Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Conwy, North Wales, unsure of driver
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
simmo66
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - March 2008
Date of the NIP: - 7 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 8 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Llanelian Road, Old Colwyn, Conwy
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? -
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 - My partner and I visited North Wales on the 3rd and 4th of March to research and view rental properties, prior to moving from Lincolnshire to Colwyn Bay at the end of the month. Then I got a NIP delivered at home a week later (a great start! Thanks for welcoming us to Wales, Heddlu!).

We are both insured to drive the vehicle, and both do regularly. It was a long day of trailing around estate agents and properties in the area, making many short journies. I have no way of knowing for certain who was driving at the precise time given in the NIP, as we often swap driving and navigation roles. We do not recall even being on the road in question, but as we are not familiar with the area I suppose it is possible. I would like to know the exact location of the camera, as this may help us remember who was driving. My partner recalls seeing a white van parked at the side of the road, with the opening in the rear doors, but it was not at the stated location, we are sure of that. Also it was daylight when we passed this van, but the offence is alleged to have been committed at 1739, when it must have been getting quite dark at the beginning of march???
I have spoken to the North Wales CTO, who offered to send me a copy of the photo if I apply in writing or email. I chose to apply via email, as this is easily proved sent, and I am awaiting a response. Should I follow up the email with a paper copy in the post? I also asked lots of questions regarding the location and type of camera, mode of use, calibration etc etc. I hope I haven't jumped the gun on that, as that's all irrelevant until the driver can be identified, and summonsed. Was just hoping it would help persuade them to drop it sooner rather than later.

I've now read lots of posts, really helpful thanks. I mean REALLY helpful. Brilliant site, and I hope you will work with me to help add another success story to the forums! So, any advice on best route and tactics will be very gratefully received.

PS The alleged recorded speed is 35 in a 30, seems very harsh! How accurate are these cameras anyway? We don't know as neither of us have any points on our licences.


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)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
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:

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:35:10 +0000
Pete D
You should write and ask for any photo's to help 'identify the driver'. No not mention evidence. They will probably send two, one of the actual offence and one closer up. Pete D
The Rookie
NIp is pretty precise as to location

http://www.multimap.com/maps/?hloc=GB|llan...les,%20LL29%208

Simon
doublethink
I sent off for the photo's both by email and recorded delivery. It seems that legally recorded delivery is the only way to have definite proof of delivery but I also put delivery receipts and read receipts on the email I sent so I have these as proof also. They sent the photo straight away which I presume was from the email rather than the mail based on the timing.
simmo66
Ok, thanks for replies so far.

Received letter and photo today:
Photo

As you can see, faces are obscured by the black box at the top, and there's also no way of identifying the location as it's so closely cropped. If I recognised the exact location, or the road at least, we might stand a chance of remembering who was driving. We don't remember being on Llanelian Road at all, as we travelled up and down the A547 several times that day, between Rhyl and Llandudno, visiting properties and estate agents. It was a very busy day looking for somewhere to live!

So, is it me or the missus driving? What do you think?

The accompanying letter with the photo states:
"You have the option of complying with the Fixed Penalty Procedure or requesting a court hearing.
It is the responsibility of the Registered Keeper or person responsible to disclose driver details under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Please refer to the relevant tick boxes below" [haven't received a Fixed Penalty, and there is no provision on th NIP to request a court hearing]

"Please complete, sign and return the Notice of Intended Prosecution form which was sent previously. Failure to supply this information will incur a penalty of 6 points and fine on conviction."

"Photographic evidence as requested. Please note that no further photographic evidence will be provided." So, is that the best photo they have? In that case, neither we nor they have much chance of identifying the driver with any certainty. If they have a better photo showing something more useful (eg faces, clothing, even a silhouette), then why didn't they send that one instead. Don't they have a duty to provide all available information to assist me in my enquiries, just as I do theirs?

"Video evidence can be made available in court upon written request once a court hearing has been elected". What??? huh.gif
So if I write to them requesting the video evidence, it will only be provided "in court"? I thought they had a statutory duty to disclose all evidence to be relied upon in court, at least 7 days prior to the hearing?


