Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: NIP sent and no reply
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
dab0070
My wife was caught on a red light offence on 29/02/2016 in the London Borough of Sutton. The NIP was first sent to me, which I filled saying my wife was driving. My wife then filled the NIP and I posted it on 10/05/2016. I did not do recorded delivery, but I used online postage, so all I have is proof that I purchased a 1st class stamp on 10/05/2016. A couple of days after I posted this my wife was sent a reminder, and since I had only just posted the original, we ignored the reminder.

It is now more than a month, and no reply to my wife's NIP. Do we wait or attempt to contact them. Where can I find an email address for them?
peterguk
Why not just complete and return the reminder? And get free proof of posting from the Post Office.

Try Google for contact details if there is nothing on the correspondance you have received.

If it has been more than a month, and your wife's reply has not been received, she's looking at a summons for FtF, and you have no proof the reply was sent.
dab0070
Even if I posted it?
I have found an email address, and I will write to them on CO16Mailbox-.FixedPenaltyNoticeEnquiries@met.police.uk
Jlc
QUOTE (dab0070 @ Fri, 24 Jun 2016 - 16:05) *
Even if I posted it?

(Free) proof of postage from a PO is the way to go for that. Although, even PoP doesn't guarantee contents.

Do you know how long into red?
dab0070
No idea, not received the 'evidence' yet. I guess this comes after the NIP has been sent
peterguk
QUOTE (dab0070 @ Fri, 24 Jun 2016 - 16:15) *
No idea, not received the 'evidence' yet. I guess this comes after the NIP has been sent


It's often mentioned on the NIP.
Jlc
QUOTE (dab0070 @ Fri, 24 Jun 2016 - 16:15) *
No idea, not received the 'evidence' yet. I guess this comes after the NIP has been sent

Just a possibility that if the time into red was significant then the matter goes straight to court and a fixed penalty is not offered. The next piece of mail could be a court summons/requisition.

They don't have to provide any evidence at this stage, prior to a not guilty plea at court.
dab0070
I have checked the NIP, it does not mention it. All it says:-

"In accordance with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, notice is hereby given that proceedings are contemplated against the driver of motor vehicle registration xxxxxxxx for an alleged offence of Contravening Red Traffic Light on 29--Feb-2016 at xxxx hours at A217 St Dunstans Hill j/w Gander Green Ln N/B SM1 (4028R)

This allegation can be supported in court by technical and photographic evidence.

In accordance with Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, I here require ........"

QUOTE
Just a possibility that if the time into red was significant then the matter goes straight to court and a fixed penalty is not offered. The next piece of mail could be a court summons/requisition.

They don't have to provide any evidence at this stage, prior to a not guilty plea at court.


My wife says it was a slow moving traffic, and she rolled in over the red. By how much, I don't know.

If its a straight summons, what are we expecting?
The Rookie
You'll just have to wait and see what they say.
Jlc
QUOTE (dab0070 @ Fri, 24 Jun 2016 - 16:31) *
If its a straight summons, what are we expecting?

Still the same 3 points but the fine would be higher + costs - so around £150-250 most likely.
dab0070
What happens if they send a NIP and I don't receive it, do they have proof of posting?
peterguk
QUOTE (dab0070 @ Fri, 24 Jun 2016 - 18:22) *
do they have proof of posting?


Yes.
NewJudge
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 24 Jun 2016 - 18:32) *
QUOTE (dab0070 @ Fri, 24 Jun 2016 - 18:22) *
do they have proof of posting?


Yes.


And furthermore it is assumed to have been delivered in two working days. If you want to argue that it was not the burden shifts to you to prove to the court - "on the balance of probabilities" - that it was not.
The Rookie
I'm trying to make sense of you posts, you say you had the NIP and filled it in, the. Your wife filled it in and returned it, is that one NIP or two.

Why the questions about the NIPs arrival, it clearly arrived and you wouldn't want to risk jail by claiming it didn't, also if they have your reply then they have plenty of evidence you got it to reply to.
Logician
I would complete the reminder, staple to it a note saying that you posted the original to them on whatever date it was, copy it, take it to a Post Office and get a receipt for posting it. There is no angle here that will benefit your wife and you want to avoid the complications that will follow if they have no received the original.
peterguk
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 24 Jun 2016 - 23:11) *
I'm trying to make sense of you posts, you say you had the NIP and filled it in, the. Your wife filled it in and returned it, is that one NIP or two.


