NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - July 2019
Date of the NIP: - 9 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 12 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A11 Bridgham, Norfolk
Was the NIP addressed to you? - No
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? - my son is the registered keeper and I have access to drive the vehicle
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 - Please help, we are reaching out to you again, but this time with regards to NIP speed camera 80mph in 70mph A11 road in Norfolk, myself and my son, my son being who is the vehicle in questions registered keeper.
1st NIP sent on 25th July 2019, addressed to “The company Secretary of Clerk (if applicable)” but was addressed to MR…………(our family surname)
I completed online form, under the family/friend option, as directed by Norfolk & Suffolk Central Ticket office www.nsspeedcameras.com and NIP Letter. I gave my email address as contact and complete driver nomination. (clearly a female Christian name within the email address)
We were then sent another NIP dated 29th July 2019 address to “Mr……………”with a different ref no and PIN code which again we logged in, and filled the online form in again.
We were then sent a 3rd NIP dated 19th August 2019, this time with only our family surname on (no Miss, Mr, Mrs etc or initial) and again, a different REF no and PIN code.
My son completed the online application and supplied his details.
Then another NIP was sent dated 27th August 2019. My Son tried a 4th time to complete the online form supplying details and comments in the notes section opting and selecting the pre-set question on their web site which states "I Can provide details of the driver at the time of the alleged offence" and we wrote in the comment notes stating "for the 4th time, I have complied and answered the necessary questions to the best of my acknowledgement. I keep receiving the same letter with the same instructions and I have complied by filling in the questions demanded by you as a company"
Admittedly the website and questions are confusing, and we didn't understand what we was doing wrong.
I received an email from a project officer at Safety Camera Ticket Office, Norfolk & Suffolk Constabularies. To my female named email address, which my son replied to from his email account by attachment letter on 19th September 2019, saying that family members have access to the vehicle, and he enquired about further images etc.
Further log in attempts were made to view the photographic evidence again on 9th September and 20th September 2019, prior to sending and Letter on 19th September.
The project officer replied back to my son’s email on 24th September, but this time to my son’s email address and attached zoomed in images which still did not help us to identify who was the driver.
On 22nd October 2019 my son left notes and comments on the feedback pages of the site asking for help dealing with the matter, which he did not get a response to, but ironically, the log in attempt is noted and documented within SDF report.
My Son, again emailed the project officer on 29th October 2019 enquiring if I needed another form to complete, so that we could submit details and complete the form as we did not know which one we should be completing as the ones we had been sent had varying different dates etc.
On 30th October my Son received a pack of papers dated 28th October 2019 entitled "Single Justice Procedural Notice" which was sent 1st Class Royal Mail post, that we didn't actually receive until 6pm on the evening of 30th October. This letter pack states "you now have 21 days to plead Guilty or not guilty to each charge"
We note that the dates on the SDF police report which is included in the Single Justice Procedural notice pack are incorrect and do not correspond with the actual dates and facts of our communications and there are factual discrepancies within the SDF Police report and the time lines don’t seem to match up with the documented evidence.
The Charges are made against my Son and the assumption has been made that he was the driver at the time of the offence, when in fact it could have been any of the 3 family members that have use of the vehicle on the day.
The charge of “failing to give information relating to the identification of the driver/rider of a vehicle when required is stated as Offence date 26th August 2018, which predates and is preceding the 27th August 2019 NIP that was issued and the email communications which have been made with and to the project officer.
My son has been signed off sick from work with stress related problems since 12th September 2019 - 22nd October 2019, and I have been trying to help him through this situation, which is complicated enough with just 1 NIP issued, and with me being dyslexic it is even more complicated trying to go through all the piles of paper they have sent.
We are both at my wits end with how to handle and proceeded this situation and am completely baffled.
We now have 21 days to make a plea, decide wither to attend court or provide responses and mitigating circumstances online, along with having to provide financial details etc, when we are not sure who was driving the vehicle at the time, or if the dates and time lines are correct and legal etc
Any help you can offer with regards to this matter is gratefully appreciated. 4 NIP’s attached.


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? - No

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

• Do nothing!
  
  The police are not requesting the information from you, they are requesting it from the person the NIP is addressed to.
  Wait until you receive a NIP addressed to you personally, then come back here.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 15:31:29 +0000

This sounds like a real mess. I suggest you post up all the documents, redacting personal details, so we can try and work out what's going on. Label the documents to indicate what's addressed to you, your son or whoever else.

