Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] sp30 in hire car
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
jacksonmaia
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - November 2018
Date of the NIP: - 50 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 51 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Cleveden Road / Great Western Road
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - courtesy car
How many current points do you have? - 3
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 - I believe I was caught by what I have always thought was a red light camera but appears to be a dual speed and red light camera doing 42MPH in a 30.

What I'm wondering is if I have a chance to appeal?


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? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - Scotland

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    Depending on your circumstances, you may wish to consider completing the form, but returning it unsigned. By doing so there is a risk that you will be convicted under s172, which would attract 6 penalty points and a fine; in most cases this is likely to exceed the penalty for the speeding offence itself.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 23:18:49 +0000
peterguk
The revoking of your DL is an automatic administrative event by DVLA, so can't be appealed in court.

Your only option is to go "unsigned" where you complete and return the S.172 but do not sign it. Without your signature it is 99.9% unlikely you will be convicted of the offence. However, do expect the police to come knocking at your door.. You will need to avoid them for 6 months.
jacksonmaia
Would that be 6 months from the date of offence?

Do I complete the NIP naming myself? Then ignore any further communications? What should I say if I fail to avoid them and am questioned?
The Rookie
You complete the response form except for the signature.

Peter is confused on the need to avoid the Police, any verbal response wouldn’t corroborated it wouldn’t be admissible as evidence anyway.

peterguk
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:21) *
You complete the response form except for the signature.

Peter is confused on the need to avoid the Police, any verbal response wouldn’t corroborated it wouldn’t be admissible as evidence anyway.

Not confused. Depends if OP wants the confrontation. If he lives with parents maybe they don't want it either. Example:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77380
The Rookie
QUOTE (buellbolt @ Mon, 15 Apr 2013 - 23:18) *
UpdateThey eventually caught up with me and......No pressure to sign, no verbal s172Straight to charged for failing to furnishEven the constable couldn't understand why he wasn't being asked to get me to sign the formThey said they had never heard of anyone being charged for this when the details they had showed I had sent the form back!Just have to wait and see what happens next

That’s not much hassle compared to keeping ‘not being in’ so they keep coming back.....
jacksonmaia
Thanks for the responses. If I am confronted by the police, what should I say and what should I not say?

If I receive the nip again after sending it unsigned, do I need to send it for a 2nd time? Or can I then ignore it?

Also is it 6 months from the offence or 6 months from sending unsigned nip?
The Rookie
6 months from date of offence.

If they send it to you again, you again send it back as late as you can within the permitted time, again unsigned.

The first reply you should post back first class from a post office (get free proof of posting) to arrive on the 26th or 27th day from the day the notice was served (which is day 1).

If the Police catch up with you you can tell them verbally anything you like, you just politely decline to sign it, I’d suggest simply telling them that you have replied in accordance with the S172 request and that in Scotland there is no legal requirement to sign it and as such you won’t be.
cp8759
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 04:07) *
If the Police catch up with you you can tell them verbally anything you like...

I'm not so sure about that one, I would think the best course of action would be to say as little as possible, preferably nothing at all.
The Rookie
If he admitted driving there would be no corroboration, the S172 written request has a specific exemption, but I agree, what I said above would suffice.
jacksonmaia
Thanks guys, I think I will pursue this course of action. One more question, will the fact that I was the only authorised driver on the courtesy car make a difference? As this could be used as evidence maybe?
cp8759
QUOTE (jacksonmaia @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:21) *
Thanks guys, I think I will pursue this course of action. One more question, will the fact that I was the only authorised driver on the courtesy car make a difference? As this could be used as evidence maybe?

Evidence of what? That either you were driving the car, or someone was driving the car without authorisation?
andy_foster
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:21) *
Peter is confused on the need to avoid the Police, any verbal response wouldn’t corroborated it wouldn’t be admissible as evidence anyway.


This is news to me (the second part at least). Would you care to elaborate?
jacksonmaia
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 14:05) *
QUOTE (jacksonmaia @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 13:21) *
Thanks guys, I think I will pursue this course of action. One more question, will the fact that I was the only authorised driver on the courtesy car make a difference? As this could be used as evidence maybe?

Evidence of what? That either you were driving the car, or someone was driving the car without authorisation?




Both I guess... Am I right in guessing it's irrelevant as the whole point is to drag things out for 4 more months so that it's basically timed out
Logician
You may find that you are prosecuted for s.172, many people have been, but so far in every case the PF has withdrawn the case at the last minute, so you have to hold your nerve.
The Rookie
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 18:36) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:21) *
Peter is confused on the need to avoid the Police, any verbal response wouldn’t corroborated it wouldn’t be admissible as evidence anyway.


