HI all,

New to the site under unfortunate circumstances but have been reading through the forums over the last couple of days and I would really appreciate some advice.

I was scamera'd on the A34 at 81 recently (LTI20-20).

The vehicle is company registered. A NIP was received at the office after 10 days.

One of my jobs is fleet adminstrator. I filled in the relevant sections of the NIP saying the addressee was not the driver and filled in my details in section 5. Stupidly and prematurely, I signed the NIP and not my boss.

Have I completely bolloxed up by self signing the NIP addressed to the company ??

A new NIP was received addressed to me a few days ago.

After reading through countless threads detailing PACE defences, I had intended to have a go down this route but I don't want to waste a whole heap of time fighting a pointless case if I have already tied the noose around my own neck.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Hi


Is your signature legible. Could somebody read it- if not i wouldnt worry. Go the pace route

My initials are clearly visible from my monika so there's no real doubt that it was me that signed it, even though my signature is generally a bit of a scrawl.

Also, section 7 of the NIP (just above the signature) requires the full name of the person filling in the form to be printed in block capitals - which I did.

As long as you are authorised by the company to deal with these forms you have done nothing wrong. In fact I think you have done it exactly right.

The scams certaily have enough evidence to seriously suspect you were the driver so the pace statement is the right way to go.

Cheers DW, that's the response I was doubtful of but hoping for.

I'm certainly authorised to complete such forms on behalf of the company and can demonstrate that I have completed similar for other employees who have been scamera'd.

I was concerned that, even though the original NIP was not addressed to me, I had provided sufficient self-incrimination by pointing the finger at myself and signing it to boot.

Update:

I returned signed NIP within 28 days endorsed with 'please see attached witness statement'. Mika's PACE letter attached with all S/172 required information.

I received a reply from Thames Valley Police stating they 'acknowledge receipt of the partially completed driver information form'. They have sent a copy of the NIP, asterisked the sections they would like completed 'in order that a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty may be sent to you'.

They have stated that 'it is a legal requirement that ALL of the appropriate sections are completed' and that failure to do so represents 'failure to provide this information is contrary to S172 of the RTA 1988'.

Is this correct ? ALL of the information the NIP requested was supplied on my PACE statement.

Am I correct in thinking it is NOT a legal requirement to complete the NIP, just to return it signed, dated and endorsed within 28 days ?

They conclude by stating that 'failure to sign the Notice within 28 days may result in the matter being referred to a Magistrate's Court'.

Eh ??? The first thing I did was to sign the NIP so I cannot see the relevance of this statement.

Any suggestions regarding next step ?

Option 1 - Do nothing on the grounds that I have fulfilled my legal obligation of disclosure and signing and returning the NIP within 28 days.

Option 2 - Politely write back to TVP stating that I have already provided the information they requested and that the NIP was signed and returned within the 28 day period.

Many thanks,

Do nothing!

I cant believe they said that, and you have signed the NIP!
You are very lucky that they are taking this stance, hopefully they will prosecute you for s172, or just drop the case.

Either way you are home free.

Cheers Saint  :) ,

My only concern is that TVP's letter makes no reference whatsoever to my PACE statement.

How devious are the scammers likely to be ? Whilst I can produce a copy of my PACE letter, what is to stop them denying this was ever attached to the NIP ?

Perhaps one of the guys with more experience can answer that.
I don't think there is anything else you can do other than registered post.

Though as the two items were stapled together, you could argue.. where did thos staple marks come from..

I don't think that Mr Pritchard and his monkeys are that clever. He's still trying to persuade me to sign a declaration stating that the combined 30mph and speed camera signs (a.k.a diagram 880 signs), prescribed by TSRGD 2002 are illegal on a 30mph restricted road.  :roll:

If they produce an NIP marked "please see attached" in court, claim that nothing was attached, and you have a reply from them that doesn't mention that the attachment was missing, it could be interesting  :wink:

[quote]I returned signed NIP within 28 days endorsed with 'please see attached witness statement'. Mika's PACE letter attached with all S/172 required information.

You have told them about an attached statement.

I received a reply from Thames Valley Police stating they 'acknowledge receipt of the partially completed driver information form'.

They acknowledge receiving the form (that told them about the attached statement)

[quote]How devious are the scammers likely to be ? Whilst I can produce a copy of my PACE letter, what is to stop them denying this was ever attached to the NIP ?[/quote]

They can be very devious, so they should have denied it being attached to the form they received in the letter you have received from them.

Three wise monkeys.  Sit and wait.

[quote=DW190][quote]I returned signed NIP within 28 days endorsed with 'please see attached witness statement'. Mika's PACE letter attached with all S/172 required information.

You have told them about an attached statement.

I received a reply from Thames Valley Police stating they 'acknowledge receipt of the partially completed driver information form'.

They acknowledge receiving the form (that told them about the attached statement)

[quote]How devious are the scammers likely to be ? Whilst I can produce a copy of my PACE letter, what is to stop them denying this was ever attached to the NIP ?[/quote]

They can be very devious, so they should have denied it being attached to the form they received in the letter you have received from them.

Three wise monkeys.  Sit and wait.[/quote]

Makes sense, DW190 - thanks for the feedback  :D

I'll do nothing for now and post any updates.

Can you elaborate?

