63 runs for a considerable distance through Hull.

Read this thread.
superlight
It simply states "On a road called the A63, Hull"

Is the exact location relevant then ???
nemo
QUOTE (superlight @ Mon, 13 Mar 2006 - 20:21) *
It simply states "On a road called the A63, Hull"

Is the exact location relevant then ???

It could be if the 'A63 Hull' is more than 4 miles long...wink.gif

The location of the alleged offence requires to be reasonably specific. The judgment in Young vs Day suggests a stated locus which is unspecific to the tune of 4 miles or greater should invalidate the NIP...
QUOTE (Young vs Day)
A notice of intended prosecution under s. 21 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, stated that the police were considering prosecuting the defendant for dangerous driving, among other offences, "at 7.40 p.m. on July 6, 1958, at Hothfield to Bethersden Road. It is alleged that while motor car No. MKJ 680 was being driven along the Hothfield to Bethersden Road in the direction of Hothfield the driver drove in such a manner that he narrowly avoided colliding with a motor car which was stationary on the offside of the road". The Hothfield to Bethersden Road was a minor road approximately four miles in length. The justices held that the notice was invalid in that it did not sufficiently specify where the offence was alleged to have been committed and dismissed the information. On appeal by the prosecutor,

HELD: that the police could have specified the place of the alleged offence more accurately and that it was impossible to say that there were no facts on which the justices could come to the conclusion to which they came, and, therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
superlight
The A63 is at least 15 miles long a runs right through the bottom of Hull !!!

Will that help my case ????
nemo
QUOTE (superlight @ Mon, 13 Mar 2006 - 21:06) *
The A63 is at least 15 miles long a runs right through the bottom of Hull !!!

Will that help my case ????

Maybe...A good place to start is by having a read of these vague locus cases.

edit to change link to non-members' lounge wink.gif
superlight
So do you think I should argue against the location information or argue with them over sect 172??
andy_foster
QUOTE (superlight @ Mon, 13 Mar 2006 - 22:00) *
So do you think I should argue against the location information or argue with them over sect 172??

Many people who say that they don't know who was driving, do know that they were driving, but understandably wish to avoid getting any points.
Many people who say that they don't know who was driving, simply don't know who was driving.

If you don't know who was driving, you should make all reasonable attempts to find out, but you shouldn't name yourself or anyone else if you aren't sure.

If you know who was driving, or if you find out who was driving, the vague locus argument sounds encouraging, and there are other s.172 arguements which can only work if you know who was driving.
nemo
QUOTE (superlight @ Mon, 13 Mar 2006 - 22:00) *
So do you think I should argue against the location information or argue with them over sect 172??

In the first instance, you could try writing to them using Firefly's letter as a template. This will keep your options open, shall we say, whilst allowing you to shake the tree and see what drops..I have modded the letter slightly to allow for the stated locus and the fact that you are not the RK..
QUOTE (Firefly)
Date

Scammer Office
99 Acacia Avenue
Bumchester

Dear Sir/Madam

Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) Number - ********

With reference to the above notice (copy attached), and after taking legal advice, I am writing to inform you that the NIP I have been served has insufficient detail as to the alleged offence locus and, as such, is invalid.

Section 1-(1c)) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 states that in order for a NIP to be valid, the alleged offence locus must be given therein :

1-(1c)) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—

(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,

(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.

You will see from the NIP that the alleged offence locus is 'A63 Hull'. This is, unfortunately, excessively vague in order to identify the driver, as myself and the other driver on the day of the alleged offence were unaware of the incident in question, and as a consequence, cannot be sure unless more detail is given.

In Young v Day (1959) 123 J.P. 317, the Divisional Court refused to set aside a decision by the justices that a notice of intended prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 1930 s. 21 was insufficiently particular where it stated the place of the offence of dangerous driving as 'the Hothfield to Bethersden Road', which was a minor road four miles long. (Pope v. Clarke [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1060 followed).

