Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Not signing an NIP - 3 solicitors told me not to bother!!!!!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Spoke to 3 solicitors today, including the AA, none of them recommended the approach suggested by this and other websites. I decided to speak to a lawyer to get some back up for the stuff on here as I felt that there isn't much coverage given to what happens when you end up in court after not signing an NIP. I often wondered what would happen when they ask you in court if you were driving the car at the time of the offence. To say "no" is purgery and to say "yes" is game over as far as you are concerned.

Without even being prompted by me, one of the solicitors I spoke to said the whole unsigned approach would fall apart in court as soon as you are asked who was driving the car. Does anyone have an answer to that? There seems to be a lot of bravado around covering how to get someone else to fill in a form and later on in the process reply to a bluff and bluster letter quoting conflicting case law. I think this all based on the assumption that the police will get bored if some does this and drop the case. Do we honestly believe that this will work other than in a minority of cases?

Dwight Yorke earns piles of cash and can afford a "team" of lawyers on his case and go for appeal after appeal after appeal. Most of us can't. More importantly he wasn't in court to be asked if he was driving or not. There's a loophole within the loophole I am afraid.

PS I have seen it mentioned a few times on here that you should either get a spouse or solicitor to fill in the NIP for you. The legal people I spoke to challenged this one big time. They contradicted the statements made by some people on there that a spouse or solictor can't testify against you. Also, I was told by one lawyer that under no circumstances would he fill out an incomplete form on behalf of any client.
PPS my wife told me to get stuffed when I suggested it to her that she fill the form in for me.

Please would you post the names of the solicitors that you spoke to, so that others can be warned not to consult them, as they appear not to understand the basics of our laws. icon_redface.gif
I thought that as the accused, you are not obliged to give evidence in your defence? It is up to the court to prove you were the driver, not for you to prove you were not.

If you take a solicitor to court, he will question the prosecution witnesses as your defence - you do not have to take the stand.

Or has the law changed?
Mika - the AA was one of the sources. If you are saying the 3 people who I spoke to are wrong (I have no axe to grind as I dont know them from Adam) please tell me what happens after a response to a bluff and bluster letter and secondly how many people are "getting off" a speeding conviction as a result of the advice on this site?

If you would like to see the “unsigned Form” and John Josephs (who is John Pickford’s solicitor) in action, I suggest that you attend Alton Magistrates’ Court this afternoon from around 1:30. icon_wink.gif

If you can’t make it, don’t worry, because the case will probably be reported in the national newspapers before the end of the week.

Can I also suggest that you ask the solicitors who advised you, to study this page very carefully, as Dwight Yorke did not get off “just because he has loads of money”, although that always helps. icon_idea.gif
Thanks for that. Do you have any hard facts as to how many people are getting away with speeding offences based on advice from here? I am sure anyone who has received an NIP recently will be very keen to know.

I guess that £60m in fixed penalty notices equates to 1m NIP's @ £60 each. If only 10% dont sign , that's 100,000 per annum. I believe that there are already 10's of 1,000's.
If everyone didnt sign, the system would fall over under thw eight of 1m NIP's per annum. Oh yes!
I guess that people dont get off speeding offences as a result of info on this site. They get off because they are not guilty or a conviction is unsafe. The info on this site provides factual information which helps them prove their innocence.
I dont know if the site constructors know the information that you ask, but it begs the question as to why you are asking this information. I guess that they dont know in any event and even if they did, I would be reluctant to publish the figures if I were them. Unless you are a journalist looking for someone else to do your research, then why not read the info on the site and use it as applicable to your own case.
BTW I have no connection with the construction of this or any other "speeding" site.
Hear Hear...

Ppl should be reaonably careful about what they say/do on the site. Is anyone really deluded enough to think that the Police/Scamraships will not try to a)have the site shut down if they can b)use things against you. The best defence is one where they don't know where you are coming from.

