Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: NIP receivied
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
john1234567
Hi all.

Got flagged down by a hidden policewoman with a radar gun on the weekend. She gave me the NIP and told me what would happen.

Just wondered, looking at the piece of paper, it has had a large bit of the corner torn off so bits of the text are missing where she tore it off her pad.

It's also badly filled in with a lot of the letters and numbers looking confusing and not entirely legible.

Is there any mileage from the point of view of exonerating myself in a badly completed, illegible and damaged NIP? Is there any standard for that?
Logician
No. There is no requirement to give you any paper at all. All that is required is that she warned you that you might be prosecuted, or a NIP is later sent out. You may receive a NIP in the post, just to make sure, some forces do, some do not.
Jlc
What was the alleged speed/limit?
john1234567
60/76

QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 12:29) *
No. There is no requirement to give you any paper at all. All that is required is that she warned you that you might be prosecuted, or a NIP is later sent out. You may receive a NIP in the post, just to make sure, some forces do, some do not.


So assuming I get only one NIP at the roadside... what would be the next thing which will happen? Presumably something turns up in the post. Is it due within 14 days or does that time constraint only apply to the NIP?
Jlc
You should have had a 'verbal' NIP - basically what the offence was and they were going to pursue it. (The 14 days only apply to a postal NIP if no verbal one is given)

That excess will see a fixed penalty offer of 3 points £100.
john1234567
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 13:11) *
You should have had a 'verbal' NIP - basically what the offence was and they were going to pursue it. (The 14 days only apply to a postal NIP if no verbal one is given)

That excess will see a fixed penalty offer of 3 points £100.


So they didn't have to give me the slip at the roadside and telling me was sufficient?

What about the 14 days thing? I saw David Beckham got off his speeding ticket for late paperwork... sometimes that happens?
I am Weasel
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 13:13) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 13:11) *
You should have had a 'verbal' NIP - basically what the offence was and they were going to pursue it. (The 14 days only apply to a postal NIP if no verbal one is given)

That excess will see a fixed penalty offer of 3 points £100.


So they didn't have to give me the slip at the roadside and telling me was sufficient?

What about the 14 days thing? I saw David Beckham got off his speeding ticket for late paperwork... sometimes that happens?

The 14 day limit applies only to a postal NIP - you received a verbal NIP at the roadside. They have 6 months to commence court proceedings, but at that speed, I would expect to hear very soon from them offering you a fixed penalty of 3 points and £100.
john1234567
I've seen some advice elsewhere on el'webbo stating that you should always elect to go to court so you can ask for the evidence. The theory being that in a large number of cases the routine high volume nature of the speeding ticket racket leads to a lot of mistakes in the evidence gathering and handling. Which has the potential to give a lot of additional opportunities to wiggle free.

In this case what I had done was perfectly safe but the ticket was being issued on the standard safety grounds nevertheless. On that day we had perfect visibility, perfect road conditions, no vehicle defects and a very straight and wide road with light traffic in a rural area. I had momentarily exceeded the limit for overtaking some slower traffic.

In this case I don't feel like it's particularly deserved so see no moral issue in attempting to overturn it.
southpaw82
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 13:13) *
So they didn't have to give me the slip at the roadside


No.

QUOTE
and telling me was sufficient?


Yes.

QUOTE
What about the 14 days thing?

What about it? You were warned immediately after committing the offence.
NewJudge
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 13:47) *
I've seen some advice elsewhere on el'webbo stating that you should always elect to go to court so you can ask for the evidence. The theory being that in a large number of cases the routine high volume nature of the speeding ticket racket leads to a lot of mistakes in the evidence gathering and handling. Which has the potential to give a lot of additional opportunities to wiggle free.

In this case what I had done was perfectly safe but the ticket was being issued on the standard safety grounds nevertheless. On that day we had perfect visibility, perfect road conditions, no vehicle defects and a very straight and wide road with light traffic in a rural area. I had momentarily exceeded the limit for overtaking some slower traffic.

In this case I don't feel like it's particularly deserved so see no moral issue in attempting to overturn it.