OP (RK) received 1st NIP. He named wife.

Wife received her own NIP. She named herself.
ford poplar
That is an assumption petergUK.

Let's understand correct process/forms,
No one completes/returns a NIP, only the attached s172
First NIP/s172 sent to OP(RK) who unequivocally names wife as driver on s172 & returns to issuing Authority
IA then sends NIP/s172 addressed to all nominated drivers, who return their own s172s, accepting/refuting they were driver at time.
If wife did not subs receive personally addressed NIP/s172, then OP (RK) could be charged with FTF (MS90) 28 days after presumed service of orig NIP/s172 or if driver nomination was 'equivocal'.
dab0070
Two NIP/S172 were received. One that I filled in naming my wife, then the other one she filled which I posted. I have sent an email to CO16Mailbox-.FixedPenaltyNoticeEnquiries@met.police.uk asking if they can confirm my wife's NIP/S172 has been received. Is that enough or should I get my wife to send the reminder NIP?
666
QUOTE (dab0070 @ Sat, 25 Jun 2016 - 10:28) *
Two NIP/S172 were received. One that I filled in naming my wife, then the other one she filled which I posted. I have sent an email to CO16Mailbox-.FixedPenaltyNoticeEnquiries@met.police.uk asking if they can confirm my wife's NIP/S172 has been received. Is that enough or should I get my wife to send the reminder NIP?


The police may not reply to you: they shouldn't discuss your wife's case with a third party.

She should respond to the reminder as suggested bu Logician above.


dab0070
Not having had a reply for so long, an email was sent asking if they had received the NIP/S172, to which the following email reply was received a few days ago:-

"We have received the response and the case has been referred for court action due to the severity of the offence"

Will I get to see the video evidence?
Is that likely to be 6 points and a fine?
andy_foster
QUOTE (dab0070 @ Sun, 17 Jul 2016 - 09:18) *
Will I get to see the video evidence?


What makes you think that there is video evidence?

QUOTE
Is that likely to be 6 points and a fine?


Can't be 6 points. Will be a fine and 3 points or a ban (not sure if the sentencing guidelines include a ban though).
peterguk
QUOTE (dab0070 @ Sun, 17 Jul 2016 - 09:18) *
Not having had a reply for so long, an email was sent asking if they had received the NIP/S172, to which the following email reply was received a few days ago:-

"We have received the response and the case has been referred for court action due to the severity of the offence"

Will I get to see the video evidence?
Is that likely to be 6 points and a fine?


Depends on what action is being taken.

Speeding and/or FtF.
The Rookie
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 17 Jul 2016 - 15:00) *
Red light and/or FtF.

FTFY

While a ban is possible as noted by Andy, if they are progressing the red light offence then it's most likely to be 3 points (number of point is fixed at 3, so it's 3 points or a ban, nothing else is possible unless you are not guilty) but a significantly increased fine.

Most red light offences are captured by a still camera taking two photos' the first will show the car astride the line and the second will prove it was moving.
peterguk
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 17 Jul 2016 - 15:03) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 17 Jul 2016 - 15:00) *
Red light and/or FtF.

FTFY


Ta!
dab0070
My wife has now received photos. Looking at the photos, she intends to turn right on the filter signal, but has just gone past the red light then stopped and waiting for it to go green. The evidence also says that she is travelling at 14mph and the red light is on for 74 seconds.
I think what probably happened, she saw green for traffic going straight, went past the right filter and stopped when she realised it is red for turning right.
What are the chances if we decide to fight with this?

By the way, in their Witness Statement, the signature is not witnessed - is that relevant?


Witness statement


Offence Image Printout
Jlc
The offence is complete - the vehicle has moved over the stop line during red. There's nothing to fight IMHO.

The pictures don't seem to show whether she did fully stop shortly after the line or not. (If she stopped without turning then the bench might be accommodating)

The matter is only at court due to the large time red was illuminated.

Trouble is that by stating she did not see the filter light and had observed the light for straight ahead that could be considered aggravating.
dab0070
She says she did stop. and because of the on coming traffic, she must have stopped without turning.
peterguk
The stills are likely from a video.

If she KNOWS she stopped, then she should plead NG.

At trial, the CPS, if correct, will show the full video showing your wife driving through the red light.

Her choice.
The Rookie
Pleading guilty is the only option.

