Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Help with Speeding charges and section 172
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Minion
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - July 2016
Date of the NIP: - 5 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 9 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A180 EASTBOUND AT BROCKLESBY INTERCHANGE WITH A160, NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE, UNITED KINGDOM
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? - Partner
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 - Our car was caught on camera exceeding speed limit in a 50mph temporary speed limit through roadworks. Weather that day was very heavy rain and visibility was low. Partner received his nip and requested photo evidence and told them he did not know who was driving at time and told them I was a named driver. He also stated that their photos were of so low quality it was impossible to identify the driver. I then receive my NIP and do the same as my partner. We genuinely do not know who was driving, we drive this route regularly and share the driving. Am now been charged with a) speeding and b) failing to identify the driver, so is my partner. Don't know what to do and worried sick, but if we had name a driver we would have been guessing and therefore potentially giving false information. Would have been a lot happier if the photos could have identified one of us to be honest. Thanks in advance

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? - No
As you were not responsible for the vehicle, somebody else has named you as the driver. 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, the reasonable diligence test doesn't apply to you.
    Therefore, you are only required to provide such information as is in your power to give (e.g. the names and addresses of the possible drivers).

    You should reply within the 28 day period and explain the circumstances in a covering letter.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:25:05 +0000
Jlc
What was the alleged speed?

The pictures are to identify the vehicle and the offence and not necessarily the driver.

There is a statutory defence that if after reasonable diligence the driver cannot be identified but the bench may well be sceptical. Recent high profile Tory lost on attempting this. What other diligence did you take upon receiving the request?

It would seem that only one person will be deemed as the person keeping the vehicle - there is a lower requirement for others. (Only to provide information they have that might lead to the identification)

It's quite a different thing to knowingly name the wrong driver - naming the most likely driver is unlikely to raise an eyebrow. (And is often considered by some to be pragmatic)

Both offences are listed but the speeding cannot be convicted without a guilty plea. Normally, this would allow a 'plea bargain' to drop the often more serious offence (s172 6 points) if a guilty plea is offered for the underlying speeding.

Obviously, both of you could not have been driving... if the keeper after all believes they were driving then this is one option but would still leave the other party to defend their s172 (possibly to the lower requirement)

If you get it wrong then 9+ points is possible.
peterguk
You're asking much of the court expecting them to believe 2 grown adults can't remember who was driving a memorable journey of a few days earlier.

Where were you going? Where had you been? Where did you change drivers?

What efforts have you made to work out who was driving?
Jlc
If the other driver (non keeping) believes they were driving then that leaves the keeper to defend the higher requirement which may well be difficult.

Otherwise, it's both of you defending the s172 charge to the relevant requirement.
Minion
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 18:46) *
What was the alleged speed?

The pictures are to identify the vehicle and the offence and not necessarily the driver.

There is a statutory defence that if after reasonable diligence the driver cannot be identified but the bench may well be sceptical. Recent high profile Tory lost on attempting this. What other diligence did you take upon receiving the request?

It would seem that only one person will be deemed as the person keeping the vehicle - there is a lower requirement for others. (Only to provide information they have that might lead to the identification)

It's quite a different thing to knowingly name the wrong driver - naming the most likely driver is unlikely to raise an eyebrow. (And is often considered by some to be pragmatic)

Both offences are listed but the speeding cannot be convicted without a guilty plea. Normally, this would allow a 'plea bargain' to drop the often more serious offence (s172 6 points) if a guilty plea is offered for the underlying speeding.

Obviously, both of you could not have been driving... if the keeper after all believes they were driving then this is one option but would still leave the other party to defend their s172 (possibly to the lower requirement)

If you get it wrong then 9+ points is possible.



58mph.

I have read through the witness statement for police and they say we are both the registered keeper of said vehicle?

They refer to photographic evidence but have not supplied a copy.

We tried checking to see if we had bought fuel at the services, to see which bank card had been used but nothing on the day in question. Short of trying to remember there is nothing more we could do in the way of diligence.


QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 18:46) *
You're asking much of the court expecting them to believe 2 grown adults can't remember who was driving a memorable journey of a few days earlier.

Where were you going? Where had you been? Where did you change drivers?

What efforts have you made to work out who was driving?


We were going on holiday and we change drivers frequently.

So did not actually read nip until we returned from holiday. Only know when it arrives as ourvcleaner leaves the post in piles for each day.
Jlc
The photographic evidence (of the speeding) isn't that interesting given the s172 charge. (As the speeding charge isn't being defended with out the prosecution providing evidence as to the driver)

I presume the v5 is in single name?
andy_foster
QUOTE (Minion @ Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 18:25) *
Our car was caught on camera exceeding speed limit in a 50mph temporary speed limit through roadworks. Weather that day was very heavy rain and visibility was low. Partner received his nip and requested photo evidence and told them he did not know who was driving at time and told them I was a named driver. He also stated that their photos were of so low quality it was impossible to identify the driver. I then receive my NIP and do the same as my partner. We genuinely do not know who was driving, we drive this route regularly and share the driving. Am now been charged with a) speeding and b) failing to identify the driver, so is my partner. Don't know what to do and worried sick, but if we had name a driver we would have been guessing and therefore potentially giving false information. Would have been a lot happier if the photos could have identified one of us to be honest. Thanks in advance


Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - No
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? - No

Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • As you are not the person keeping the vehicle, the reasonable diligence test doesn't apply to you.
    Therefore, you are only required to provide such information as is in your power to give (e.g. the names and addresses of the possible drivers).

    You should reply within the 28 day period and explain the circumstances in a covering letter.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:25:05 +0000



QUOTE (Minion @ Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 19:10) *
I have read through the witness statement for police and they say we are both the registered keeper of said vehicle?

They refer to photographic evidence but have not supplied a copy.

We tried checking to see if we had bought fuel at the services, to see which bank card had been used but nothing on the day in question. Short of trying to remember there is nothing more we could do in the way of diligence.


There are essentially 2 separate issues here - your summons and your partner's summons.

Your's is the easiest to address. As you are not the person keeping the vehicle, your obligation under s. 172 RTA 1988 is merely to provide any information that is in your power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver. It would be up to the prosecution to prove that you had further relevant information which you failed to provide. Unless you made an uter horlicks of your s. 172 response, it would seem that this charge as no legs.
Without evidence of who was driving, the speeding charges also have no legs.

Subject to anything you have neglected to tell us, the only real issue would seem to be your partner's s. 172 charge. Assuming that he is the person keeping the vehicle, he would need to convince the court (on the balance of probabilities) both that he dies not know who was driving, and that he could not have found out with reasonable diligence.

In theory, you ought to object to any statement which contains any material facts you dispute, but if you have the V5C which shows that your partner is the sole registered keeper, it shouldn't be necessary to call the tubby from the CTO to dispute that point.




StuartBu
How far is it from the place your journey started on that day (A) to the location of the offence (B) . Presumably you know who was the driver at the start of the journey so does knowing the distance from A to B help to pin things down ?
Logician
QUOTE
I have read through the witness statement for police and they say we are both the registered keeper of said vehicle?


That at least can be easily sorted out, find the V5C form (AKA the logbook) and see whose name is on it, I would lay money that it is one or the other of you but not both, whatever the police have said. According to your answers to the NIP wizard, the registered keeper is your partner, if that is correct his will be the name on the V5C. As explained in post #7, he therefore has the greater obligation.
Minion
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 19:32) *
The photographic evidence (of the speeding) isn't that interesting given the s172 charge. (As the speeding charge isn't being defended with out the prosecution providing evidence as to the driver)

I presume the v5 is in single name?


Yes v5 in single name

Thank you for all responses coming in, you can probably tell I am totally clueless.