The conditions on the road and of the vehicle are irrelevant. Nobody is alleging what you did was not safe (though that could be an interesting argument). All that's alleged is that you exceeded the speed limit. If you are confident you can expose "some mistakes in evidence gathering and handling" and you fancy a day out to argue along the lines you suggest that's your privilege. But make sure you save up some cash in the meantime. At the moment it looks like it will cost you £100 and three points. If you fail in court (which looks all but inevitable based on what you have said here) you can kiss goodbye to the thick end of £1k (assuming no "expert witnesses" have to be called by the prosecution to counter your arguments, when you may be asked to pay extra for their time).
john1234567
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 14:30) *
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 13:47) *
I've seen some advice elsewhere on el'webbo stating that you should always elect to go to court so you can ask for the evidence. The theory being that in a large number of cases the routine high volume nature of the speeding ticket racket leads to a lot of mistakes in the evidence gathering and handling. Which has the potential to give a lot of additional opportunities to wiggle free.

In this case what I had done was perfectly safe but the ticket was being issued on the standard safety grounds nevertheless. On that day we had perfect visibility, perfect road conditions, no vehicle defects and a very straight and wide road with light traffic in a rural area. I had momentarily exceeded the limit for overtaking some slower traffic.

In this case I don't feel like it's particularly deserved so see no moral issue in attempting to overturn it.

The conditions on the road and of the vehicle are irrelevant. Nobody is alleging what you did was not safe (though that could be an interesting argument). All that's alleged is that you exceeded the speed limit. If you are confident you can expose "some mistakes in evidence gathering and handling" and you fancy a day out to argue along the lines you suggest that's your privilege. But make sure you save up some cash in the meantime. At the moment it looks like it will cost you £100 and three points. If you fail in court (which looks all but inevitable based on what you have said here) you can kiss goodbye to the thick end of £1k (assuming no "expert witnesses" have to be called by the prosecution to counter your arguments, when you may be asked to pay extra for their time).


Ah, no... the officer did say she was issuing the ticket on the grounds of safety for the greater good... and all of that. I'm not expecting to use any of that in any official sense, just justifying to myself that by looking for ways around it I am not trying to get away with driving unsafely.

Another question I wondered about was where they will conduct proceedings if I elected to take it to court. The offence occurred a long way from home. Would they want me to travel to a court at the other end of the country or my nearest one? Surely some issue of fairness comes in to play there. If justice cannot be accessed due to the logistics of attending a court at the other end of the country then that's justice denied?
NewJudge
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 14:47) *
Another question I wondered about was where they will conduct proceedings if I elected to take it to court. The offence occurred a long way from home. Would they want me to travel to a court at the other end of the country or my nearest one? Surely some issue of fairness comes in to play there. If justice cannot be accessed due to the logistics of attending a court at the other end of the country then that's justice denied?

If you intend contesting the charge the prosecution will almost certainly argue to have the matter heard where the offence occurred. Depending on your defence you may require witnesses to attend. In your case the police officer (and any others whose evidence you wish to be heard in person) will be expected to travel to you and it doesn't usually work like that.

If you intend to plead guilty (a course of action for which there is absolutely no point as the Fixed Penalty is by far the best offer you will get) you could ask for it to be transferred to your nearest court.
Logician
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 13:47) *
Ah, no... the officer did say she was issuing the ticket on the grounds of safety for the greater good... and all of that. I'm not expecting to use any of that in any official sense, just justifying to myself that by looking for ways around it I am not trying to get away with driving unsafely. Another question I wondered about was where they will conduct proceedings if I elected to take it to court. The offence occurred a long way from home. Would they want me to travel to a court at the other end of the country or my nearest one? Surely some issue of fairness comes in to play there. If justice cannot be accessed due to the logistics of attending a court at the other end of the country then that's justice denied?


That was a rather absurd thing for the officer to say, the offence is exceeding the limit, whether or not it was safe to do so is quite irrelevant.

If you reject the fixed penalty, and opt for a full court hearing, the case will be heard at a court dealing with traffic matters for the area concerned. In exceptional circumstances cases may be transferred to another area, but not just for the convenience of the alleged offender, and a local hearing is usually better for any witnesses.

