Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] 90mph on motorway, automated camera, vehicle registered to Ltd Company
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
TheStig
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - February 2016
Date of the NIP: - 2 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 5 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - M5, J17-16 Northbound
Was the NIP addressed to you? - No
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? - Director of Ltd Company which is RK of 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 - NIP arrived this morning, 90mph through 70mph zone, automated camera device.

The vehicle is registered to a limited company (of which I am the director). I am currently checking records to find out who may have been driving that day, but have so far drawn a blank.

Obviously a Ltd Company cannot get points on its licence (only be fined for a breach of s.172). However I'd rather this didn't happen so how would I go about demonstrating "reasonable diligence" in complying with the s.172 notice.

I do not know who was actually driving the vehicle at this stage. Is it worth requesting photographs from A&S to aid in identifying the driver?


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? - Yes
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? - 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:
  • 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, 29 Feb 2016 12:21:27 +0000
The Rookie
As a company you would have to demonstrate why it was reasonable not to keep records, can you do that?

That aside perhaps if you can give some background to the vehicle usage to see whether we would find it reasonable that you can't ID the driver...

If the courts don't believe you you'll get a hefty fine which will pail next to the £100 fixed penalty the driver will earn.
southpaw82
As a company you're expected to keep records and would have to demonstrate that it was reasonable for you not to in order to have a defence.
Jlc
Do you know who the keeper of the vehicle is? (Not the RK)

We don't have a lot of detail on the company - but the court would likely be surprised why such records aren't sufficient.

Asking for photo's under the 'driver identification' pretense can be made but I believe they are HADECS3 there and will only be of the rear of the vehicle and are unlikely to assist.

The court would have to decide on whether sufficient 'reasonable diligence' had taken place. All avenues should be explored, such as phone records, meetings etc.
The Rookie
QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 29 Feb 2016 - 13:34) *
The court would have to decide on whether sufficient 'reasonable diligence' had taken place. All avenues should be explored, such as phone records, meetings etc.

Not advice that is likely to help the company, noting that the potential drivers have no liability and no 'legal' need to help ID the driver at this stage.
TheStig
There are 3 people who have regular access to this vehicle. Normally it would be signed out but on this occasion it hadn't been (possibly an emergency call-out to a customer's site).

Is it worth making a formal request for photographs? At least then if it goes to court I can (in the capacity of company director) demonstrate that I've shown all reasonable diligence. Possibly naming the 3 potential drivers?
Jlc
Indeed, but without clarification on the 'company' I'm just covering bases.

QUOTE (TheStig @ Mon, 29 Feb 2016 - 12:38) *
There are 3 people who have regular access to this vehicle. Normally it would be signed out but on this occasion it hadn't been (possibly an emergency call-out to a customer's site).

Is it worth making a formal request for photographs? At least then if it goes to court I can (in the capacity of company director) demonstrate that I've shown all reasonable diligence. Possibly naming the 3 potential drivers?

...which could mean some other records on the callout. The client may remember who attended etc.

You can ask for photo's but they are unlikely to help much on the RD front for the reasons mentioned above. Have you spoken to the 3 potential drivers?
The Rookie
Naming three drivers won't help you avoid court.

Why was it reasonable in this case for no records to exist (a court will ask)?

Presumably you know what jobs were on that day, so you know where and you'll know who went to each one surely? How far from your base is J16-17 of the M5? If its a fair way it's very likely you only had one person going that way that day?

Please don't think this is picking on you, this is what a court will ask, if the answers aren't to their liking the company will be found guilty.

Definitely worth a polite letter asking for a copy of any photo's that could help you ID the driver.
Jlc
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 29 Feb 2016 - 12:43) *
Definitely worth a polite letter asking for a copy of any photo's that could help you ID the driver.

Rear-facing cameras - here. May not hold any clues...
TheStig
The location is about 20 minutes from our offices.

This just got interesting. I've had a look over the CCTV (to check who may have been driving on that day). The CCTV shows the vehicle parked in our car park all afternoon on that day.