Yes v5 is in my partners name.
Churchmouse
If we assume the OP's partner was driving, then, and he somehow convinces himself that he was, as he has been dual-charged, he can plead not guilty to both charges, appear in person at court and attempt to have the s.172 charge dropped in exchange for his changing his plea to guilty re the speeding, which should be worth only three points. (The exact procedure has been detailed here on PePiPoo in many threads.) That would leave the OP's s.172 and speeding charges. As noted above, the case against her (as non-keeper) is more easily defendable than the s.172 case against the keeper. But it might be awkward if the OP's hearing precedes the partner's--at a time he has not yet done the plea bargain?

--Churchmouse
The Rookie
You put in your first post that it's a route you drive regularly as if that was a reason for not knowing who was driving (unmemorable) but then later that you were going on holiday that day (far more memorable), it would be best not to present that contradiction in court.
Logician
So is our conclusion is that:
1. Both partners should indicate not guilty pleas to both charges.
2. In the hopefully unlikely event that the OP gets a court date prior to her partner's she should say she cannot attend on that day and ask for an adjournment.
3. Her partner should attend on his court date and speak to the prosecutor (procedure below). As a variation on the norm he should ask for both s.172 charges to be dropped, together with the OP's speeding charge, and also for his case to be heard first.

Procedure for OP's partner:
Attend court on the date set. As there is no evidence as to who was driving your car, since you have not told them, there can be no conviction for the speeding. Get to court early and ask one of the ushers (people scurrying about with clipboards and possibly gowns getting things organised) to point out to you the prosecutor who will be dealing with traffic matters. Say to him/her that you will plead Guilty to the speeding if they will drop the s.172. If necessary say that on further consideration you have come to the conclusion that you were driving. We have never heard of prosecutors refusing to do this, they prefer to get a conviction for the underlying offence, and regard the two offences as effectively alternative offences. If you do not manage to speak to the prosecutor beforehand, you should still be able to do the deal in the courtroom. It is very difficult to do this in advance of the court hearing as you would have trouble speaking to the right person
Minion
QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 23:31) *
So is our conclusion is that:
1. Both partners should indicate not guilty pleas to both charges.
2. In the hopefully unlikely event that the OP gets a court date prior to her partner's she should say she cannot attend on that day and ask for an adjournment.
3. Her partner should attend on his court date and speak to the prosecutor (procedure below). As a variation on the norm he should ask for both s.172 charges to be dropped, together with the OP's speeding charge, and also for his case to be heard first.

Procedure for OP's partner:
Attend court on the date set. As there is no evidence as to who was driving your car, since you have not told them, there can be no conviction for the speeding. Get to court early and ask one of the ushers (people scurrying about with clipboards and possibly gowns getting things organised) to point out to you the prosecutor who will be dealing with traffic matters. Say to him/her that you will plead Guilty to the speeding if they will drop the s.172. If necessary say that on further consideration you have come to the conclusion that you were driving. We have never heard of prosecutors refusing to do this, they prefer to get a conviction for the underlying offence, and regard the two offences as effectively alternative offences. If you do not manage to speak to the prosecutor beforehand, you should still be able to do the deal in the courtroom. It is very difficult to do this in advance of the court hearing as you would have trouble speaking to the right person

Thanks for this great help as I would not have known where to start.
andy_foster
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 22:32) *
That would leave the OP's s.172 and speeding charges. As noted above, the case against her (as non-keeper) is more easily defendable than the s.172 case against the keeper. But it might be awkward if the OP's hearing precedes the partner's--at a time he has not yet done the plea bargain?


QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 23:31) *
2. In the hopefully unlikely event that the OP gets a court date prior to her partner's she should say she cannot attend on that day and ask for an adjournment.


It might well be the case that the prosecutor would be happy to drop the other 3 charges in return for the OP's partner pleading guilty to the speeding. It might even be the case that the OP's summons was solely intended to apply pressure in that regard (which IMHO would be a serious offence in itself).

However, on the face of it, pretty much the only thing that could cause problems for the OP's defence (if the prosecutor does not agree to drop her charges) is if her husband 'remembers' that he was driving and evidence of that is used to cast sufficient doubt on her claim not to have known who was driving.

ford poplar
What was your intended UK destination that day?
Both Humberside Airport & Cleethorpes are within 30 mins of that Interchange, so who was driving on arrival?
How many times did you swap driver that day?
Which driver started the journey?
Examples of required diligence for s172 nomination.




