Hi, Guys

Need some help here if i may. receievd this notice today in the post.

This is all the info they have given me.

I have never owned or even driven a land rover in my life

What can i do?








Just checked a Insurence database on the registration mark, and it does confirm its a Land Rover.

Again, i have never owned / Rented or infact driven such type of vehicle.

here is a letter i plan on send them back, I WILL NOT COMPLETE THERE FORM OR SIGN IT

Quote:Dear Sirs

RE: Notice of Intended Prosecution

Thank you for sending me the above titled notice that I received, on 24th September 2008.

I note from within this notice the alleged offence was driving a Land Rover with registration mark “*********”

I can confirm that I have never driven such a vehicle at the time stated on the notice or otherwise.

I suspect you sent this notice in error and that it was never meant to be served upon me.

Due to the above, I strongly feel releasing my personal information to you is against the Data Protection Act 1998.

Should it be your intention to prosecute under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for failure to supply. I would like to remind you, that I have already confirmed that I have never driven the vehicle in question above. I can also confirm, I have never owned or rented such vehicle.

I now require confirmation from you within 7 days, that I have been cleared of any suspected offence driving this vehicle.

If you insist on me releasing any more information without evidence of a suspected offence, I will without further reference to you, instruct my solicitors to take legal action against you for breaching the Data Protection Act and for stress caused by trying to bring a vexatious claim against me.

I look forward to your prompt response

Yours sincerely

Were you in Norfolk around the date and time stated? If you were, then you need to wait at least 14 days in case there is a cock-up, whereby they have mixed up yours and someone elses NiP. The reason for waiting 14 days is to avoid bringing the error to their attention and giving them the opportunity to issue a valid NiP.

On the other hand if you have not been to the area for years I would contact them and state you are not the registered keeper of the vehicle, you do not own or have ever had the use of such a vehicle and you were not/have never been to the area.

Do you have a leased vehicle? If yes, then it could be a cock-up by the leasing company who have your details noted against the Land Rover.



WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY OTT.

You have no protection from the DPA in this case.

Keep it short

The DPA has not been contravened, so no point mentioning it! You are being aksed if you drove that car, if not if you know anything about who was, no breach there is there!

Try to be a little less confrontational and unless you are careful you could end up with a summons for S172 out of spite, you are not currently suspected of any offence your merely being asked if you can name the driver, the date of offence (Gaza clearly missed its 4 months ago - so his 14 days advice is bunkum) suggets you have been named by someone else, either in error or maliciously, it is that person you have issue with, not the Police for reacting to that information!

A letter simply detailing that you weren't driving the car in question at that time and date, have never done so (?) and have no knowledge of it at all, suggesting they check the reason for asking you, would suffice.

Simon

My advice is is not bunkcum. Consider this scenario:-

* Scammerati has NiP naming Joe Bloggs of 48 Acacia Avenue as driver of Land Rover XX57YYY - Call this NiP A
* Scammerati also has video/photo of a vehicle that links to the OP and gets set to issue the first NiP in the chain - Call this NiP B
* Scammerati is having a bad day and transposes the name and address from NiP A to NiP B and vice versa

If they become aware of the error within 14 days then they could issue a fresh NiP to the OP. If they don't : they are stuffed.

My only problem is, they want my date of birth aswell

i asked them who gave them my details, they replied and said they cannot tell me under the data protection act.

Are they legally entitled to have my personal details such as DOB at this stage?

I have not been in the area claimed on the notice as above.


The police told me, the speed camera took the picture of the land rover and they contacted DVLA for driver info.

They sent the keeper a notice and my details where provided


Also i asked was there a picture of the driver. they confimed there was but was not clear.


Also the alleged offence took place on 17th May 08

how long do they have to bring a case to court ? 6 months from date of offence?