The advice to always opt for a trial is quite fantastically bad unless you actually have some viable defence. Things sometimes do go wrong with a prosecution but going to court hoping for that is rather like running up large debts in the hope that a lottery win will take care of repaying them. The penalties imposed by a court will always be higher than a fixed penalty and sometimes much higher. In your case, if you are found guilty after pleading not guilty, the fine would be 50% of your net weekly income, plus a surcharge of 10% (minimum £30), plus costs with a guideline of £620, but the points would still be the same at 3.

southpaw82
The advice to take it to court in the hope that the prosecution may drop the ball is ok in run of the mill cases but a traffic offence is usually so ridiculously easy to prove that there are very few balls to drop. Most “cracked” cases go that way because witnesses don’t turn up - police officers usually attend court when warned to do so.
john1234567
I was reading a lot of the 'success stories' at the top of the forum and a lot of them talk about succeeding by 'timing out' the 6 month period in which you would have to go to court or accept the fixed penalty.

So being a bit green to the area of speeding I'm still not sure what happens next? I've been verbally nipped at the roadside and given a slip. What happens next. Will they send me a form giving me a chance to appeal?

Maybe I phrased it wrongly when I mentioned going to court. I said that on the basis that it's either / or. i.e. if you don't take the fixed penalty then it's certainly court. What I meant to say was that the advice said to ask for the evidence they have against you. This advice is given as for the reasons stated above... that mistakes are common and why would you ever agree to be sanctioned without seeing what evidence they have for doing so?
Jlc
They will send a fixed penalty. You either accept this or not - there will be no 'evidence' provided. The fixed penalty system is for those that accept the allegation and want to dispose of the matter without a prosecution.

You have a right to a trial and the evidence they will aver. But that £100 will be long gone. If you fight a contested trial then as already noted a bill of around £1k+ is possible. Of course they might 'mess up' but it's a small chance.
The Rookie
You won’t get a chance to appeal yet as there is as yet no decision to appeal.

The processing office will send you one of three things
1/ An offer of a course
2/ A conditional offer of a fixed penalty
3/ A letter telling you it is going to court OR the court ‘summons’ (Single Justice Procedure Notice)

If you don’t accept 1 or 2 you’ll get the SJPN.

Some cases time out, but that’s because it’s well into the six months by the time they make contact with the driver, as they knew who the driver was within minutes there is next to no chance that will happen for you.
john1234567
Something I've noticed about the location is that it has no speed limit signs but there are a couple of street lamps.

https://goo.gl/maps/8ZxFmm33DmmyWZuA6

I was travelling north-east. The nice police lady was hiding behind the wall next to the bus stop.
666
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Wed, 15 May 2019 - 17:03) *
Something I've noticed about the location is that it has no speed limit signs but there are a couple of street lamps.

https://goo.gl/maps/8ZxFmm33DmmyWZuA6

I was travelling north-east. The nice police lady was hiding behind the wall next to the bus stop.


No signs are needed: the national speed limit (60) applies.

AIUI a couple of lamps don't constitute a "system" of lighting. If they did, the default limit would be 30, which doesn't help you!
john1234567
It would help if the alleged offence was a breach of a 60mph limit. The paperwork would be incorrect and all the previous penalties issued to other motorists would have to be overturned.

I've been thinking overnight about the business of acquiring the evidence they have for issuing the fixed penalty. I'm thinking it must be possible to see it. For other similar situations like bus lane fines or parking fines the evidence is often sent together with the PCN. So isn't it the same for speeding? Wouldn't they explain the basis for their action and then give you the option to appeal it?

On the issue of the speed detection device in play here. I believe it was a ProLaser III. The Home Office guidelines for use of that device explains that it can't reliably target a brace of moving vehicles, as in this case. I was targeted during overtaking. So it must be beyond reasonable doubt that the gun wasn't reflecting off one of the other moving vehicles. If the gun is pointed straight at one moving vehicle it is reliable, but if there are two vehicles side-by-side it's less clear cut.
The Slithy Tove
In some ways, let's hope there's a bit of a gap before you get the actual fine through the post. That'll give you a chance to move off the denial/anger part of the Change Curve and move on to acceptance. Your current position is quite natural and understandable, but when you look back on it, it'll also appear somewhat futile.
Kickaha
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 07:35) *
It would help if the alleged offence was a breach of a 60mph limit. The paperwork would be incorrect and all the previous penalties issued to other motorists would have to be overturned.