It would appear therefore, that in order for the driver of the vehicle to be identified as per s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a new NIP requires to be issued, detailing the precise locus of the alleged offence. Once in receipt of this NIP, myself and the other driver on the day will try and establish the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged offence and respond when we have reached a conclusion.

Yours faithfully
superlight
I`ve already explained to them that it was either my girlfriend or I that was driving !! Though we cant remember which was of us was driving at the time

Have I droppped a clanger ???

Do I need to ammend anything on the draft letter - or just put in the correct address and NIP number ???
nemo
QUOTE (superlight @ Mon, 13 Mar 2006 - 22:49) *
I`ve already explained to them that it was either my girlfriend or I that was driving !! Though we cant remember which was of us was driving at the time

Have I droppped a clanger ???

If that's all that was said then no, not at all..
QUOTE (superlight @ Mon, 13 Mar 2006 - 22:49) *
Do I need to ammend anything on the draft letter - or just put in the correct address and NIP number ???

Not as far as I can see. Just copy, paste into Word and edit the personal bits.

Make sure the letter is sent Royal Mail Special Delivery. Costs a bit extra but service and proof of receipt by the scammers is guaranteed..
superlight
thanks nemo !

Would you wait a bit or send it straight away ??
andy_foster
QUOTE (superlight @ Mon, 13 Mar 2006 - 22:49) *
Do I need to ammend anything on the draft letter - or just put in the correct address and NIP number ???


Just edit the formatting and translations - e.g. © and \".
superlight
I sent the letter regarding the vague locus and I have received the following reply (Received today, letter dated 30.03.06)



"Thank you for your explanation concerning the above notice

I must advise you that if you wish to contest the RTA 1988 you will have to elect a court hearing.

I am sorry to have to tell you that in the circumstances enforcement action will still have to continue. If the matter proceeds as far as a court hearing you will have an opportunity to make your views known to the court. I`m afraid that the central ticket office cannot discuss the circumstances with you any further.

You can still avoid a court hearing by completing page 3 of the forms that were sent to you and sending payment together with your driving licence to the address shown on the forms.

To give you that opportunity to avoid having to proceed to a court case I will send you a further set of forms.

If on the other hand you wish to have a court hearing then please complete part 1 of the forms and return them to me.

I regret that if you do neither of these things a summons will be issued anyway

Yours sincerley



Mr Ti Ket"





Any views ???

Initially it mentions that "if the matter proceeds to a court hearing" then at the foot of the letter " a summons will be issued anyway"

This surely contradicts itself ??
andy_foster
Rule #1
superlight
sorry for being stupid but what is Rule #1 ???
nemo
QUOTE (superlight @ Sat, 1 Apr 2006 - 10:24) *
sorry for being stupid but what is Rule #1 ???

Rule 1) Scammers lie
Rule 2) See Rule 1

smile.gif
superlight
Ok ....I`m with you now.

So I should just sit back and see what happens I take it ???
nemo
QUOTE (superlight @ Sat, 1 Apr 2006 - 10:45) *
Ok ....I`m with you now.

So I should just sit back and see what happens I take it ???

OK, so they have not dropped the matter because of vague locus. Whilst they had the power to cancel the NIP, the validity or otherwise of the NIP ultimately is for the courts to decide, not the scammers...

It is a matter of some debate whether a faulty NIP negates the requirement to comply with the s.172 request. The obvious risk of doing nothing would be the issuing of a summons for failure to furnish driver details.

At the start of this thread, you stated you were unsure of the driver. If you remain unsure, then Andy has pointed you towards a good place to start reading. Also, search the forums for other 'unsure' cases and see what is required by way of defence preparation, 'reasonable diligence', credibilty, etc.. If summonsed, this line of defence would require the giving of oral testimony under oath in court.

