Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Terrified!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Heggsy
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - December 2008
Date of the NIP: - 4 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 5 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A74(M) Glasgow - Carlisle Road, southbound carriageway near to North Overbridge, Junction 19, Ecclefechan, Dumfries and Galloway.
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Recorded
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 3
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 - riving back down south on a clear and quiet Sunday lunchtime. I was, as ever, on the lookout for cameras, cars etc. My wife asked me a question, which distracted me. By the time I looked up, I could clearly see the van on the bridge overhead. I was (I think) in the middle lane of a 3-lane carriageway. I braked hard but was (obviously) too late. The NIP ststes I was recoreded as doing 97mph. I've been told this could be a ban! I am really panicking, as I'm self-employed and absolutely have to be able to drive. I have 3 points on my licence as an SP50 from August 2005. I'm not sure if these still count.

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? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - Scotland

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    Depending on your circumstances, you may wish to consider completing the form, but returning it unsigned. By doing so there is a risk that you will be convicted under s172, which would attract 6 penalty points and a fine; in most cases this is likely to exceed the penalty for the speeding offence itself.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:13:04 +0000
Pete D
August 05 points fell out of any totting up in August 08. Write to the camera unit and request copies of any photo's to help identify the driver. Do not elaborate or use the words evidence or proof. When you get them, they do not have to provide them but usually do, wash of and camera ID and your registration and post them in your thread using the method detailed in the FAQ's. This does not stop the 28 day clock. Others will tell you is there are any errors in the Ping.
As this was in Scotland there is another option if you are thick skinned. You could return the NIP unsigned, This may/probably will, trigger then to get your local BiB to visit you at home and you have to be out for 6 months, they may try 3,4,5 or even more times. If you manage to avoid them for 6 months then it goes in the bin. Read other threads on here regarding offences in Scotland. Pete D
Heggsy
Thanks for the info, Pete (I'll go to the page that explains all the terminology in a minute!)

I'm worried about the speed on this one. I keep hearing that over 96 (for some reason???) can trigger a ban if this goes all the way ( I was clocked at 97mph). Is this true? If I do just put my hands up to it, does anyone know the likely outcome from the D&G area? 6 points? 9 points? Big/little fine? Ban!?
spanner345
try this
The Rookie
Usually a ban is triggered at over 100, over 95 means they are unlikely to offer you a fixed penalty is all.

Simon
sneak
I wouldn't panic too much mate, as the above post says, it's usually over 100 when we start getting into ban territory. And even then I've read of cases where people have got off with points and a fine because of the effect a ban would have ON OTHERS (not you!), for example loss of income for their family, employees etc, which I think would be applicable in your case.

But don't get too hung up on the threats they make on the NIP; it's usually just scare tactics. You may also want to consider the 'unsigned' option as suggested on the NIP Wizard.
Heggsy
OK,

I'd like the advice of you guys on this issue. As per the guidance provided by others, I sent off to the "safety" dry.gif camera partnership for the photo to help identify the driver, as we coudn't remember if it was me or the wife that was driving at the time. The photo confirms it was me, BUT...the time on the photo differs from the time stated on the NIP. The difference is only 9 seconds, but it leads me to question if the time could be incorrect and the speed reading I am accused of corresponds to a vehicle that travelled through the same point 9 seconds after me? The speed reading could belong to a car that was over 400 yards behind me!

Is this error significant enough for me to legitimately challenge the prosecution? After all, if the time to the second isn't significant, why put it on both the photo and the NIP?

If anyone has any info/advice/guidance on this I'd be extremely grateful.

Thanks in advance.
bluegolfboy
It's been mentioned that you should return the NIP unsigned. In my opinion I reckon this to be the ONLY route out of this one UNLESS you post up the picture minus the details that can identify you and let the wizards have a look at it.

Also, in my opinion, Dumfries and Galloway is NOT the place you want to be standing in a court room in... They're not as fair to motorists as other areas.

Time to go on holiday for 6 months me thinks... smile.gif
Heggsy
QUOTE (bluegolfboy @ Sat, 3 Jan 2009 - 18:01) *
It's been mentioned that you should return the NIP unsigned. In my opinion I reckon this to be the ONLY route out of this one UNLESS you post up the picture minus the details that can identify you and let the wizards have a look at it.

Also, in my opinion, Dumfries and Galloway is NOT the place you want to be standing in a court room in... They're not as fair to motorists as other areas.

