Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Time + Location dispute on NIP? To challenge, or not to challenge?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
JamShady
Hello all,

I'm posting on behalf of my mother, who works as a carer, and travels between clients using her own car.

She received an NIP for allegedly travelling at 35mph at 9:27am on August 27th. The NIP arrived within 14 days. The exact time of the offence, according to photographic evidence that was received at a later date, was 9:27:07am.

However, my mother disputes the time of the offence, as at 9:27am she was logging out of a client's home, approximately 5 minutes drive away from where the offence took place (and thus cannot have been there at 9:27am).

As a carer, when my mother reaches a client's house, she has to log in to an electronic monitoring application by scanning a barcode that is kept with the client and unique to them. The tracking system can then record where she is, who she's visiting, and what time she's there from. When she leaves that client, she has to log out by scanning the same barcode. This way, her employer can keep tabs on all the visits being conducted by their carers, etc.

That monitoring application (which is centrally stored, i.e. not on her phone, etc) shows that she logged out of the client's home at 9:27am, thus she could not possibly have been where the offence allegedly takes place.

Furthermore, Google maps timeline tracking also shows her location at the client's house until 9:28am (which would be consistent with her logging out on her way out, and a minute to get in the car, and move off).

Finally (to a lesser degree), the NIP states the offence took place at a junction, whereas she was actually approx 400 meters from the junction (though the road has the same name).

My mother has written to the police citing that:
a) she was at a clients house at 9:27am, as evidenced by a print-out of an electronic monitoring receipt from her employers which shows her logging out at 9:27am
b) a map showing where the junction is that the NIP states, and where her car actually is according to the photograph that was received at a later date.

She hoped this would be sufficient to have the NIP cancelled. However, the police have since written back stating they "write to advise there are no grounds for intervention in this matter."

Understandably, she's concerned and frustrated how they've ignored the evidence she's provided, and is wondering what her options are from here. She doesn't mind appearing in court to fight her corner, but can't really afford representation.

So I put the question forth to you fine people... does it seem reasonable to challenge this, being as there is independent evidence to indicate that the time is in fact wrong? Admittedly it's a technicality, but she can't afford a fine/points because of work, and what's good for the goose must also be good for the gander.

Thank you in advance.
southpaw82
To put it bluntly, if the time was out by 5 minutes (which is yet to be proven), so what? The prosecution can place her car on that road being measured speeding.
AntonyMMM
The clock may be slightly out ...but the photo will show her car at that location.

She can argue it, but she will have to go to court to do so. Hopefully she has named herself as the driver ?

She should get the offer of a speed awareness course if she is eligible (no points)
Jlc
Has the driver been named? As the offence that will be pursued carries a 6 points penalty.

A 5 minute difference will likely be considered insignificant and does not impact the speed measurement. Do you know what sort of camera it was?
andy_foster
As a point of law, whilst the requirement to serve a NIP within the 14 days is mandatory (subject to exceptions which do not apply in this case), the required details are 'merely directory' - which in plain English means that if the driver is aware of what incident the NIP relates to, inaccuracies in the details do not invalidate the notice.

Logician
One or the other of the camera clock or her work clock or both may be a couple of minutes wrong, the question is was she or thereabouts, she has the photo, is it her car or not? If it is and she was driving it, that's enough for a conviction and these minor differences will not be regarded as having any significance. Her danger is that by arguing these points, the police may decide she is mounting a defence and instead of offering her a course or a fixed penalty will go straight to a court hearing.
666
QUOTE (JamShady @ Sat, 14 Oct 2017 - 18:40) *
Admittedly it's a technicality, but she can't afford a fine/points because of work, and what's good for the goose must also be good for the gander.


Yes it's a technicality, so the implication is that she was indeed speeding. If she can't afford points/fine, the only answer is to obey the limits in future.

Can anyone explain the goose/gander reference?
southpaw82
QUOTE (666 @ Sat, 14 Oct 2017 - 22:34) *
QUOTE (JamShady @ Sat, 14 Oct 2017 - 18:40) *
Admittedly it's a technicality, but she can't afford a fine/points because of work, and what's good for the goose must also be good for the gander.


Yes it's a technicality, so the implication is that she was indeed speeding. If she can't afford points/fine, the only answer is to obey the limits in future.

Can anyone explain the goose/gander reference?

If she has to stick to the limit they have to get the time right.
peterguk
QUOTE (JamShady @ Sat, 14 Oct 2017 - 18:40) *
she can't afford a fine/points because of work


The worst case scenario (assuming she doesn't take it to court) is a CoFP for £100 and 3 points.

What's the problem with 3 points if she uses her own car for work?
Logician
QUOTE
If she has to stick to the limit they have to get the time right.


But in fact she will normally face no consequences for a minor excess over the limit, and a possible small discrepancy in the time is of no consequence.

The Rookie
Assuming the error is the police's and not the OP's anyway of course.
JamShady
Thanks for the replies, guys... ok, seems we were both under the impression that if the time on the ticket was wrong, then the NIP is incorrect and unenforceable (if proven to be out). But if, as you guys seem to be strongly suggesting, that the indicated time is advisory (for want of a better term) and doesn't have to be completely accurate for the offence itself to be established, then I guess she's got no choice but to own up for it.

Thanks.

p.s. the goose/gander reference was to do with technicalities working in the police's favour, if and when, should also work the other way too.
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.