It's possible that A&S have got their dates wrong, in which case does this make the s.172 notice invalid?

Other minor point:

The NIP is addressed to "Company Secretary". Because the company was incorporated after the implementation of the new Companies Act, a Company Secretary is no longer needed (and we therefore haven't appointed one).

Does this change anything legally? Given that the addressee is technically non-existent?
BaggieBoy
QUOTE (TheStig @ Mon, 29 Feb 2016 - 13:02) *
It's possible that A&S have got their dates wrong, in which case does this make the s.172 notice invalid?

The NIP might invalid, but that doesn't invalidate the S172 request. I suggest you call them up and ask them to check the details, as you have proof the vehicle was not where they say it was. They may assume that the VRN has been cloned and request photographs etc.

QUOTE (TheStig @ Mon, 29 Feb 2016 - 13:02) *
Does this change anything legally? Given that the addressee is technically non-existent?

Nope, else everyone would do the same.
Jlc
That might explain why you have no log at that time...? Bemused phone-call time...

...but if you want a photo you should only ask under the pretense to identify the driver - if anything casts doubt on the vehicle (e.g. clone) then they won't release for sure.
bill w
Just a question to the more experienced on here;
Apart from double checking that the OP has been looking at the correct days CCTV, wouldn't it be worth waiting until 14 days are up before the bemused phone call?
Also, does the OP's company pay overtime for callouts? If so, who claimed it?
I do note that the S172 is still valid, and must be replied to based on the question asked, within 28 days.
Jlc
Yes, waiting for 14 days would ensure a timely NIP could not be issued. Any s172 request doesn't have such deadlines.
Logician
QUOTE (TheStig @ Mon, 29 Feb 2016 - 13:02) *
Other minor point: The NIP is addressed to "Company Secretary". Because the company was incorporated after the implementation of the new Companies Act, a Company Secretary is no longer needed (and we therefore haven't appointed one). Does this change anything legally? Given that the addressee is technically non-existent?


Under s.270 Companies Act 2006 where there is no secretary, anything received addressed to the secretary is to be treated as addressed to the company itself, and anything that needs to be done may be done by a director or person authorised by the directors. So it must still be dealt with.

TheStig
Just to confirm, yes, it is the correct day's CCTV, 24/02/2016. It shows the vehicle clearly parked up and not in use for the entire afternoon. It had been used in the morning but was returned to its parking space by 1pm. The NIP stated the time of offence as 15:26. At this time the vehicle was parked up and not in use.

Have the police simply got the time or date wrong, or is it possible someone has cloned the number plate?

I'm thinking along the lines of Jlc above, wait 14 days, alert them to their mistake, inform them that the vehicle could not possibly have been involved as it was parked up and not in use (and I have CCTV to prove this).

I've checked logs etc. The vehicle had been signed out that morning for a site visit. It was signed back in at 1pm. Nobody signed it out for the rest of the day, because it was not in use.

This is a little suspicious to say the least.
BaggieBoy
Doubtful it is anything more complicated than a simple cock-up with the date.
andy_foster
Most likely is that one of the shaved chimps in the back office has either misread the plate, or mistyped it.
kernow2015
I'd back up the cctv of the time now and make sure the copy works in case you need to produce it, as I know I've had an issue at work with a colleague who had a NIP for his numberplate, although as he'd put a private plate on he knew it wasn't him on the original plate, and luckily we got to the cctv just before it started to overwrite.

I didn't realise the cameras at Cribbs worked as normal even when the limit was 70, rarely go up the M5 these days.
TheStig
QUOTE (kernow2015 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2016 - 06:55) *
I didn't realise the cameras at Cribbs worked as normal even when the limit was 70, rarely go up the M5 these days.


They weren't, at least until very recently.
baggins1234
QUOTE (TheStig @ Tue, 1 Mar 2016 - 07:54) *
QUOTE (kernow2015 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2016 - 06:55) *
I didn't realise the cameras at Cribbs worked as normal even when the limit was 70, rarely go up the M5 these days.