Time to go on holiday for 6 months me thinks... smile.gif


The NIP wizard suggests that the 6 pints and fine for failing to sign the NIP is likely to exceed the points/fine for the offence. What is the benefit in that? huh.gif Would it not be better to just take the points and fine for speeding?

I'm not very good with pictures and stuff, but what I can say is that the NIP states:

"...for the alleged offence of failing to comply with a statuatory 70 MPH Speed Limit at 15:37:30 hours on XX-DEC-2008 [time changed and date ommited by me] at the following location..."

The photo clearly shows the same date, yet the time is 15:37:39

Is this time difference significant?
bluegolfboy
Doubt it... Time stated is covered by the 'slip-rule' plus the pictures clearly show YOU and YOUR vehicle as you have stated...

As others have mentioned... It 'could' go to court at that speed and most likely will in the current climate. The authorities are really tightening up the belt at the moment with regards to speeding offences.

By all means take your chances with the 3 points and £60 fine. You COULD inquire to the Safety Camera Partnership as to what they would do in regards to YOUR offence and whether you would be able to partake in the FPN scheme or if they would be putting it before the courts. Always worth a try.

If it's going before the courts then I would expect between 4-6 points as the wizard mentions. Most likely to be the 6 points. LEGALLY you do not have to sign the NIP. Problem is that the Police 'may' turn up at your door and issue a verbal NIP. I ain't entirely certain what happens at that point as the S172 could be the one that is pursued.
jobo
the slip rule doesnt apply to the nip, what ever it says, they are stuck with
but any discrepancies on it would have to have the effect of confusing you so you couldn't properly defend your self


so if it was an hour out or even a few mins and you been up and down that road several times in the intervening period you might be able to put together a reasonable argument , but not for a few seconds


not signing the 172 is not an offence in Scotland despite what is suggest on the letter, so there are no consequences

if you manage to evade them for 6 months you off the hook, if you don't its back to the same penalty as you would have had in the first place
bluegolfboy
Okay... I mis-used the 'slip rule' but was trying to imply what you stated Jobo.

Clarification was great there. I am assuming by "if you don't its back to the same penalty as you would have had in the first place" you mean that the OP would be re-issued the FPN of 3 points and £60 (if that is what is to happen)?
jobo
no he prob miss out on the cofp, for arsing them around but its back to the speeding offence

no he prob miss out on the cofp, for arsing them around ,but its back to the speeding offence, but he would be very lucky to get a COFP for that speed anyway
Heggsy
Errr....struggling with the jargon a bit here (you guys are obviously far more familiar with this than I am!).

Am I right in thnking my options are:

1. Return the NIP unsigned, as this is not an offence in Scotland. Then, if I can avoid the cops for 6 months, the whole thing is forgotten?

2. Contact the Safety Camera highwaymen first and ask what they'll likely do in my case FPN or court appearance. If they say it'll be a FP, then I might as well just take that.

3. Sign and return the NIP, in which case I'll likely get 6 points after a court appearance, along with a fine of about £300-£400.

Is there any reference for the non-signature of the NIP not being an offence in Scotland. I'm not doubting you experts, but it would be nice to see it in writing somewhere. Also, if the BiB down here do find me (would that be through a house call, or would my car reg set off their ANPR?) then we just go back to the speeding offence, for which I would have to make a court appearance? I take it the court would not look kindly on me attempting to avoid the points/fine and then hammer me?

Sorry for all these questions, but my head is spinning with all this stuff!

Cheers for all you help, it really is appreciated.



jobo
nearly

its the 172 return your not signing, its 6 months from date of offence , plus in Scotland they have to you to court within 6 months, so its actually 4/ 4and half months

doubt youl get any sense out of them, but you can try asking what their policy is
COFP( NOT FPN) are only given for up to 15 to 20 over, i doubt it very much for 27 over


no they will pop round to see you, if you avoid them, even if they see you through the window, they dont know who you are

I doubt they will make a lot of effort as its not their case, just pop round a couple of times then give up

they will not be informing interpol, tracking you by satellite or anything like that


If they get you and ask you the direct question then you have to answer or it 6 point there and then


theres case law which some one will post, SEARCH SITE FOR UNSIGNED,


if its get to court for speeding, the 172 affair is of no relevance to the proceedings


4 to 6 points depending if they like you or not, A ban if they really taKE AGAINST YOU irrespective of what you do with regards to the 172
Heggsy
Ah,

OK, I think I've got it now. Thanks very much for your help, mate (and the others on the thread who have helped) it really is very much appreciated.