I do know for a FACT that at least two Scamraships read the websites, They would be daft not to.....(GITS)

I think the above post sounds very much like someone desperate to dig up info. be they journalist/police/cps etcetc.

I suppose they could always use the "perverting the course of justice" trick on anyone telling someone directly to lie/deliberately mislead courts/police.

I notice Mika is always professional in his posts and sticks to the facts. Much more professional than "blunder,bluster,exagerate CPS"
touchwood - if people are innocent of the speeding offence on an NIP what's the point of all this stuff then? The only way you can be innocent is if either there is a technical error in the police envidence (which is unlikely) or the actual driver of the car at the time of the offence is stitching you up as the registered keeper. ie you weren't driving!

I do not believe for one moment like you that this is all about poor innocent victims. It is all about the fact that in English law one is innocent until proven guilty. This site is all about the evidence required to give proof of guilt. Simple.
In a perfect world!

Unfortunately if you had maybe taken the time to look at the Lti video on this site, you will see the standard of evidence that the police like to use. Police evidence is frequently "sketchy" and incorrect. Most of the schemes are purely money making exercises. therefore catching somebodys speed who goes 72,96,69,107, etcetc means that oh well lets do em for 107.

Many of the operators of the scamraship vans are technically unable, they have been trained "allegedly" but many dont even understand the theory behind the equipment they use. Stop and ask one a question, most havent the foggiest. They turn em on and point em then expect them to work every time perfectly. The worst ones are the scamraships that employ "Civvies" to do the job, most of these couldn't even understand the law let alone be entrusted to enforce it.

I have the knowledge to be able to state the above, Many times technical errors are hushed up, not all are prosecuted but many are.
You are probably right that not all are "poor innocent victims" BUT some are, probably a higher percentage than you could believe.

What many "detractors" fail to remember is that:

Tommorow I could go out, burgle 40 houses, steal a total of £50,000 of property. Get caught for one burglary and ask for the others to "be tken into consideration!" as it would be my first offence!! then probably receive 200 community service hours and a poxy fine that would be withdrawn when I failed to pay it.


I could go out tommorow, drive past 4 cameras on a perfectly safe road, and LOSE my job, then my house, then my family and any chance of getting back a decent job. on top of that have to pay 50% more for my insurance in future and have a £2000 fine which when i didnt pay they would come and remove any small thing that I had left.

Meanwhile, my mate the burglar, is sat back earning a fortune from the dole, in his nice gvmnt provided house, laughing whilst he plans his next 40 burglaries. icon_twisted.gif
Update: I requested the photographic evidence from the mobile camera.
It is clearly me driving the car (sadly the resolution of the picture is excellent!). As a consequence, there is no point worrying about the rights and wrongs of signing a form in any case. Looks like I have no chance now so I am glad I didn't waste everyone's time with sending an unsigned form. I would have looked like a total prat trying to exploit a loophole when all along they had a picture in their files of my ugly mug sat in the car.

So, how does the unsigned approach work if the police have a nice snap of you on their files? You won't know until you ask for it, but when you ask for it you have entered into correspondance which could be a problem (as suggested in these forums).

How did you manage to incriminate yourself, when you wrote asking for a copy of the photographic evidence?

Who has informed you that the photograph can be used to identify the driver, and that you may not be able to take advantage of the current loophole?

Please would you forward me the contact details of the solicitors who are advising you, because I would like to speak to them – a private message will do fine. If they are charging you for this advice, they may be leaving themselves open to civil action for negligence. icon_redface.gif
The solicitor issue is a total irrelevance. I decided I wanted to have a peek at the photo myself not through advice from anyone.

Mika how on earth would I have stood a chance going through your unsigned approach when it is my face on the photo driving the car?
The solicitor issue is a total irrelevance. I decided I wanted to have a peek at the photo myself not through advice from anyone.

Mika how on earth would I have stood a chance going through your unsigned approach when it is my face on the photo driving the car?