Failure to identify driver in time, has prob cost the offer of a SAC and each of you could end up with a nasty MS90 Endorsement or worse.
Gan
S172 is a nasty conviction because insurance companies wonder what the driver did that made it the better option

It's very unfortunate that your partner didn't do some research before sending the honest reply that is unfortunately heavily penalised

All that the system wanted was a single name
It would have been much better to have been pragmatic and named the more likely driver knowing that the photographs couldn't prove him wrong

A possible line of defence is that he knew that he could have conveniently named himself and would have been offered a speed awareness course
Nevertheless he provided a genuine reply in the knowledge that it would expose both him and his partner to proceedings that would be more time-consuming and stressful than the course, regardless of the outcome

Minion
Hi again,

Partner now says he will plead guilty for driving as he says its more probable that it was him and not guilty to the 172.

I'm worried sick over this, is this a good idea? Sorry I know probably a very stupid question

Hi again,

Partner now says he will plead guilty for driving as he says its more probable that it was him and not guilty to the 172.

I'm worried sick over this, is this a good idea? Sorry I know probably a very stupid question
Jlc
If performing a 'plea bargain' then he must maintain not guilty pleas until the prosecution agree to drop the s172 charge in exchange for offering to change his plea to guilty. Logician's post #13 covers it.
Minion
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 20 Jan 2017 - 21:13) *
If performing a 'plea bargain' then he must maintain not guilty pleas until the prosecution agree to drop the s172 charge in exchange for offering to change his plea to guilty. Logician's post #13 covers it.


Thank you for your clarification. My biggest worry in all this is that I still need to be able to Insure the car as I can't be without it. Obviously can't go too much into that on here I guess.
peterguk
QUOTE (Minion @ Fri, 20 Jan 2017 - 21:33) *
Obviously can't go too much into that on here I guess.


?
Logician
QUOTE (Minion @ Fri, 20 Jan 2017 - 21:08) *
Hi again, Partner now says he will plead guilty for driving as he says its more probable that it was him and not guilty to the 172. I'm worried sick over this, is this a good idea? Sorry I know probably a very stupid question Hi again, Partner now says he will plead guilty for driving as he says its more probable that it was him and not guilty to the 172. I'm worried sick over this, is this a good idea? Sorry I know probably a very stupid question


He must indicate a not guilty plea to the speeding until he does a deal with the prosecutor or he has nothing to offer in return for the s.172 charges for both of you being dropped. If he simply pleads guilty to the speeding the prosecution may not drop the s.172 charges and take you both to trial on them. We have seen that happen, and the defendant get 6 points for the s.172 on top of points for the speeding. It is difficult to get a not guilty verdict on a s.172 charge on the basis that you simply cannot remember.

Churchmouse
QUOTE (Minion @ Fri, 20 Jan 2017 - 21:08) *
Hi again,

Partner now says he will plead guilty for driving as he says its more probable that it was him and not guilty to the 172.

I'm worried sick over this, is this a good idea? Sorry I know probably a very stupid question

It is a bit of a bother you have both got yourself into (by apparently trying to do the right thing), but there is a way forward that shouldn't be too painful. Three points for your partner, a regular fine for a relatively small amount over the speed limit, and none at all for you (assuming you fight and win your reasonably strong case) is much better than the nine points you are each facing now, isn't it? The plea bargain deal Logician has described is the best outcome you could expect on these facts, and it is absolutely the correct thing to do when one person decides that they were "most probably" driving.

--Churchmouse
Kickaha
One thing to note is that your partner must not say he was the probable driver, he should be definite about it otherwise his admission may not be accepted.

ford poplar
Either of you can insure the car, because no one has yet been convicted/paid a Penalty, but the Policyholder may have to declare an outstanding Summons for them and additional driver.
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.