I'll take a crack at asking the Safety camera nazis what they intend do to. Then I'll just have to risk it. As I'm self employed and out at work or on the road 90% of the time, I'll probably take a chance on staying undercover...and making sure I get the wife to answer the door for the next 6 months!

I don't mind taking my punishment..as long as it fits the crime. I had to laugh when I was watching "street crime UK" tonight, where a drunken yob caused a load of bother, had to be arrested by 6 Police Officers. He had to be restrained, taken to jail, booked, processed etc. He got an £80 fine.

Me? I exceeded the speed limit on empty motorway and was no safety risk to anyone. Result? Possibly 6 points, a hefty fine and increased insurance premiums for the next 3 years. British justice, eh? You just can't beat it...

I really do admire the work our police do, but this "Safety Camera" bullshit really gets my goat. These cameras don't catch those who undertake, tailgate, switch lanes without indicating etc. All far more dangerous than exceeding the speed limit (conditions permitting).

Ah well, wish me luck...
Heggsy
Right, I'm back again...

I've just read the, quite superb, "Driver Survival Handbook". At the back, there is an excellent section on mobile speed cameras (the kind I got done with). The section explians that if the operator "pans" the camera on your vehicle, this can give an erroneous reading. I've taken a second look at the pics I got from the SC partnership, and there is a significant difference from the crosshair location on the two photos. What's more, the movement is from bonnet to windscreen (different reflective indices). I've manged to upload the [edited to protect identitiy] photos onto photobucket. If someone could tell me how I post them on here I'd be grateful, ta.
jobo
read frequestl asked question

how to up load picures

i thing we use tiny pice
Heggsy
Hope this works...







Sorry about the poor quality, but I had to take photos of the photos. Still, I think the movement of the crosshairs between the pictures can be clearly seen.

What do you guys think?


Heggsy
A wee bump, so that any experts can look at the photos.
jobo
you need pete d or simon

hang on till tomorrow there not on at the moment
Pete D
Are either of those photos got an '*' in front of the the speed. Targetting the cross hair on the slope of the bonnet or windrscreen is very dubiuos. I assume the first shot is the actual ping and could be very prone to range slip and a false reading. Are you sure there was not an error message in the date block. Pete D
Heggsy
QUOTE (jobo @ Sun, 4 Jan 2009 - 21:13) *
you need pete d or simon

hang on till tomorrow there not on at the moment


OK,

Thanks mate.
Heggsy
QUOTE (Pete D @ Sun, 4 Jan 2009 - 21:18) *
Are either of those photos got an '*' in front of the the speed. Targetting the cross hair on the slope of the bonnet or windrscreen is very dubiuos. I assume the first shot is the actual ping and could be very prone to range slip and a false reading. Are you sure there was not an error message in the date block. Pete D


No speed is shown on the photos. Top left is time (to the second) both the show the same. Then there is a FL 14 on one and FL 28 on the other (the F is above the L), then the date in the bottom left hand corner. That is it. From what I've read, the cross hairs, although not always on the exact same spot, should be on the sqme part of the car, which is why they normally aim at the number plate.



The first pic shown is the one that has FL 14, the second has FL 28, other than that, they are identical. I'm starting to suspect that they had the SC pointing at the outside lane, and took a hasty shot of me in the centre lane. The fact that the crosshairs have traversed at least 2 feet inside the (approx) 0.3 secs between pics suggests to me that the reading can't be particularly accurate. What do you think?




Pete D
If there is no speed shown on the LTI data block then that is not the ping. Was the speed blacked out by the scamera unit or is it just blank. If they had pinged another car then moved to you the data block would say 'timeout'. Pete D
Heggsy
QUOTE (Pete D @ Sun, 4 Jan 2009 - 21:53) *
If there is no speed shown on the LTI data block then that is not the ping. Was the speed blacked out by the scamera unit or is it just blank. If they had pinged another car then moved to you the data block would say 'timeout'. Pete D


Mmmmm, I think the photos they sent crop out this LTI data block you refer to. If you look at the very top of the first photo posted, you can see there is another part (above the black block that contains the info I mentioned and have blanked out). This appears to be 7 different areas of black data on a white background - as opposed to the data I have mentioned (date etc), which is white on a blck background. Is this the LTI data block? Is it usually cropped when pictures are provided?