"Photographic evidence records vehicle details as evidence of the alleged offence. It is not provided as a matter of procedure to obtain driver identity. Failure to identify a driver will result in a court hearing." [not always, as seen on this forum ]

"Central Ticket Office does not provide exact location of the offence, or direction of travel. These details will only be provided should a court hearing be requested." [again, would it not be prudent of them to supply this info to help in identifying the driver???]

"The LTI 20/20 laser device are Home Office Type approved. Annual calibrations are a condition of type approval."

"The LTI 20/20 laser devices are operated by suitably trained and qualified police officers following National ACPO guidelines and manufacturer's guidelines."

"All equipment is calibrated and complies with the Manufacturer's Specification. Calibration Certificates are only available at Court when a not-guilty plea has been received."

"Please refer to FAQ sheet" [wasn't one included - do they mean the one in with the NIP?]

"Please note the Reporting Officer was PC **** ****. All the other information you have requested cannot be supplied by this office and you will have to elect for a court hearing if you wish to pursue this information."

These paragraphs were in what appears to be a standard letter, amongst a list of other statements, with the relevant ones to my enquiry ticked and in bold type, except the final one giving the PC's name and number which was added in a final box.

Comments on any of the above would be appreciated.

Unless anyone has better advice, I intend to reply with "unable to identify driver from photo" letter, stating also that I don't remember us being on that road at all, and could they tell me exactly where it was? We've studied maps, zoomed in on aerial photos, checked mobile records, didn't fill up with fuel or anything else memorable around that time. We got in and out the car several more times before arriving at a B&B in Llandudno at around 7-30pm. I know I was driving then, but that's hardly proof! Anything else I might reasonably be expected to ask/do to identify the driver at the time?

Look forward to all your comments, thanks.
Pete D
Make an appointment and go and view the video as you are running out of time there will be sections where you can see the driver, and if they do you for failing to furnish it is 6 points not 3. Do you tend to drive with your right hand on the top of the steering wheel. Pete D
simmo66
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 14 Mar 2008 - 12:38) *
NIp is pretty precise as to location

http://www.multimap.com/maps/?hloc=GB|llan...les,%20LL29%208

Simon



Thanks Simon, but that is a road we are 99% sure we didn't travel along. I wouldn't say it is precise either. That road appears to go off into the countryside, so presumably there is a speed limit change somewhere along it , prob from 30 to NSL. Aboutmyplace.co.uk shows Llanelian Road as joining the B5383, which then joins the A547, which I think we were on. Maybe they mean this junction, which is a roundabout. Probably wouldn't be approaching that at 35mph!
Pete D
I have done some processing on that image, gamma correction, enhancements etc and if your wife is fairer skinned than you and shorter then I think you were driving, add to this the size of your hand then sorry. Pete D
simmo66
QUOTE (Pete D @ Sat, 15 Mar 2008 - 14:14) *
Make an appointment and go and view the video as you are running out of time there will be sections where you can see the driver, and if they do you for failing to furnish it is 6 points not 3. Do you tend to drive with your right hand on the top of the steering wheel. Pete D


Thanks Pete

I wouldn't say I tend to drrive with my right hand on the top of the wheel, but the size of the hand is the only thing I could see that might suggest it's me. But then again, can you really (or can the court) say that is enough evidence? Especially from that distance? I dunno. On balance of probability it leans towards me, but can you really make out who, if anyone, is sat in the passenger seat?

We live in Lincolnshire, 3 hours away at the moment, and are moving to an apartment just round the corner from the road in question on the 29th March. I would like to be able to leave it til then if I have time before the 28 days is up. Then I can view the video, and maybe know for sure;
a)if it's me, and
b)if they can prove it's me!

If there's enough doubt over the images, what do you think will happen if I maintain my position of unable to identify? I know it will be hard to swallow, but maybe I'm better taking an unjust 3 points on a "probably me" than risk 6, plus maybe the speeding too!
bama
yet another heavily zoomed in LTI photo taken a long way from 'straight on'. look at the kerb line in the background FFS !
that is a very 'sniffy' photo in my book.