This is news to me (the second part at least). Would you care to elaborate?

There was a big discussion on here a while back, evidence in Scotland all has to be corroborated, even a confession has to have corroborating evidence, there is a specific exemption for the written S172 response but not for a verbal one, so a verbal S172 response would not be admissible in evidence in Scotland without corroboration, it’s hard to see what corroboration there could be?
andy_foster
The Privy Council (in Brown v Stott, echoing what the High Court of Justiciary said in Foster v Farrell) said that an oral admission to an s. 172 requirement was admissible in Scotland - shall I let them know that they are wrong?
The Rookie
No, I think they got it right. (My emphasis)
QUOTE
While it must be recognised that the respondent's admission that she was the driver will be an important adminicle of evidence in the Crown case at the trial, the Crown will still require to satisfy the court that the admission was reliable, provide corroboration of the admission
jacksonmaia
UPDATE: On the 2nd I sent NIP back unsigned. Today I have received response with another NIP and another 28 days. With it came a letter. It says:

"I acknowledge receipt of the driver information form wrhich you have partially completed. I would ask that, if you were the driver, you fully complete section A of the form in order that conditional offer of a fixed penalty may be sent to you. The enclosed form must be signed by you in order to preclude the matter being reffered to the procurator fiscal for a contravention fo section 172 of the road traffic act 1988, which would incur a minimum of 6 points and a fine of up to £1000.

If you were not responsible for the alledged offence because someone else was driving or you sold the vehicle prior to the date of offence, you should forward the details of the driver or new keeper"

So... same again? wait 26 days then send back unsigned?
The Rookie
That’s what I would do.

You’ll note that they don’t actually say that not signing it is an offence, just that it would be referred to the procurator fiscal..... that doesn’t mean it’s NOT an offence, just they can’t say it IS either as it’s as yet untested in Scotland.
jacksonmaia
I've received a note from the Police service of Scotland, a citation officer asking me to phone a phone number regarding a road traffic enquiry. Should I ignore this?
The Rookie
I would just ignore, yes.
jacksonmaia
It's now been 6 months since the date of the speeding offence. Is that me in the clear?
Jlc
Any potential s172 offence occurs 28 days after the request is issued.

So there’s still some way to go...
Redivi
The speeding offence is timed out but S172 offence is committed 28 days after you received the request
As this was mid-February it won't time out until August
IanJohnsonWS14
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 14 Jan 2019 - 02:00) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 18:36) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 14:21) *
Peter is confused on the need to avoid the Police, any verbal response wouldn’t corroborated it wouldn’t be admissible as evidence anyway.


This is news to me (the second part at least). Would you care to elaborate?

There was a big discussion on here a while back, evidence in Scotland all has to be corroborated, even a confession has to have corroborating evidence, there is a specific exemption for the written S172 response but not for a verbal one, so a verbal S172 response would not be admissible in evidence in Scotland without corroboration, it’s hard to see what corroboration there could be?


Usually the second constable provides the corroboration of what the first says you said.

I recall one saying "Here is my corroboration" while pointing to his colleague when the question was raised by our solicitor.
The Rookie
QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Mon, 20 May 2019 - 09:59) *
Usually the second constable provides the corroboration of what the first says you said.

No, not true.

two people confirming the same source doesn't corroborate that source/
southpaw82
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 20 May 2019 - 12:06) *
QUOTE (IanJohnsonWS14 @ Mon, 20 May 2019 - 09:59) *
Usually the second constable provides the corroboration of what the first says you said.

No, not true.

two people confirming the same source doesn't corroborate that source/

Doesn’t that depend on what you’re trying to corroborate? If you’re trying to corroborate who made the statement and what that statement was it seems to do the job.
The Rookie
True, but it matters not if those are corroborated if the driver nomination given isn't, all have to be corroborated for it to be usable.
jacksonmaia
OK I'll continue to "lay low" until after August. If I am questioned by a Policeman, should I continue to say nothing or would it now be better to name myself etc as the 6months has passed?
The Rookie
As 6 months have passed they couldn't now start proceedings for speeding.
thisisntme
But they could for fail to furnish which is far more damaging.
NewJudge
QUOTE (thisisntme @ Tue, 21 May 2019 - 15:46) *
But they could for fail to furnish which is far more damaging.

Very true. Though as I understand it the authorities in Scotland have been somewhat reluctant to prosecute a driver under S172 for submitting an unsigned response.
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.