I'm going to post up the first pic again, but with as little blanked as possible.
Pete D
The LTI data block has the date, time FL number and on the right the speed if that was the ping frame. Lower in the middle is any repoted error message. They do not have to, but usually do send the Ping shot but your shots look too close. He would have pinged you way before this sort of range. Pete D
bama
agree with Pete. Ping shot and data missing.
Heggsy
QUOTE (Pete D @ Sun, 4 Jan 2009 - 22:19) *
The LTI data block has the date, time FL number and on the right the speed if that was the ping frame. Lower in the middle is any repoted error message. They do not have to, but usually do send the Ping shot but your shots look too close. He would have pinged you way before this sort of range. Pete D


Ah, so on the "ping" shot, they could well have had me properly in the crosshairs, then? Looks like the photo is no good for justifying an erroneous speed reading, as there is no speed reading on the right hand side at all. You don't suppose they haven't sent this "ping" shot because it DOES show an error reading? huh.gif

I'm really confused as to what the best course of action is now:

1. Return NIP unsigned and hide for 6 months (BTW, does thi mean you fill in all the information on the NIP, but just don't sign it?)
2. Return it correctly signed and pray for a FPN (doesn't seem likely at 97mph)
3. As above, but go to court and plead for mercy (or gather evidence to cast doubt on the spped reading)

This is not the best of starts to the New Year! sad.gif
Pete D
Take a look at this thread and the photo's. Although the date is at the bottom the range and speed are displayed form the ping shot.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=35754

You could ask for an appointment and visit their camera unit and view the video but it may be a long way and remember that you do not actually deny travelling at the alleged speed and as you said and the photo's show, when you did see them then you braked hard and even the air fresher tree shot forward when you braked. They probable pinged you 3 or 4 hundred metres before that. Pete D
jobo
or 4 hide for 6 months and if caught , then fight or beg
Heggsy
QUOTE (Pete D @ Sun, 4 Jan 2009 - 22:36) *
Take a look at this thread and the photo's. Although the date is at the bottom the range and speed are displayed form the ping shot. Pete D

You could ask for an appointment and visit their camera unit and view the video but it may be a long way and remember that you do not actually deny travelling at the alleged speed and as you said and the photo's show, when you did see them then you braked hard and even the air fresher tree shot forward when you braked. They probable pinged you 3 or 4 hundred metres before that. Pete D



Errr.....which thread, mate?

One wee thing, don't be fooled by the freshener position, it's always like the (held up with an elastic band). Great spot, though! wink.gif

QUOTE (jobo @ Sun, 4 Jan 2009 - 22:38) *
or 4 hide for 6 months and if caught , then fight or beg


If that is the best option...and it is starting to look that way...do I fill in all the info on the NIP but just post it back minus a signature? When does the 6 month clock start ticking?
jobo
THE DATE AFTER THEY GOT YOU
Pete D
Sorry, Corrected. The 6 month clock started at the day of the offence being day zero. 6 months plus 28 days for 'Failure to Furnish' but this prosecution is rare in Scotland. Pete D
jobo
Sorry im confusing you

6 months from date of offence for the speeding

the 172 is impossible in scotland for being unsigned
Heggsy
QUOTE (Pete D @ Sun, 4 Jan 2009 - 22:46) *
Sorry, Corrected. The 6 month clock started at the day of the offence being day zero. 6 months plus 28 days for 'Failure to Furnish' but this prosecution is rare in Scotland. Pete D


This is a bit of an issue. You say this prosecution is rare, yet jobo says it is impossible in Scotland.

If it is impossible, I'll probably not sign the NIP. If it is 'rare', yet possible, I'll probably not take the risk.
redloner
Earlier in the thread, the OP mentioned the nine second difference between the time of the offence on the NIP and the time given on the photograph.

In addition, we're now discussing the lack of data on the photo in his possession.

These are clearly related issues.

The evidential photograph which the OP has not yet seen will have been taken several hundred metres (and nine seconds) earlier than the one he has been given to assist with the identification of the driver. The Partnership will have taken another snap as close as possible to head-off any possible question of the identity of the driver.