I've been thinking overnight about the business of acquiring the evidence they have for issuing the fixed penalty. I'm thinking it must be possible to see it. For other similar situations like bus lane fines or parking fines the evidence is often sent together with the PCN. So isn't it the same for speeding? Wouldn't they explain the basis for their action and then give you the option to appeal it?

On the issue of the speed detection device in play here. I believe it was a ProLaser III. The Home Office guidelines for use of that device explains that it can't reliably target a brace of moving vehicles, as in this case. I was targeted during overtaking. So it must be beyond reasonable doubt that the gun wasn't reflecting off one of the other moving vehicles. If the gun is pointed straight at one moving vehicle it is reliable, but if there are two vehicles side-by-side it's less clear cut.

Not wanting to sound rude but your thoughts are inconsequential.

The reality is that can offer a fixed penalty without providing any evidence and the only way you can “appeal” is by opting to go to court. Only after you opt for court (and plead NG) is there any requirement for them to provide the evidence they have.

You should also be aware that trying to question the reliability of the device can be VERY expensive if you lose as it will involve expert witnesses.
NewJudge
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 07:35) *
I've been thinking overnight about the business of acquiring the evidence they have for issuing the fixed penalty. I'm thinking it must be possible to see it.

It isn't. The idea of a fixed penalty is that the driver accepts the allegation as it stands and wants to dispose of the matter at the minimum cost. There's nothing preventing you declining the offer and having the matter heard in court (where it will cost you a lot more even if you plead guilty).

QUOTE (john1234567 @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 07:35) *
On the issue of the speed detection device in play here. I believe it was a ProLaser III. The Home Office guidelines for use of that device explains that it can't reliably target a brace of moving vehicles, as in this case. I was targeted during overtaking. So it must be beyond reasonable doubt that the gun wasn't reflecting off one of the other moving vehicles. If the gun is pointed straight at one moving vehicle it is reliable, but if there are two vehicles side-by-side it's less clear cut.

Then start saving even more cash. You have virtually no chance of running a successful defence on those lines without expert help. Even if you are successful you will not recover the considerable sum you will pay for that help.
Jlc
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 07:35) *
It would help if the alleged offence was a breach of a 60mph limit. The paperwork would be incorrect and all the previous penalties issued to other motorists would have to be overturned.

The allegation would be exceeding the prescribed limit. No mileage there I'm afraid. Additionally, the 'paperwork' doesn't change the facts.

QUOTE (john1234567 @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 07:35) *
I've been thinking overnight about the business of acquiring the evidence they have for issuing the fixed penalty. I'm thinking it must be possible to see it. For other similar situations like bus lane fines or parking fines the evidence is often sent together with the PCN. So isn't it the same for speeding? Wouldn't they explain the basis for their action and then give you the option to appeal it?

They could but don't have to. As I explained earlier the fixed penalty system is for those that want to dispose of the matter without a prosecution (effectively accept their guilt). If not, off to court you go and you can see the evidence they intend to rely upon. (But the fixed penalty fine is gone)

QUOTE (john1234567 @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 07:35) *
On the issue of the speed detection device in play here. I believe it was a ProLaser III. The Home Office guidelines for use of that device explains that it can't reliably target a brace of moving vehicles, as in this case. I was targeted during overtaking. So it must be beyond reasonable doubt that the gun wasn't reflecting off one of the other moving vehicles. If the gun is pointed straight at one moving vehicle it is reliable, but if there are two vehicles side-by-side it's less clear cut.

The signal must have been coming from one vehicle. Indeed, you were obviously travelling faster than the vehicle being overtaken so either it was you doing 76 or the vehicle being overtaken was doing 76 and you were going even faster.

You can indeed try and cast RD at court. But for the sake of a fixed penalty I'd think very carefully as you know you were speeding.

QUOTE (Kickaha @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 07:45) *
Only after you opt for court (and plead NG) is there any requirement for them to provide the evidence they have.

You do not have to plead NG to have the evidence they intend to rely upon.
john1234567
Slithy, I was actually at the acceptance stage 1/2 a mile down the road. I find the process of appealing these arbitrary penalties entertaining. If you look through my posting history on here you'll see I'm mostly successful. I have a clean license, I could just take it.