Thank you, Yes it is a complete mess. I'm trying to load docs on now, but there's masses of it.


Click to view attachment

Are these separate offences?

Does the PAS allow driver nomination? (Email is not always allowed)

And any nomination has to come from the driver and not a friend/family.

Some of your situations you clearly confused the issue by NOT following instructions, the person replying MUST be the person it was addressed to, such as your son replying to the email addressed to you (and which they couldn’t necessarily tally together). The importance of reading the notices which state clearly they must be replied to by the addressee.

The final driver nomination will be where the person it’s addressed to confirms they were driving, it seems that each reply they have taken as naming someone other than it was addressed to at which point they will send another notice to the person now named.

It may also be that there is a box to tick saying ‘I was the driver’ or similar, if that wasn’t ticked then they will assume each is a fresh nomination. If it’s done online the system may be dumb, so using a female name will be irrelevant if the system thinks a male is being named.

I haven't absorbed all of the details of your post but I don't think there has been any assumption made that your son was the driver.

As far as I am aware a written, signed response must be made by the driver. Has that been done?

The company on the addressee is only if applicable (which appears not).

To help clarify a bit, I responded to the 1st one on 25th July as it did get the option of family/friend.

My son then replied and completed all the others.

No driver has been named yet as we are still not sure who was actually driving at the time of the alleged offence. 3 of us had access to the vehicle on the day in question.

The online PAS system is incredibly confusing as it gives preset questions as "box ticking" answers which is why my son put added notes and comments on.

So as the company secretary bit wasn’t applicable that MUST be completed by the Mr it was addressed to. You say you completed it and your nom de guerre suggests you are not a Mr?

Also note that it clearly states that the driver cannot complete online, so if all replies were done online then they were never being completed by the driver and new NIP was inevitable.

With that in mind does that now suggest the mess was of your own collective making?

You also suggest you didn’t know who was driving but you also say multiple discreet nominations were made which is contradictory in the extreme?

I think that is the cause of your problem. The N&S system does seem a little cumbersome I have to say. But at the end of the day the driver needs to be unequivocally named and I imagine (though have not checked) that their system makes this clear. What efforts have been made to establish who was driving since the alleged speeding offence?

Put all the documents on an external site like imgur.com and post a link, there won't be space on here. I must stress, show us all the documents. We've had cases where people have said they've shown us everything only to then say (often when it's too late) "Ah, I didn't think that document was important" or words to that effect.

“Completed driver nomination” and “No driver has been named”......... and you blame the police for the confusion?

If the form didn’t allow you to reply stating the actual case, then you needed to use pen and paper.

I only completed the online nomination on the 1st occasion. My son completed the other 3. 1st & 2nd NIP was addressed to him, 3rd was to the family surname, 4th was addressed to him again which he responded to again & is dated 27th August. I was emailed by Project Officer on 4th September, when they had my son's email address at this time and My son responded to this email from his email account On 20th September asking for further picture evidence to be supplied so that we could identify the driver.

The Project officer responded to my Son email on 24th September, to my Son's email address this time, and supplied zoomed in images of the footage taken which was still not clear or visible for us to identify who was driving.

I am frantically trying to up load the doc's to this communication chain but the scanned images wont load.

Can someone please clearly state what size the scan's need to be please. I am saving then as JPEGs with 300i quality

I don't know whether you misunderstand the position or not. It is not the camera partnership's responsibility to assist you I any way with the identification of the driver. They usually do provide any photos they have but do not have to and any requests you make do not stop the clock measuring the 28 days you have to respond.

The e-mails that you mention are not going to be easy for anybody on here to interpret, especially as they seem to be addressed to and responded to by different people. The bottom line is that the driver must be identified and his/her details provided on paper with a signature (unless the N&S procedure unusually allows some other form of nomination). You don't appear to have done that. The defence against the charge depends on whether it is the "Person Keeping the Vehicle" or somebody ls charged. I asked earlier what steps had been taken to establish the driver's identity. Apart from asking for photographs, has anything else been done?

i presume you mean ‘keeper’ or ‘any other person’ as those are the two legal ‘entities’.