The only way the OP is going to get the evidential snap, or a copy of the video if he wishes to challenge the accuracy of the targeting of his vehicle, is to return the S172 naming himself then waiting to be summonsed and requesting the necessary evidence be forwarded to him. This would of course completely remove the unsigned option he appeared to be considering.
jobo
yea but as stated above

he can go unsigned, then if they catch up with him , go NG and get the evidence
redloner
QUOTE (jobo @ Mon, 5 Jan 2009 - 10:37) *
yea but as stated above

he can go unsigned, then if they catch up with him , go NG and get the evidence

Yes. I just re-read what I said and I made it unclear. Based on current data the OP has nothing to indicate the chances of success of a technical defence, so he shouldn't dismiss the unsigned route in the belief he has something better. wink.gif
Heggsy
QUOTE (redloner @ Mon, 5 Jan 2009 - 10:42) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Mon, 5 Jan 2009 - 10:37) *
yea but as stated above

he can go unsigned, then if they catch up with him , go NG and get the evidence

Yes. I just re-read what I said and I made it unclear. Based on current data the OP has nothing to indicate the chances of success of a technical defence, so he shouldn't dismiss the unsigned route in the belief he has something better. wink.gif


That sums it up rather nicely. biggrin.gif

All I need is confirmation that s172 is impossible in Scotland, as opposed to 'rare' and my mind will be made up.

Pete D saya 'rare'
Jobo says 'impossible'

Who is right???
jobo
it would need a change in statute or ground breaking case law to enforce it, no one has ever been done for it, that not quite impossible, but it a lot better than rare


wait for andy or sp to give final assurance
Heggsy
QUOTE (jobo @ Mon, 5 Jan 2009 - 10:57) *
it would need a change in statute or ground breaking case law to enforce it, no one has ever been done for it, that not quite impossible, but it a lot better than rare


wait for andy or sp to give final assurance


Agreed, what you say does sound much more reassunring than 'rare'. Can I just ask, with regard to the 'unsigned' issue, does that mean that I fill in the form with all the information requested, and only omit the signature, or just return the whole thing blank?
jobo
god no that's will to get you 6 points

unsigned is just that, every thing but but the signature, at which they will proberbly send it back telling you to sign it or else


like i say wait for one of the legally qualified, vastly exsperianced ones to give final assurance, just in case iv missed something

southpaw82
The whole "unsigned tactic" in Scotland relates to the fact that the Procurators Fiscal appear unwilling to prosecute anyone who returns a s. 172 form completed but not signed. A few years ago it was a tactic used in England and Wales. Eventually the CPS prosecuted someone who had completed but not signed the form. The case was appealed and the decision came down that a requirement to sign the form was lawful and that not signing the form was not compliance with the obligation under s. 172. Result, guilty of failure to provide. This case law is only good (so far) for England and Wales but would be persuasive authority for a court considering the issue in Scotland.

It appears that no PF has yet been willing to see if the Scottish courts will adopt the same reasoning as the English courts and say that a s. 172 form must be signed if they tell you to do so. However, the more unsigned forms that appear the more likely it is that a PF will decide to pot someone for it and set the required precedent one way or the other.

For what it's worth I don't see the Scottish courts coming to a different decision to the English courts. It would be patently absurd for the same law to have different meanings in different parts of the UK.

So, impossible, certainly not. Unlikely, yes, for now.
The Rookie
I'm with SP on this, it all depends on the number of unsigned they have (or at least those that persist with unsigned rather than folding!), all the time its a low number, its not worth the hassle and publicity, as soon as it gets bigger, then the PF's office will 'go for it' and start issuing citations, then assuming they loose one, go to appeal, if they never loose an S172 then they will have to contest every case individually!

Simon
Heggsy
I returned a completed, but unsigned, NIP to a Scottish safety camera partnership. I've very quickly received a reply by standard 1st class (not registered/recorded) post.

The letter advises that should I fail to sign and return the NIP within 7 days, it will be a contravention of the RTA 1988, Section 172 and may result in further prosecution. Penalty for failure to comply could result in a £1000 fine and 6 points.

Is this the usual formula...or should I be scared, and sign and return the NIP asap?

andy_foster
You've started a duplicate thread!
jobo
par for the course, youl have a few more of them yet
Heggsy
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 21 Jan 2009 - 18:00) *
par for the course, youl have a few more of them yet


Ah, OK.

I'll just bin it, then.

Thanks.
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.