Ask a competent solicitor - I am not posting their contact details on here again.

I don’t suppose that you bothered to read the link that I provided? But, in answer to your question:

“Mika how on earth would I have stood a chance going through your unsigned approach when it is my face on the photo driving the car?”

Have you heard of a something called “the law” icon_question.gif biggrin.gif
Please let's have a direct answer for a change. How does your unsigned approach work in the event of the police photo showing your face????

PS , I repeat - no solicitor advised me to ask for the photo, so to quote one of your mates on here "play another record"

PPS - in your answer, please provide a direct answer, with no rhymes, riddles or spurious links ( the last one doesn't work).

The link does work and it will take you to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 – the police refer to it as the “RIPA”.

I have been informed that this piece of legislation [the RIPA] may prevent the use of, photographs that are taken by speed cameras, being used for the purposes of ‘identifying the driver’.

Can I suggest the following “experiment” for you and your “solicitor friends”:

Write a polite letter the police thanking them for providing you with a copy of the photographic evidence. Then go on to explain that the image clearly identifies the driver, and therefore you can see no need to complete the section 172 notice.

If you are right, the individual, who is clearly identified by the photo, will be prosecuted for speeding. If however, I am right, you will be prosecuted for the section 172 offence of “failing to provide information as to the identity of the driver”. icon_redface.gif
Mika - cheers for the reply. Also thanks for leaving my postings on here given that I am going against the grain. I honestly don't have any solicitor mates!

I intend to accept the fact that I am likely to end up with 3 points but write a formal letter of complaint to the chief constrable of the county in question. I believe there has been a total lack of discretion exercised by the police, ie 38 in a 30, clear road, dual carriage way, no pavement therefore impossible to hit a pedestrian!

Concurrently I am writing to the chief constable of another force to complain about the behaviour of one of his mobile teams. I was definitely doing 30 in a 30 zone yet this copper still decided to point his device at me. I know they are only supposed to attempt to record your speed if they have reason to believe you are going too fast. Well I was going along at snails pace. In addition to this he was dressed in normal police unform (ie black). Disgraceful.

Good luck with the complaints - we may use a slightly different approach:

We are in receipt of a one and a half hour video, recorded from inside one of those “safety camera vans”. It was of course recorded by those “crack troops” at Gwent Constabulary, and it may have recorded many of the issues that you wish to complain about.

The CPS has plastered the recording with copyright notices. However, they [Gwent Constabulary] may be a “bit disappointed” when the read what the law has to say: icon_cry.gif

"Section 45(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48 ) provides that copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of parliamentary or judicial proceedings."

How sad never mind, and keep up the good work PC Porter. icon_redface.gif
Looks like we've both been in the same boat ndmukuk. In summary, I was caught by a hidden copper and the chances are that I crept above the speed limit (yet, safely in my opinion). I dearly wish I had the resources of Mr Yorke to fight this scam. After the advice of a number of solicitors, including Robert Pryce, I decided to sign the NIP (after my father had initially returned it unsigned), I already have 3 needless speed camera points (82 on a dual carriageway on a clear dry day, downhill with no vehicles in front) so another 3 points is going to be bad enough; I didn't want to risk 4 - 5 points.

I do feel very strongly about the 'scams' and the revenue generating tactics used by the 'powers that be'. I really applaud Mika, Paul Smith (webmaster of the safespeed webiste) and the others with the nerve, intelligence and education to stand up for the common man.

I am going to complain also to the police - maybe even the Police Complaints Authority; I know it will fall on deaf ears, but at least I'll feel better. I have written to the local paper a couple of times, as have countless others. Virtually every day there is a letter highlighting the scams. Last week there was the usual 'spin' trotted out by one of the staff from the scamera team, which was then promptly responded to in the next day's paper by a pragmatic person ripping apart her arguments. Probably his best line was, "If speed kills - why are Britain's motorways the safest roads in the world?"
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 © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.