I would disagree with the above, being confused by the straight on green light is better than ignoring or not seeing a red so sounds like reasonable mitigation (or at least closing off aggravating factors), additionally if she can state she definitely then stopped until her light was green then that would close of an aggravating factor of it being dangerous.

A reasonable letter of mitigation should see them sentence towards the lower end of the scale, will be 3 points regardless.

Like the Copyright tag on the photos - utter rowlocks!
Jlc
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 08:49) *
I would disagree with the above, being confused by the straight on green light is better than ignoring or not seeing a red so sounds like reasonable mitigation (or at least closing off aggravating factors), additionally if she can state she definitely then stopped until her light was green then that would close of an aggravating factor of it being dangerous.

It depends on how it is worded - if done badly then it could aggravate.

GSV here.

Arguably, there would be 2 green lights and only 1 red.
BaggieBoy
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 08:38) *
The stills are likely from a video.

Looks like the standard 2 snaps from a RLC to me, I don't think there is any video.
Jlc
QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 09:09) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 08:38) *
The stills are likely from a video.

Looks like the standard 2 snaps from a RLC to me, I don't think there is any video.

Nope, indeed - you can see the camera here.
BaggieBoy
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 09:14) *
QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 09:09) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 08:38) *
The stills are likely from a video.

Looks like the standard 2 snaps from a RLC to me, I don't think there is any video.

Nope, indeed - you can see the camera here.

Not quite, the offence was snapped by the N/B camera on the other side of the lights.
The Rookie
QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 09:19) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 09:14) *
QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 09:09) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 08:38) *
The stills are likely from a video.

Looks like the standard 2 snaps from a RLC to me, I don't think there is any video.

Nope, indeed - you can see the camera here.

Not quite, the offence was snapped by the N/B camera on the other side of the lights.

Not to mention photo's clearly showing the car in THREE different positions, hard to say without the time lapse, but the distance travelled between first and middle photo is greater than middle to last implying the car is slowing down.
Jlc
QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 09:19) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 09:14) *
QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 09:09) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 08:38) *
The stills are likely from a video.

Looks like the standard 2 snaps from a RLC to me, I don't think there is any video.

Nope, indeed - you can see the camera here.

Not quite, the offence was snapped by the N/B camera on the other side of the lights.

Good spot - here then.

Just on my earlier point about the green light - they are illuminated as arrows (i.e. ahead and left, not right).
Logician
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 09:40) *
Just on my earlier point about the green light - they are illuminated as arrows (i.e. ahead and left, not right).


Still easy to get confused though, all the traffic to her left was going through the junction and she went to the normal position for a right turn, which would have been quite correct but for the red light in that lane only. The case has clearly gone to court because of the time into the red, but actually in this particular case that is not relevant.

666
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 08:49) *
Like the Copyright tag on the photos - utter rowlocks!


How so?
dab0070
Thanks for the responses - but I am getting mixed messages here and still undecided whether to fight it. I think the 'bench' will be able to see that my wife actually stopped and waited for the green before actually turning. That is what she said she did and there is no way she would have turned in with the on coming traffic on the other side. Also, is there an argument that there is no case of dangerous driving here, because the pedestrians would have been held on red due to the straight filter being on green, and the fact that she stopped in what appears to be a safe spot - albeit past the red.

If we fight it and lose is that going to be 6 points? If so, this may persuade us not take the chance.
Kickaha
I think you need to understand that the offence is crossing the stop line whilst the lights are red.

As the photos show she had done that then the court cannot find her not guilty.

Whether or not she completed the turn could be seen as immaterial as in some situations completing the turn safely would be far better than being parked in the middle of the junction.

I would suggest a guilty plea and an explanation of the event to try to minimise the fine.
Jlc
If the charge is only the traffic light offence then it's 3 points.

There's no doubt whether the offence occurred or not - pleading not guilty would likely be very costly.

A simply guilty plea with some mitigation or she could try special reasons not to endorse. That requires a guilty plea anyway but there's a factor the bench should properly consider so an endorsement is not made. It's a long shot but if she stopped just past the line with the mitigation of the light layout...
bm1957
Is the offence complete if she changed her course, swapped lanes after the stop lane and proceeded straight on?