For Bella, the issue is that the keeper of the vehicle (which may or may not be the registered keeper) only has a defence to failing to identify the driver if they can show that they could not do so despite exercising reasonable diligence.

That’s a high hurdle to jump over and asking for photos alone certainly isn’t going to cut it. Combine that with the somewhat cavalier and inept manner which the notices were responded to and it will not create a positive impression to the bench. Failing to read what the notices say and follow fairly simple instructions indicate a certain lack of ’taking it seriously’.

Yes thanks, Rookie. Changed that.

I think you've summarised the situation better than I have. Despite all the administrative difficulties that seem to have arisen, that is the bottom line. It's not clear to me who has responded to what and in what capacity those responses were made. But I don't think it really matters. It seems that no unequivocal driver nomination has been made which leaves the charge of "Failing to provide Driver's details" to be defended. In order to say whether that can be successfully done it would be useful to know what steps have been taken to identify the driver. I cannot believe that the N&S process is so cumbersome that it cannot be easily followed. In fact, the guidance on their website could not be much clearer:

https://www.nsspeedcameras.com/PAWeb/Public/Content/3

It seems if the first NIP was received by someone other than the driver, a nomination can be made online but once the driver receives a NIP it must be completed and returned:

The person the NIP is addressed to MUST respond to the NIP either by:

If they were the driver, fully completing Part 1 and returning the form to this office.

https://i.imgur.com/N9PBXUO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/23nEIOm.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/BlPjyKR.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/B0AE7ii.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/MJiHRK3.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ApZprkg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/lyTP44G.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/B8H8Vht.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wB1k6jD.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/p3rkdEM.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/bUKHSfb.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/tlRJE6E.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/IHUf3EF.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/KoIL8nV.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/qAi4M31.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/lM8JEbz.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/pimn0Ux.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/t6PjtUM.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/j56EwUN.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/84OJWYa.jpg

We also have copies of the emails etc and screenshots of the information and notes that my son put on they're website.
We tried our best to comply with what was being asked of us and none of us have ever had a speeding fine. Maybe due to our inexperience we made these errors and misunderstood the process.

I think the hole just gets bigger, the email (27/9) points out you were replying as nominated keeper or driver yourself, I really can’t see how that made sense to you at any level? It also kindly and clearly told you what you had to do.

I suspect the Police got fed up with what they thought was either a wee take or an effort to avoid punishment and lost patience.

This is all very, very simple really.

If your son was driving, he should have simply completed the driver nomination and returned it to the central ticket office. As this is a legal document for use in court, it cannot be completed online. Instead, on each occasion he simply named himself as the person keeping the vehicle, rather than the driver, this is explained here: https://imgur.com/BlPjyKR

The fact that the email address has a female name is irrelevant and for all particular purposes can be ignored.

The bottom line is that a driver nomination has never been returned, so on expiry of the 28 day period he committed the offence of failing to name the driver. Not remembering who was driving is no defence, otherwise everybody would just reply saying they don't remember who was driving. Instead your son was legally required to exercise reasonable diligence to work out who was driving, by checking diaries, appointments, phone location history, bank statements, receipts, whatever.

I suggest you now try and work out who was driving, as there's a chance that if the correct individual is identified, your son *might* avoid a conviction for failing to name driver. If he keep on down this "We can't remember and can't work it out" route, he'll end up with six points, a large fine, and significantly more expensive insurance premiums.

Thank you for taking the time to read through the documents and supply your thoughts. My son DID make contact again on 22nd October, by using the online feedback on the nss website asking if he needed another form to complete because he was concerned by the time line and dates from the other NIP's, and please note that the form to fill in is printed on the back of the NIP's, so which ever one he filled in had a different date on NIP on the reverse.

He also emailed the projects officer directly again on 29th October, before the Single Justice procedure was sent out and received, contradictory to Certificate Of Service doc https://imgur.com/MJiHRK3

so yes, I agree, that some peoples patience may have run out.

In my son's defence, he has been suffering from stress and in my own defence, as a dyslexic that processes information differently from non dyslexics, I may have interpreted the documentation and questions differently.

Our main error here seems to be in not putting "Pen to Paper" quickly enough, and putting any one of/ or all 4 NIP's, signed and put back in the post irrespective of who was driving.

Are we now able to post of the NIP's or are we beyond that point and have to state our pleadings and complete the Single Justice Procedure paperwork?