Spoken to my solicitor about this her reply was

QUOTE

have spoken to our resident Magistrates Solicitor. You MUST respond to the Notice of intended prosecution. It is an offence not to. You must write back and say it was not you driving and you have no knowledge of the vehicle or the speeding. You should state that you were not in Great Yarmouth on the day in question, if that is correct. If you can provide evidence of where you were or details of anyone who could confirm you had no access to the vehicle then do so. It is possible that the matter may be dropped before it reaches the summons stage. If you receive the summons you can request the prosecution papers. You can if you wish request to go and view the photos of the driver and the vehicle. Check you diary for the alleged day in question, it might have been someone's birthday for example and you may know that on that day you were elsewhere. If we were to deal with this for you and it went to trial you are looking at about £1500. We would deal with all hearings by letter except the Trial. If you won, you would get back any reasonable costs. It could be all of the amount or a substantial amount. I cannot guarentee you would receive it all back. The problem is the travel to and from Great Yarmouth/Norwich and King's Lynn, this would increase the costs. Before I could do any work whatsoever, I would require £500 on account. I look forward to hearing from you should you require any further assistance. Regards

I'm of the opinion that they ask for this only to help identify drivers where parent and child have the same name.. Supplying a name and address might not ID one person. It's much less likely that a mother would name her twins the same name, or that two people born on the same day and of the same name would live together. However, why do you feel that it is unreasonable to provide your DOB?

Call the scamera office after 14 days (no harm in waiting; just say you were getting legal advice) and tell them that you've never owned a land rover or driven one in your life. What would you like them to do about it? You might find out this letter is a prank, and the case number doesnt exist, or if it's real, it's quite an easy solve: you've never owned or driven a land rover, you toold them this within 28 days, it's the truth and you cannot help them in their enquiries. Keep copies of all correspondence and use recorded post. If it goes to court, you'll basically be asked why you didnt name a driver, and it is a genuine defence to be able to say you were not able to do so because you havent got a clue who owns that car, why they have your details or why they gave them.. The police would then have to chase that person who nominated you for delberately furnishing a false statement, and that could mean they go to prison..

Here is (4) of S172:

(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

-

However, lets say you live next door to a guy who owns a land rover and the reg is the same one as on the NIP then under section 2b) of S172, even though youre not keeping the car and it has nothing to do with you, it is markedly negligent of you to not write back and give them any info that might lead to IDing the driver. (e.g. "Dear Sir, the vehicle in question seems to belong to my neighbour and I presume the DVLA database is wrong, or that this letter has been mis-delivered. His name is BLAH. His address is BLAH. I do not know the other details for which you ask. Please advise me if I can be of further help"

2b) [Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies] any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver


You have been compelled to respond. Either you do know or you do not know and there is a solid reason for [not] knowing. You must state that reason now as it will seriously help your credibility in court if you have to defend an S172!


Phone the DVLA too and ask them about their data

Likelyhood? Most likely the OP has been named in error in a previous repsonce don't you think?

They usually only ask for the DOB of the named driver, are you sure they are asking for yours merely as a recipient of an S172 request?

Some solicitor, a Notice of Intent to prosecute is just that, a notice, you do however have to reply to an S172 request that just so happens to be on the same piece of paper!

Simon

Reasonable diligence does not apply, as the OP is not the person keeping the vehicle (so paragraph (a) of subsection (2) does not apply).

The OP is any other person and is required to provide any information that is in his power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver.
In this case, that information would seem to be that he has no knowledge or connection with that vehicle whatsoever, and can state with certainty that he has never driven that vehicle as he has never driven a land rover.
That information is within his power to give, and might lead to the identification insofar as it should revert the inquiry to the previous link in the chain.

The OP does not need to prove anything. If the scammers are unhappy with his response, as he is neither the registered keeper or the person keeping the vehicle, and has asserted as much, they would need to prove that he had further information which he failed to provide.
N.B. If the OP were to ignore the notice, the court can and will assume that anyone would have some relevant information about the driver/vehicle, even if it is only that he has never owned, kept or driven it, and therefore must have been named in error.

As the substantive alleged offence was in May (as shown on the NIP image in the first post), the 14 days to re-issue a correct NIP if there was an error, have well and truly passed, so any comments about waiting for the 14 days to expire are irrelevant and demonstrate carelessness or a massive misunderstanding of the law.