I would be putting in a well phrased compliant defense statement asking for the full session video and then girding my loins for the fight with CPS if I wanted to fight this. Much on the forums about this. Not for the faint hearted but that photo really is 'sniffy' IMV.

the fold or fight decision is yours however, research the LTI a bit on here and the obtaining the video stuff before making a final decision.
Armed with that knowledge it may help you decide when /if you get to see the few seconds of video around your 'snap'.
Pete D
There is nothing wrong with the photo it just so happened that when the auto trigger fired, thus the '*' they were at 192 metres and the data block obscured the driver. They do NOT need to 'identify' the driver you need to tell them who it was. Was it your car. ?? is your wife much shorter than you and fairer in the face. ?? They have already said they will not send another photo but ask again for an un-obscured photo to help identify the driver they may just send one. Whilst you are waiting for a reply, go and sit in your car holding the the wheel at 1 oclock and get your other half to take a digi photo, now download the image and compare the size of the wheel to the size of your hand and then make a decision. North Wlaes Police will not let this go, push them too far and they will go the Failure to Furnish and you will get 6 Points. Pete D
nemo
QUOTE (bama @ Sat, 15 Mar 2008 - 14:37) *
I would be putting in a well phrased compliant defense statement asking for the full session video and then girding my loins for the fight with CPS if I wanted to fight this. Much on the forums about this. Not for the faint hearted but that photo really is 'sniffy'

That's as maybe, and whilst I'm all for forward planning. perhaps things are best taken one step at a time..wink.gif

Until the OP is in a position to confirm who was actually driving at the time, then any evidential issues which may be associated with the alleged speeding offence are largely irrelevant. IMO, if the OP starts making too many waves regarding the evidence at this stage, then they run the risk of damaging their credibility. And it is this credibility would be relied upon heavily if a charge of failing to furnish required to be defended..

QUOTE (Pete_D)
They have already said they will not send another photo but ask again for an un-obscured photo to help identify the driver they may just send one.

I agree. It appears that an unobscured photo may be of great help in identifying the driver. As such, it would be completely remiss not to write and request a further photo with the datablock omitted. If they refuse to comply, then at least the OP would have confirmation that this (reasonably diligent) attempt at identifying the driver was denied by the scammers.
bama
I agree with (most of) the last two posts.
If there is a valid can't id the driver the defense then of course it should be pursued.

I posted due to "On balance of probability it leans towards me,"


the bit I don't agree with is that there is nothing sniffy about that photo. grab a camera with a good zoom and try to create those angles at 200 metres.
Looks like some 'around the bend stuff' going on at the very least. and who know what the positions were and what intervening street furniture etc. the fight for video is a hard slog so forewarned is forearmed which was my focus. You are correct though I should have mentioned other routes for which my apologies.

Pete D
Yes it is quite an angle but the guidlines do not say it has to be straight ahead only a guide as to how far the vehicle may be from the carriegeway. Add to this that the cosine effect actually means the vehicle is travelling at more than 35 MPH. Light does not go round corners. The OP could only go to court after reasonable diligence in identifying the driver and viewing the video by appointment comes within that remit. It is no good going to court and being asked, Did you see a Photo, 'Yes' can you identify the driver 'No' have you viewed the Video 'No' well be have it here for you to see Press Play the driver is male and you have a female passenger so were you driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. 'Yes' Guilty as charged. North Wlaes CPS will not let this go. Pete D
bama
the bend brings doubts about prior opinion and definate doubts about slip. Try holding a camera zoomed in to that level on a laterally moving number plate target at that range requires olympian skill. Try it with a 35 mill camera with a good zoom lens on it.

There are acceptable limits despite the cosine effect see page 15 on the LTI manual viz:-
RANGE TO TARGET
VEHICLE IN METRES 30 100 150 300 600
_____________________________________________________
SETUP DISTANCE
FROM ROADWAY
IN METRES
3 .9950 .9995 .9998 .9999 1.0000
10 .9682 .9950 .9987 .9997 .9999
15 .8660 .9886 .9950 .9987 .9997
30 .0000 .9539 .9798 .9950 .9987
60 .0000 .7999 .9165 .9798 .9950
_____________________________________________________
The diagonal created by bold faced numbers provides a boundary showing acceptable
parameters v. unacceptable parameters. Everything above the diagonal represents
acceptable parameters. Parameters below the diagonal begin to produce errors that
would be unacceptable.


North Wales are tough - hence my warning about the fight - but that doesn't mean all their 'snaps' are good or that always do aligment and distance checks properly. If it is a 'good session' they shouldn't have any problem releasing the video should they ?