‘We’ do nothing at all.

The person ‘summonsed’ does everything.

He has two choices, the first is to plead guilty to the S172 offence and not guilty to the speeding (which they cannot prove against him as there is no admission of driver ID).

OR, if he figures out that he was driving he pleads not guilty to both and then once it’s transferred to a regular court he agrees to plead guilty to speeding if they drop the more onerous S172 (which they will almost certainly do) but he can ONLY do that if he believes it’s more likely than not he was the driver.

The third option is to plead not guilty to both, the speeding won’t succeed but I think his chances of successfully defending the S172 are very close to zero IF he was the person keeping the vehicle at the material time.

We’ve not discussed whether he would be considered the keeper or not as you’ve not told us the arrangements around the cars use.

what happens if he name someone else as the driver? and fills in the forms now? or will he still have to do this on the Single Justice procedural notice. Is he still liable for 6 points and up to £1000 fine?

Yes.

I read this as he wasn't the driver so cannot consider a 'plea bargain'.

If he names the driver now, absent a remarkable turn of events it pretty much proves he didn’t conduct reasonable diligence at the time or he would have named the driver then. So he’d be proving his own guilt.

I fear this will be an expensive lesson.

Well, does he now know who was driving?

I've had a quick glance as some of the documents you posted. The third one (an e-mail from the ticket office to you dated 4th September) is absolutely clear and specific and details the procedure you must adopt. It says quite clearly that you can nominate somebody else as the driver online but when the driver receives his/her own NIP the response must be on paper.

It is quite easy to understand why court proceedings for "Failing to provide driver's details" have been taken. From the documents you have posted here it seems evident that no driver nomination (on paper) was made. I still don't quite understand: do you know who was driving at the time of the alleged speeding offence? If so, is that person and the person who has now been charged with failing to provide the driver's details one and the same?

Apologies if I missed this in the thread, but who was driving, was it yourself or your son? And who is being prosecuted for speeding and failure to name the driver, yourself or your son?

The email 4th September was sent to me (female email address) NOT my Son, Keeper of the vehicle. (even though he had supplied his details and email address on line to them 4 times before.

Irrespective of who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence, the person who has been charged with the offences is my son and the charges of the "failing to give information relating to the driver/rider of a vehicle" on the Single Justice Procedural forms states offence date as 26th August 2019 https://imgur.com/B8H8Vht
pre dating the project officers email to me of the 4th September.

I was away on hols when I received the 4th September email and forgot to forward it to my son which is why HE emailed and wrote to them on 19th/20th September, and I feel guilty for not forwarding it to him sooner.

I only raised this as a point of concern and a query of the documentation, as they could have emailed him directly before they issued NIP 2, 3 and 4 or contacted us BEFORE 4th September if the offence date was actually 26th August 2018.

Like I've said before, "Maybe due to our inexperience we made these errors and misunderstood the process."

I can assure you our errors were genuine.

It doesn't matter how genuine the errors were (and to be honest what we think is irrelevant, we're not the court we're just here to advise you), at the moment it sounds very much like your son is guilty as charged and has no defence in law. You don't really come into it, as he's the person who's responsible for responding to documents addressed to him.

Right now, if he cannot ascertain who was driving at the time, the best course of action would be for him to plead guilty to the s172 charge because at least he'll get a discount on the fine in recognition of his early guilty plea. The speeding charge will be dismissed if he pleads not guilty to that as there's no evidence of who was driving. Of course, he'll also get six point on his licence.

If he plans on turning up in court and plead not guilty to the s172 charge on the basis that this was all down to confusion, that it was all some terrible misunderstanding, not only he'll get a fine (with no discount) and points, he also risks getting a costs order against him of around £620.

Sorry if this isn't what you were hoping for but unless the identity of the driver can be confirmed, there's really no way out of this. It's a real shame because had the driver been named promptly, it could have all been resolved with a driver improvement course.

The trouble is if the identity of the driver is anyone but the accused it makes the situation worse not better.

I’m really not sure a court will accept there was confusion given that I see crystal clarity in the communications from the police. While I’m not saying you were not confused, I think a court will struggle to see it that way. If confusion is caused by a failure to read what you were sent then it’s of your (collectively) own making.