I.e. what dictates the relevant traffic light... the area of stop line crossed, or the subsequent action of the motorist?
Logician
If your wife is charged simply with the traffic light offence, she is clearly guilty as her car crossed the stop line while the light was red. She has no chance of not being found guilty, so she should plead guilty. Suitable mitigation might keep the fine to the lower end of the scale, whereas normally that length of time into the red would be liable to move the fine to the higher end. The number of points cannot be more than 3, or less unless the bench finds special reasons not to endorse her licence, and personally I can see no grounds for them to do that.

The period of time into the red might lead to a charge of careless driving, not simply the offence of failing to obey a traffic signal. If that happens, then she might need a different strategy, but let us wait and see what the charge is.
Kickaha
QUOTE (bm1957 @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 13:56) *
Is the offence complete if she changed her course, swapped lanes after the stop lane and proceeded straight on?

I.e. what dictates the relevant traffic light... the area of stop line crossed, or the subsequent action of the motorist?

A good question for the flame pit but irrelevant to this case.
bm1957
QUOTE (Kickaha @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:03) *
A good question for the flame pit but irrelevant to this case.

Even if there is no evidence that the turn was completed? Let me re-phrase the question:

Is this offence complete on crossing the stop line, or on crossing the stop line and subsequently turning right? If the latter, is there sufficient evidence?
dab0070
QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:02) *
let us wait and see what the charge is.


I thought she was already charged with going through the red.
So what is the process - she pleads guilty, writes down mitigating circumstances, the hearing takes place, is there then a charge following the hearing, and then finally the sentence?
666
QUOTE (bm1957 @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:09) *
QUOTE (Kickaha @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:03) *
A good question for the flame pit but irrelevant to this case.

Even if there is no evidence that the turn was completed? Let me re-phrase the question:

Is this offence complete on crossing the stop line, or on crossing the stop line and subsequently turning right? If the latter, is there sufficient evidence?


Neither. The relevant section says "... the green arrow signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals"

Whether she turned right is irrelevant - the key point is that she did not proceed straight on.
The Rookie
QUOTE (666 @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:22) *
QUOTE (bm1957 @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:09) *
QUOTE (Kickaha @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:03) *
A good question for the flame pit but irrelevant to this case.

Even if there is no evidence that the turn was completed? Let me re-phrase the question:

Is this offence complete on crossing the stop line, or on crossing the stop line and subsequently turning right? If the latter, is there sufficient evidence?


Neither. The relevant section says "... the green arrow signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals"

Whether she turned right is irrelevant - the key point is that she did not proceed straight on.

How so, If she didn't turn right where else did she go but straight on? The statute says direction and not lane, IF (and it appears this is semantic as it appears she can't say she did) she could state she went straight on then no contravening of the statute would have occurred.

Putting the prosecution to strict proof she didn't go straight on is a possibility but IMO a waste of time based on the evidence available I think the court would conclude (rightly or wrongly) that she turned right based on the photo's UNLESS there was evidence to the contrary.
666
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:42) *
QUOTE (666 @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:22) *
QUOTE (bm1957 @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:09) *
QUOTE (Kickaha @ Wed, 21 Sep 2016 - 14:03) *
A good question for the flame pit but irrelevant to this case.

Even if there is no evidence that the turn was completed? Let me re-phrase the question:

Is this offence complete on crossing the stop line, or on crossing the stop line and subsequently turning right? If the latter, is there sufficient evidence?


Neither. The relevant section says "... the green arrow signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals"

Whether she turned right is irrelevant - the key point is that she did not proceed straight on.

How so, If she didn't turn right where else did she go but straight on? The statute says direction and not lane, IF (and it appears this is semantic as it appears she can't say she did) she could state she went straight on then no contravening of the statute would have occurred.

Putting the prosecution to strict proof she didn't go straight on is a possibility but IMO a waste of time based on the evidence available I think the court would conclude (rightly or wrongly) that she turned right based on the photo's UNLESS there was evidence to the contrary.


She admits to having stopped (post #27), so whether or not she turned right she certainly didn't proceed straight on.
The Rookie
Its where she ended up going that matters, she could stop and proceed, I would have thought that would be obvious to a blind man!
dab0070
A driver could go straight on when it is safe to do so, after entering the right filter lane. So the offence would only occur if it can be proved that a driver did turn right. So we could argue that there is no proof which direction was followed.

A normal offence will see a driver run the corner around 30 MPH to beat the red, in which case the camera will see the 3rd shot actually making the turn. But in this case she stopped - and there is no proof of what happened next. Of course, if asked, she will have to say she turned right, but has she got the right to remain silent if the evidence will incriminate her?
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.