They weren't, at least until very recently.


Been working for over a year now, maybe longer
TheStig
This just got nasty.

I've just had a letter from the Constabulary referring to "comments you have posted on the Pepipoo forum under the user name 'TheStig'".

It was addressed to "Company Secretary" but began "Dear Mr XXXX" using my real surname.

Should I request that this entire thread be deleted, or should I scan and wash the letter I've just received from them and post it up? Obviously they're trawling this forum.
peterguk
What's got nasty?

It is well known this forum is read by the authorities, and the advice given in this thread seems nothing but good.

What have they said about the comments in this thread?
TheStig
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 2 Mar 2016 - 14:20) *
What's got nasty?
It is well known this forum is read by the authorities, and the advice given in this thread seems nothing but good.


The fact that they've addressed the letter (at least the salutation part) to me. I'm not the registered keeper of the vehicle. The limited company is.

Scanned and washed copy of letter... is this just bluff and bluster?

Click to view attachment

Surely if I've named 3 possible drivers then I've complied with s.172 request? Or rather, acting in the capacity of company director, the company has complied with the s.172 request?
Jlc
Well they've confirmed the photo's do not assist as expected and seem to have confirmed there wasn't a plate misread.

The reasons why 3 possible drivers wouldn't be acceptable was covered earlier in the thread.

But if the vehicle was parked up at the time there couldn't be a driver at the material time? As there's a hint of a possible clone then they would want to see your pictures first as expected. Just to cover the obvious, is the date/time correct on the CCTV system? (Funny things have happened)
TheStig
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 2 Mar 2016 - 14:45) *
Just to cover the obvious, is the date/time correct on the CCTV system? (Funny things have happened)


Yes, the CCTV is internet-enabled and automatically sets the clock, synchronising several times a day. (It has to do this for any CCTV evidence to be legally admissible in court.)
Kickaha
I would name the person who is normally responsible for the vehicle, but point out that the vehicle was not at that location at the time and date given as it was parked and that you have CCTV footage of it parked.

That way you have named the person keeping the vehicle at that time so a 172 charge SHOULD not be possible.
Logician
As the SEU have read this thread, they will have seen that when you named three possible drivers you were unaware that the vehicle had been in the car park at the time, so I suggest you do as they ask, provide a copy of the CCTV footage with confirmation that the time/date stamp could not be altered by you if that is the case, formally withdraw your previous nomination of three drivers and state that you cannot nominate a driver as it was not your company's vehicle that was photographed.
Jlc
I didn't think any nomination had been made yet?
TheStig
I haven't actually nominated any drivers yet, so there's nothing to withdraw.

It may be a case of ticking the box on the back that says "my vehicle was not at the scene of the alleged offence" and sending back a screenshot from the CCTV showing that the vehicle was parked up here at the time. At present I think that's going to be the best bet.
666
Can an "IT Support Officer" really be empowered to write letters to members of the public on behalf of the police as part of a criminal investigation?
Logician
Sorry, my mistake, I was confused by the police talking about three drivers. Indeed, if there is unusually a box to tick to dispute your vehicle was at the scene, that is clearly very appropriate.
peterguk
QUOTE (666 @ Wed, 2 Mar 2016 - 16:51) *
Can an "IT Support Officer" really be empowered to write letters to members of the public on behalf of the police as part of a criminal investigation?


Why not?
The Rookie
Indeed, why not, it's only a letter, its not a formal document.
andy_foster
There does not appear to be anything untoward in this thread, so there does not seem to be any issue in the police following it.