Does the OP have a valid can't ID the driver defense ?
The Rookie
Only the OP can decide if he can ID the driver based on all the information to hand, if to ID himself could be classed as 'reckless' based on the info he has, then he should not.

The ping looks very dodgy to me I have to say, bad angle etc.

Simon
simmo66
Thanks for the advice, folks. I've followed up with this email now (requesting read receipt).

"Thank you for your letter of the 14th March, enclosing the photographic image I requested. Unfortunately we have been unable to identify the driver from the image supplied, as the black box containing data is obscuring the vital top part of the image, including the occupants faces.

I realise that you stated in your letter that no other photos would be sent, but in order to assist me in identifying the driver, is it possible that you could send me a copy of the same photo with the data box removed? Alternatively another image taken a second or two before or after this one may reveal more detail, and reveal the identity of the driver with more clarity.

If this is not possible, or is of no further help, then perhaps I could make an appointment to view the video at your offices. We are due to move to Colwyn Bay on 29th March, and I have a free week (before starting my new job on the 7th April) in which this might be arranged. I am mindful of the fact that I have 28 days from the issue of the NIP to identify the driver, and notify you of such. By my calculation the 28 day period expires on the 7th April, so time is of the essence."

Have I missed anything? Does it sound suitably cooperative? This is all new to me, so please be frank (I know you all will!).
Pete D
Good letter, give it a try. Pete D
simmo66
This looks promising...

Received the following: "To assist you further I will contact the Reporting Officer today to see if a clearer frame of the driver is obtainable from the video evidence. I must explain however that this is not our standard procedure to do so.
I will suspend the NIP until further notice when correspondence will next be sent."

So, either the reporting officer will find something, in which case I reply to the NIP (when I know the new deadline) with the driver's details, and they will receive a new NIP, or he won't, in which case I don't know what will happen. I suspect the onus will still be left on me to identify, which I can't. Or, just maybe, they will withdraw it. Fingers crossed...

The Rookie
It would still be wise to write them a letter (which will then become evidence in your favour), in it repeat WHO the possible drivers were and give all the details they want for each (DOB, licence number etc), tell them WHY you can't remember, and list WHAT you have done, listing checking things like mobile bills, card receipts, diaries asking colleagues/friends (give details) etc. Also ask the scammers what other actions they can suggest, don’t expect a reply, but it all helps.

Simon
simmo66
Got a reply at the 11th hour, with more photos.

It's me. sad.gif

So I now have until the 15th to return NIP, I'll do that now, 'fessing up to being the driver.

Now we have the question of the location. I don't remember being at the stated place that day, and neither does my partner. We think we were on a more major road at that time, which the stated road joins at a roundabout. It is possible that they listed the location as "Llanelian Road" when they meant "junction of Llanelian Road and Abergele Road". If we were indeed on Abergele Road, surely I cannot have commited an offence on Llanelian Road, even if it is only a few yards away?
Gaza
QUOTE (simmo66 @ Fri, 11 Apr 2008 - 16:06) *
Got a reply at the 11th hour, with more photos.

It's me. sad.gif

So I now have until the 15th to return NIP, I'll do that now, 'fessing up to being the driver.

Now we have the question of the location. I don't remember being at the stated place that day, and neither does my partner. We think we were on a more major road at that time, which the stated road joins at a roundabout. It is possible that they listed the location as "Llanelian Road" when they meant "junction of Llanelian Road and Abergele Road". If we were indeed on Abergele Road, surely I cannot have commited an offence on Llanelian Road, even if it is only a few yards away?


I don't think you have much chance of claiming "vague locus", especially as you have now admitted on here that it is you driving. The scammers are regular visitors here and will already have identified you and printed off copies of this thread.

I don't know if NWP offer speed awareness courses but at 35 in a 30 you should be in with a shout if they do. It is also worth noting that it is bang on the speed that they begin enforcement - limit + 10% + 2mph.
jobo
''don't think you have much chance of claiming "vague locus", especially as you have now admitted on here that it is you driving. The scammers are regular visitors here and will already have identified you and printed off copies of this thread.''

