Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: summons from nowhere, no reminder
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
rupes185
Hello,

Received a NIP (9/9/08) for 41 in 30 (3/9/08) caught by Gatso on A338 Tidworth, Wiltshire.
Picture from behind - can't see who's driving - it's registered to me but wife drives it. Genuinely don't know who was driving at time.
Nip served within time limit, I sent NIP back on 28/9/08 with attached letter asking for pictures to be sent as can't tell from website.
Received a letter about a couple of week later asking me to make further investigations and that they could not provide photographs unless I went to court, BUT the letter made no reference to cut-off dates (I can't now find the flippin' letter).

Yesterday I've received a summons for 16 Feb for speeding and S172.

However, unlike other threads in this forum, I have not had a reminder or any further correspondence from anyone since the letter referred above. Still don't know who was driving, and the need to follow-up fell off the to-do list because of pressures of work and a new born baby. So this summons arrive out of the blue....thoughts anyone?
jobo
just checking

its defiantly for 172 and speeding. coz unless they have proof of driver they should not do that

to defend the 172 your going to have to convience the court you shown reasonable diligence in trying to establish who was driving

diaries, credit cards, phone records plus a good reason why you did not know
rupes185
definitely 172 - the summons actually says "Between 09/10/2008 and 13/11/2008 ....failed to give information relating to the identity of the driver...". I have no idea where these dates came from, hence why I am thinking that I should perhaps have had some kind of reminder?
andy_foster
Regarding timescales, the law says that you must provide the information within the 28 days, unless it is not reasonably practicable to do so, and you provided it as soon as was reasonably practicable. Basically, whilst the scammers usually offer you an specified extension, all it means is that it would probably be an abuse of process to prosecute you if you complied with it.

This does not affect the reasonable diligence defence, subject to the paragraph below.

If you are unable to name the driver, subject to the notice requiring you to do so, you are required to provide any information that is in your power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver. If you haven't done this (e.g. naming the possible drivers, as an absolute minimum), IMHO you're stuffed.

It has been suggested that Witless & Swindle's policy of dual charging is in fact a 'nicety' - enabling you to take the lesser speeding charge instead of the fail to furnish. If you don't have a viable defence to the s. 172, it might be worth contacting the CPS and seeing if they'll do a deal.
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.