The police pretending to know more than they do in an attempt to intimidate suspects is nothing new. Some years ago, when I was by far the site's most prolific poster, I was assisting a defendant at a speeding trial where a delightful dodgy estate agent had linked a case thread here to a live case and given the details to the relevant force. Nothing posted in the thread was used in the trial, but during one of the many recesses, the police witness made a point of letting us know that he "knew all about the chat-room". I introduced myself to him at which point he asked me what my screen-name was.
jdh
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 2 Mar 2016 - 14:45) *
Well they've confirmed the photo's do not assist as expected and seem to have confirmed there wasn't a plate misread.
I'm never entirely convinced on that argument, if it's a van with solid back doors etc then fair enough but you could glean other bits of info from a picture that doesn't show the driver's face, is there a passenger for example, height of headrest, coat hanging in back. Many a time on here we've seen pictures the OP's claim don't show the driver but with a bit off tweeking or process of elimination can narrow down the ID.
Jlc
Yes, that is possibly possible. Of course, there's the other angle were an 'unexpected' passenger is in the car - 'Who's that, dear?'. (Not at all suggesting this is the case here)
jdh
If I were the OP I'd be replying to that letter with a CCTV picture showing the van parked up at the time and also requesting their picture for comparison. I'm going for cock-up over conspiracy, it could be something as simple as a towbar obscuring part of a number plate resulting in a misread.
Irksome
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 29 Feb 2016 - 22:50) *
Most likely is that one of the shaved chimps in the back office has either misread the plate, or mistyped it.

Maybe that comment was what got up Mr Smiths nose tongue.gif

Mr Smith's letter appears to contain some important inaccuracies as it is addressed to the person he believes to the OP here (but what if the OP is not the addressee of the letter ... perhaps a member of staff etc trying to figure out a way out). It states to the OP 'You are therefore still required to identify, in writing with a signature' whereas it is the Company this is required to provide the information requested, not necessarily the OP. Again he states 'your vehicle' when it is not the OP's vehicle but the Company's vehicle.

All feels a bit personal and inappropriate for an employee of the state to make what I would read as a veiled threat.

Who knows ... maybe Mr Smith will be able to work out who I am and write me a nice letter ohmy.gif
Kickaha
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 3 Mar 2016 - 09:34) *
There does not appear to be anything untoward in this thread, so there does not seem to be any issue in the police following it.

The police pretending to know more than they do in an attempt to intimidate suspects is nothing new. Some years ago, when I was by far the site's most prolific poster, I was assisting a defendant at a speeding trial where a delightful dodgy estate agent had linked a case thread here to a live case and given the details to the relevant force. Nothing posted in the thread was used in the trial, but during one of the many recesses, the police witness made a point of letting us know that he "knew all about the chat-room". I introduced myself to him at which point he asked me what my screen-name was.

Don't tell him pike andy_foster tongue.gif
The Rookie
Irksome seems to have forgotten that you can be plural as well as singular......
TheStig
Quick update on this:

Our transport manager wrote back to the SEU earlier this week with a covering letter and a still frame from the CCTV showing the vehicle parked up outside the registered office of the Company, with a time and date stamp on the still photo showing the time and date of the alleged speeding offence. This proves the vehicle was at a different location.

I'm going to assume that A&S simply got their date wrong. I know cloned plates happen but it's not the "norm".

Will keep you guys updated anyway.
TheStig
Further update:

Got another letter from "Mr B Smith". A&S are now asking for video footage, "preferably showing 15 minutes either side of the alleged offence", their reasoning being "in case the CCTV clock is not consistent with that of the speed camera".

Unfortunately after this amount of time I no longer have that footage. It's kept for about 20 days before being overwritten.

The letter was implying that because the time stamp on the still image was "2 minutes before the alleged offence" that someone would have had time to have driven the vehicle to the scene in those 2 minutes. The reason the time stamp was 2 minutes before the alleged offence is simple - the CCTV is motion-sensitive and only records when it detects movement. The motion detection had been triggered at that point 2 minutes prior to the alleged offence. There is no footage at the exact time stamp when the alleged speeding offence took place, hence the discrepancy.

Our transport manager has written back explaining that 1. we no longer have the video footage from that day, only the captured still frames, 2. if they would like to google the location of the address where the vehicle was parked (which is in both the letterhead and the footer of the company's headed paper) they will soon discover that the company's registered office is around 30 minutes drive from the scene of the alleged speeding incident, and 3. the CCTV recorder sets its clock automatically via Internet-based Network Time Protocol so is always accurate.