Jlc, I did spot the officer despite only a slither of her yellow jacket around her arm being visible. So rapidly slowed down, I'm not certain of our speed or the vehicles we were passing. If the reflections to the laser were bouncing off a slower and faster car at the same time that could give the appearance of a much faster speed than would otherwise be recorded under normal circumstances.
Jlc
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 13:38) *
If the reflections to the laser were bouncing off a slower and faster car at the same time that could give the appearance of a much faster speed than would otherwise be recorded under normal circumstances.

Look up to the 'slip' effect but I think it's unlikely to apply here. I still think you'll struggle to cast sufficient doubt but at least you know the costs involved should you want to challenge. (If expert witnesses are rolled in by the prosecution then your bill could be £2-3k)

Remember, the officer will state in their opinion you were speeding and this was corroborated by the reading on the device.
Logician
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 12:38) *
Slithy, I was actually at the acceptance stage 1/2 a mile down the road. I find the process of appealing these arbitrary penalties entertaining. If you look through my posting history on here you'll see I'm mostly successful. I have a clean license, I could just take it. Jlc, I did spot the officer despite only a slither of her yellow jacket around her arm being visible. So rapidly slowed down, I'm not certain of our speed or the vehicles we were passing. If the reflections to the laser were bouncing off a slower and faster car at the same time that could give the appearance of a much faster speed than would otherwise be recorded under normal circumstances.


Your previous posts concerned parking and bus lane penalties which are a very different matter from speeding, and more difficult to overturn on technicalities of the paperwork.

When disputing the measurement it is no good just raising the possibility that something has gone wrong, you need to be able to show that it has. Search for the case of Dr Science on here. He was an expert physicist but failed to avoid his wife being convicted.

seank
QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 20:40) *
QUOTE (john1234567 @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 12:38) *
Slithy, I was actually at the acceptance stage 1/2 a mile down the road. I find the process of appealing these arbitrary penalties entertaining. If you look through my posting history on here you'll see I'm mostly successful. I have a clean license, I could just take it. Jlc, I did spot the officer despite only a slither of her yellow jacket around her arm being visible. So rapidly slowed down, I'm not certain of our speed or the vehicles we were passing. If the reflections to the laser were bouncing off a slower and faster car at the same time that could give the appearance of a much faster speed than would otherwise be recorded under normal circumstances.


Your previous posts concerned parking and bus lane penalties which are a very different matter from speeding, and more difficult to overturn on technicalities of the paperwork.

When disputing the measurement it is no good just raising the possibility that something has gone wrong, you need to be able to show that it has. Search for the case of Dr Science on here. He was an expert physicist but failed to avoid his wife being convicted.

You what?
Iain Fielden is a personal friend of mine.
He was employed as a lab technician at Sheffield Polytechnic, now known as Hallam University.
His wife, Vikki, and my wife are great friends. This was 10 years ago and she's now 62. He is 53.
Iain was no expert physicist. Your comment is outrageous. He is now on the dole, jobless, and claiming benefits. He very much regrets the schoolboy errors he made, which led precisely to his or her conviction ( I can't remember which). It doesn't really matter as they both have no money. He says, which I don't dispute, that he was "rather stupid".
Starworshipper12
I’d never heard of Dr Science, but I’m googling him now... lots to read and all very fascinating. He was a fairly prolific poster on here too right, so I guess the older members know of him?

He seems to talk the talk, but was he just ‘rather stupid’, or somewhere between that and an expert (at something)??

Are we not supposed to learn anything from his previous posts?
seank
QUOTE (Starworshipper12 @ Thu, 16 May 2019 - 23:39) *
I’d never heard of Dr Science, but I’m googling him now... lots to read and all very fascinating. He was a fairly prolific poster on here too right, so I guess the older members know of him?

He seems to talk the talk, but was he just ‘rather stupid’, or somewhere between that and an expert (at something)??

Are we not supposed to learn anything from his previous posts?

Yes, he was an avid poster here.
Offline, he had a few friends. Not many.
He was just a lab technician in a Polytechnic, which dropped him like a stone when his (or probably his wife's) criminal activity was exposed.
Amazed that Logician described him thus, as he now regrets his actions. Not Vikki's.
Iain, it's me, Sean. Sorry, mate.
Logician
Well, that is what he portrayed himself as. Anyway, the point stands, do not try to dispute the speed measurement on technical grounds, you are very unlikely to win and it can be very expensive.
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.