Vague locas has nothing to do with admitting driving, particularly after seeing a picy. its about not giving enough info on where the alledge offence took place so as to confuse the driver

Anyway the locus isnt vague its just plain wrong, and invalidates the NIP

and the scammers can look at it all they like the 14 days have gone and theres nothing they can do about it
Gaza
QUOTE (jobo @ Fri, 11 Apr 2008 - 17:19) *
Anyway the locus isnt vague its just plain wrong, and invalidates the NIP


That's your opinion, I disagree.
southpaw82
More importantly, so might the court.
simmo66
QUOTE (Gaza @ Fri, 11 Apr 2008 - 16:07) *
I don't think you have much chance of claiming "vague locus", especially as you have now admitted on here that it is you driving. The scammers are regular visitors here and will already have identified you and printed off copies of this thread.



I don't quite understand your linking of the two issues. Why should I worry that "(they) will have identified (me) and printed off ... this thread", when I've already sent in the NIP, saying it's me?

I genuinely couldn't say without any doubt, from the original photo, who was driving at the time. In one of the further photos sent it is pretty clear that it is my girlfriend in the passenger seat, and therefore it must be me driving. It does not really show me clearly enough, but it is proof enough in my mind.

With regard to the vague locus, this compounded the problem of identification as we do not recall travelling along that road on that day. It is not a matter for me of trying anything and everything to avoid prosecution - it is a matter of fairness and accuracy. Rules is rules, and they work both ways. If it can be shown that I broke the law at that particular time and place, and the offence has been accurately measured, documented and processed in accordance with the statutory requirements placed upon the police, then it's a fair cop and I'll take my medicine.

If you received a NIP for an offence 300 miles away, and you weren't ever there, you would fight it, wouldn't you? Even if it were accompanied by a photo showing you driving your car? In that case it would clearly be based on inaccurate information. Then surely the same principle applies if it is 300 yards away. If not, then where does one draw the line? In order to be a fair and sound prosecution, then there exists a duty to be factually accurate. If the locus is wrong, then are the date, time or speed also wrong? It casts a shadow of doubt over the whole case, to my mind.

Theiving little toe-rags, druggies, thugs and even murderers get off every day by saying "I wasn't there" when they clearly were. Is it fair that I should be penalised for an offence allegedly commited when I genuinely wasn't there? I'm starting to ramble on now, but do you get my point?

ps even when they get found guilty, most low-life get less than a £60 fine! Maybe next time I should blame my upbringing, and try the "I was depressed/on drugs/post-natal and wasn't thinking straight" defence, then I might get let off and given a free holiday.
jobo
not sure what you disagreeing with



the validity or otherwise of an nip definetly nothing to do with iding the driver

The road traffic offenders act was in place years before the first speed camera was introduced

the requirements are an NIP is served with in 14 days to enable the accused to 1 beable to remember events2 potential gather evidence before something material is changed ie new rd signs

as part of that process they need to
1 name the offence
2time and date
3 place were offence is alledge to have occured

the place is quite important as for instance if you go and check the road signs on the wrong road then this is predjudistial to you case ( obviously)

Im not sure in this instance if its wrong or just vague in the extreme, to be honest vague is better as there is stronger case law for this rather than being the wrong location but quite near the right location.

prob need one of the all knowing one to put their 2 penny in on this on as im getting out of my deph


simmo66
Just thought I'd bring this one to a close.
Got speed awareness course, which I had to drive all the way from Lincolnshire to Nth Wales to attend, wasting fuel and my time, and increasing traffic. Cost me nearly as much in diesel as the fine would have been! Was treated very shoddily by the lecturer, probably because I wore an England rugby shirt. He deliberately got my name wrong, picked on me for every question, which I smugly answered correctly, to his annoyance. He then started calling me "super-andrew" in a pathetic attempt to belittle me when he found that I was equally qualified to him to host the course! (Advanced driver, PCV and motorcycle licence holder, PCV driver trainer, and clean licence for umpteen years). What a prat.

Anyway, done, finished and over. No need to return to Wales ever again. Hooray!

Good luck, and thanks, everyone.
uknational
QUOTE (simmo66 @ Sun, 12 Oct 2008 - 11:10) *
No need to return to Wales ever again. Hooray!


My sentiments exactly...........ever since November 11, 1283 AD............
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.