"Mr B Smith"'s letter also mentioned the second NIP (see other thread), I put in my reply that this was served late and was a separate matter, therefore it would not be appropriate to discuss it.

So, a message to "Mr B Smith (IT Support Officer)" who will no doubt read this thread: If you have time to trawl Internet forums where people are asking for advice on speeding allegations (and that's all this is at this stage, an allegation) then you have time to type our company's address into Google Maps where you will discover that the company is based around 30 minutes from the scene of the alleged offence, and that there is no way anyone could have driven to that location in the 2-minute time frame available.
Jlc
Was there video footage? I.e. Was it deleted after the allegation was known?
TheStig
The CCTV system keeps stuff for 21 days then overwrites it. It wasn't actively deleted, it's just now more than 21 days ago so it's no longer retrievable.

I captured screenshots from the system showing the car was parked here. Unfortunately I didn't capture video footage as obviously I wasn't aware that A&S were going to ask for actual video. I'd thought that a screen capture with a time and date stamp would be sufficient.

The actual video footage that existed was a series of clips, each lasting a few seconds, where the recording had been triggered by the motion sensor. It wouldn't have given any more information than the stills I extracted.
typefish
QUOTE (TheStig @ Sat, 19 Mar 2016 - 07:29) *
"Mr B Smith"'s letter also mentioned the second NIP (see other thread), I put in my reply that this was served late and was a separate matter, therefore it would not be appropriate to discuss it.


I deserve some brownie points for calling that one out, surely...
NewJudge
If I were you, Stig, I would prepare my company to defend a S172 allegation. Unless a cock-up is evident (and they should have uncovered that by now) I cannot imagine Mr B Smith or anybody in his department making a decision on this. I think they will let nature take its course and allow a court to decide.
TheStig
This just got interesting:

I've just received a Recorded Delivery letter from A&S, addressed to me personally, NOT to the Ltd Company.

Enclosed are two NIPs, dated 29/03/2016, served on me (the Director) personally.

No driver has been nominated at ANY stage.

The vehicle is registered to a Ltd Company (and I can produce a copy of the V5 showing this information if required).

If the police are serving the NIP on me then it is clearly extremely late - plus I am not the RK of the vehicle.

Do people think this is sabre-rattling by the police? Can post up a scanned and washed copy of Mr Shaved Chimp... sorry... Mr B Smith's letter if it would help?
southpaw82
Just an NIP or also a s. 172 notice?
TheStig
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 31 Mar 2016 - 14:11) *
Just an NIP or also a s. 172 notice?


NIP and s.172 notice.

Just drafted out this letter to send to them (signed by me as MD):

-8K-----

You have written to me with regard to the above reference numbers, enclosing two Notices of Intended Prosecution which have been served on me personally. Having sought legal advice, I should inform you that neither Notice is valid.

I am not the Registered Keeper of the vehicle involved in the alleged offence, and thus the Notice cannot lawfully be served on me personally unless I have been previously nominated as the driver of the vehicle.

I have never been nominated as the driver of said vehicle, and thus the Notices you have enclosed are not valid.

Finally both of these notices are dated 29th March 2016, approximately 5 weeks after the date of the alleged offences. The initial Notice must be served on the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days of the date of the alleged offence. The Notices have been served 33 and 36 days after the date of the alleged offence(s), and on a person other than the registered keeper.

Furthermore I reiterate that no driver has been named by the Registered Keeper of the vehicle (namely the Limited Company).

Therefore I am under absolutely no obligation to comply with the request made under Section 172 as I am not liable to provide the requested information. I am therefore requesting that you cease and desist pursuing me personally for this matter.

I would hope that you would take the sensible step of cancelling the two Notices that were issued to me personally, as they were not done so lawfully. Your behaviour in this matter would be classed as an abuse of process in a court of law. I therefore await your reply confirming that the Notices issued to me personally have been cancelled.

-8K-----

Comments before I print and send it?
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.