That's because the offence was committed on that date. The request for driver's details was issued (and presumably sent) on Thursday 25th July. It would have been presumed served two working days later (Monday 29th). The recipient has 28 days to reply so the offence of failing to do so would have been committed 28 days later. Had you followed the advice given in the e-mail of 4th September and named the driver in writing I doubt any court action would have followed. Not much help but it may help you understand why things have happened when they did.

RE: NEW JUDGE POST 18:53 The documents state the charges as The offence was committed on 16th JULY 2019, and the failure to name driver 26th August 2019,

I was querying the time line on the docs.

1st NIP 25th July,
2nd NIP 29th July,
3rd NIP (family name no initial or title)19th August,
4th NIP 27th August,
4th September email from projects officer.

26th August failing to name driver Charge date (as stated on Single Justice Procedural notice) received 30th October

as you say, not much help as everything is with the magic of hindsight, and was communicated after the fact.

So in our understanding of the advise/opinions given here, is that both charges carry the same fine (£1000 - 33% for early admittance) and (6 points) collectively, even if only one charge is pleaded as guilty, and the other not guilty?

Is there any way they could put us under pressure or duress to name the driver?

If he pleads guilty to one and not the other, will the issue then be closed and dropped once the fine and points are issued or can it be moved on from magistrates to crown court?

We have our suspicions, but cannot prove them. Keys for the vehicle in question went missing a couple of years ago, and unfortunately not all family structures are as functional as "The Walton's"

Failing to provide the driver's details contrary to s. 172(3) RTA 1988 is a summary only charge - it can only be tried in the Magistrates' Court (although the accused can appeal to the Crown Court if convicted).
The fine is not £1000. It is a fine "not exceeding" £1000.

Speeding (other than on a motorway) is also "not exceeding £1000". Fine and points for speeding depend on the speed and limit and the offender's Relevant Weekly Income (and a small degree of the court's discretion).

The police statement says that he named himself as the driver and subsequently claimed that he did not know who was driving. If the statement is correct in this regard, he has no defence to the s. 172 charge.

Pleading guilty to speeding online might result in the s. 172 being dropped, or it might not. Pleading guilty to the s. 172 online would be more likely to see the speeding charge dropped as there is seemingly no admissible evidence as to who was driving.

I don't understand what this means, your son doesn't have to prove anything, he simply needed to name the person who he thought was driving. It's too late for that now.

If he pleads guilty to the s172, the speeding charge will be dropped as there will be no evidence of who was driving. There's no point in anyone putting pressure on him to name the driver as the punishment for the s172 offence is greater than the punishment for the speeding offence. Obviously under no circumstances should he plead guilty to both offences, as he'd then get punished for both, when we know that if he pleads not guilty to speeding the Crown will not have enough evidence to secure a conviction (this might sound obvious but we've had people plead guilty to both).

Also you keep saying "us" but you must remember you don't really come into it, there is no "us".

Hi again,

Just wanted to give you an update on the progress of this matter which you all helped us to resolve.

Thank you all for your invaluable input and advise.

The pleadings were made online, Guilty to failing to supply driver details and NOT guilty to speeding. We have just received the magistrates outcome which is MS90. 6 points and £317 fine. Driving Licence number was supplied on line to Magistrate court along with the Pleadings.

Problem we now have is that none of the documentation sent from the Magistrates states anything about sending the driving licence in question to the DVLA for the points to be added??

We are now concerned that if we don't send off the licence that there will be a further letter and threat of a fine for failing to do so, (which I know has happened to a friend of mine)

Is it a common matter of fact that points may be added and viewed via DVLA online "view my driving licence" but are not actually accepted as being processed on to the licence until the plastic copy is returned to the DVLA directly?

I also know that it is very common for driving Licences that have been sent to DVLA via Royal Mail post, don't always get returned securely and get lost?

Has anyone got any advise on this that would help us proceed please?

You don’t send the licence to DVLA it goes to the court.

And if you have a photocard licence nothing is actually ‘added’ to it.

You won’t get a fine for not sending it, you’ll get a reminder first if they want it.

Back in the day, you would give the licence to the court who would endorse it, inform the DVLA and then return it to you. After the counterpart was done away with, the courts stopped taking the licence and the DVLA would send you a letter threatening to revoke it unless you sent it to them within 7 days. Now, broadly speaking, nobody wants your licence if you are convicted in court.