If it has now come to light who was driving at the time of the alleged offence, then on the balance of probablities, I think I'd rather comply with the s.172 obligations via a PACE statement....That would still leave the door open to run with the vague locus argument (and others) should you receive a summons for the alleged speeding offence..
superlight
We are still not in a position to identify who was driving at the time, the A63 is a very very long road and without knowing where the camera / van was it`s impossible to determine.

Plus, can you still send off a PACE statement if you returned the original NIP signed ??


Cheers.
nemo
QUOTE (superlight @ Sat, 1 Apr 2006 - 11:18) *
We are still not in a position to identify who was driving at the time, the A63 is a very very long road and without knowing where the camera / van was it`s impossible to determine.

Plus, can you still send off a PACE statement if you returned the original NIP signed ??

What NIP has been returned signed ??? Unless I missed it, the only correspondence you've sent to the scammers was photo requests and Firefly's vague locus letter...

And the PACE statement is used when the identity of the driver is known. It states at the top 'This statement consisting of 1 page and attached NIP/ S 172 Notice is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true'.

If you do not know the identity of the driver, then how can you issue a sworn statement saying it was you ?
superlight
On my 1st post i stated that I had replied to the 1st NIP (This was before I came aware of this site) stating that I was unsure of who was driving. I`m 99% sure I signed it !!

I wasn`t stating that I would send a PACE statement to them, I know that if I am unsure of who was driving then I cannot send a PACE statement. I was just asking if a PACE statement could be sent after a signed NIP was sent.

I guess i`ve dropped a clanger with signing the 1st NIP then - my apologies for not being clear on that on my previous posts
nemo
OK, I understand - I knew you had replied to the first NIP, I just didn't realise that you had returned the NIP signed..

What exactly did you write on that NIP ?

QUOTE ("Section 12 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988")
12.—(1) Where on the summary trial in England and Wales of an information for an offence to which this subsection applies—

(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 172(2) of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and

( b ) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,

the court may accept that statement as evidence that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion.

The NIP was served on you so s12(a) is satisfied. But did anything you write on the NIP state that you were the driver of the vehicle on that occasion ? If not, then its likely that the signed NIP will not satisfy 12(b ) and, as such, will be of negligible evidential value. This is supported by the fact that the scammers obviously do not consider to have received a satisfactory response to date.
superlight
On the 1st NIP (that I signed) i wrote (or something very similar!) :

"I cannot confirm who the driver is as the road in question is a very regular road that we use, can you please supply some photographic evidence, and upon receipt of this we can hopefully asscertain who was driving at the time of the alledged offence"
andy_foster
Signing the NIP/s.172 essentially authenticates the information you have provided on that form. If you have not provided any meaningful information, signing it is largely meaningless.

As regards the PACE statement. The general advice is to attach it to the s.172 response form (marked "please see attached") becuase that is what Dr Jones did. If you no longer have the s.172 form, no biggie.

If you don't know who was driving, you shouldn't say that you do, but you should exrecise reasonable diligence in attempting to determine who was driving, and if unsuccessful write to the scammers providing the details of the possible drivers, the circumstances, and what you have done in an attempt to determine who was driving.
superlight
Can I still write to the scammers even if they have said that they cannot discuss the circumstances any further ??
andy_foster
No law against it.
If you are unable to determine who was driving, a sizeable paper-trail can be helpful.
superlight
Update:

Received a letter from the scammers on 5th May. Stating I have 7 days to state the name of the driver or court proceedings will commence.

I have done everything posible to try and asscertain who was driving the car.

I guess I just wait and see what happens ?????
firefly
Having re-read this thread, I'd say you're in good shape. The police letter is standard bluffing from scammer central. They'll try and make you sign your life away as they won't get their 30-pieces of silver if you elect to take it to court.

As it stands, a little prep work should see you have a very, very good chance in court (if it gets that far: I'm doubtfull). smile.gif
BJ101
are there any updates to this case?,have they been in touch since the last letter?

regards
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.