Update:

After a couple of B & B letters, I received a letter from Pritchard saying that he had read my PACE letter. He states:

'I would however draw your attention to the case of DPP vs Francis where the appeal judges agreed that code C of PACE did not apply as there is an exemption within Paragraph 10.1 of Code C. It states that a person need not be cautioned if questions are for other necessary purposes eg.

     a) solely to establish their identity or ownership of any vehicle    
     B) to obtain information in accordance with any statutory
         requirement, see Paragraph 10.9.'

Pritchard thus rejects my suggestion that I should have been cautioned before completing the driver keeper statement (which I did not, I used the PACE statement) and he very kindly included a CoFP.

I'm sure that many other TVP 'criminals' have received similar letters and I will have a hunt through the forum to see what advice / comments have been offered.

In the meantime, the pepipoo consensus of my next step would be greatly appreciated - Ignore the CoFP or draft a suitably terse response to the Chief Constable of TVP ?

Thanks all.

Unless there is something you particularly need to get off your chest (which will most likely be ignored/not understood), or have any other pressing reason for communicating with them, I would suggest doing nothing.

Cheers Andy,

I have no burning desire to converse with Pritchard particularly, but I am aware of the 28 day response required 'warning' on the CoFP before they place the matter with the mags.

Just ignore the CoFP and doubtless you will get another one in 28 days. The Scameraships are just after the money and if it goes to court, they don't get a slice of the cake.

It is interesting to see Mr Pritchard issue another CoFP for a PACE statement. He did not like my one as I did not get this option, instead he advised me that they were going to send my papers to the summons production unit for a S172 offence. Maybe he was having a bad hair day

I am slowly forming the opinion that Mr Pritchard does not exist as the only signature I have ever seen or heard of from him is the scanned one on the NIP. Maybe he is just a figment of our imaginations  :shock:

If you supplied all the driver details on the PACE letter, under what circumstances are they sticking an S172 offence on you ?

If they proceed with an S172 summons which is flawed and have not summonsed you for the speeding offence, isn't that a result ??

Getting Mr Pritchard to issue a summons for S172 isn't as easy as you might think  :roll:

If we assume that the PACE statement was completed correctly and contained all of the S172 required info, then it follows that Mr Pritchard is not following a consistent approach to PACE respondents.

Are you suggesting, Andy, that Mr Pritchard is easily confused ?  :lol:

I think Andy is trying to say that Mr P doesn't know if it's his hand or his head that's penetrating his rs.

I am quite looking forward to be summons for a S172 offence, whether or not it actually happens is an entirely different matter. They have all but threatened me with this charge and there exact words were:



As you said it is very inconsistent approach TVP take towards PACE statements, so it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. If I do get to court on a S172 charge, I would love to call Mr Pritchard to the stand and ask him why my PACE statement did not comply with the S172 request but "Mr X's" PACE statement did, and watch him wriggle  :twisted:

Another update:

As stated above, I received a COFP along with a letter from TVP's Pritchard stating that PACE did not apply as Section 10.1 of Code C provides an exemption.

I ignored the COFP and the 28 day time period of the offer elapsed.

My question is, has anyone else had similar experiences with Thames Valley Police (namely Banbury) ? Is this just bluff & bluster or am I drawing ever nearer to a day in court ?

I read mcderyl's thread and was concerned that the Mags in his case found him guilty regardless of PACE etc. Is this a first ?

Yes. Myself, ThamesValley and Zuegma (to name but a few) have each had pretty much every conceivable B&B letter from Mr Pritchard.
None of us has received a summons yet, athough I was promised one shortly before being told that they had decided to take no further action.

It is very hard to determine what TVP intend to do, based solely on what they say they are going to do in their letters  

edit to remove specifics

You have a copy of the s172 you failed to complete but you signed.

I cannot remember of my head what TVP forms are like but did the part you signed have written at the top of the box or anywhere else in the box "I was the driver".

If it did you may be stuffed.

Edited

I have now seen a TVP s172 form.  Are any of the boxex ticked at the top

Were you the driver    Yes []  No []

No, neither box was ticked.

The NIP was just dated, signed and endorsed with 'Please see attached witness statement...' Nothing more.

In that case they have no identification of the driver without disclosure of the witness statement.

This is one for cjm99.

I'm sure he will say "NON DISCLOSURE = NOT ADMISSIBLE"

You should not enter the witness box under any circumstances.  Otherwise they could then ask you the question "Were you the driver"?

Thanks for the info DW190.

Surely this is a non starter as today is 6 months and 1 day after the offence or am i missing something? :?

Court summons within time.

 ah right <walks off in shame>

Had a night to sleep on this and there's one thing I am still not sure of regarding legal procedures, never having been in this situation before.

The summons has arrived with 'A Notice to Defendant - Proof by Documentary Evidence' summary. This lists the evidence that has been presented to the court by TVP (see previous post). This list does not include my PACE statement, without which I cannot see that they have any evidence against me.

When I plead not guilty by post and a new court date is set, will this current list of evidence be used or is it possible for TVP to make amendments with the inclusion of my PACE statement ?

Thanks all for your help so far. Nearly there !!

If you just enter a Not Guilty plea and nothing else the file will probably not be seen again until the morning of the hearing.  A new date will then be set.

At which point they will probably realise the error and make sure it is amended before the new hearing ?

My guess is they wont notice.

There is in effect nothing for them to notice.

The CPS will take possesion of the file. The file will contain all originals of the documents. As they will see it, the file looks and is complete. However, yours is fatally flawed and your 'bundle' is identical to the 'bundle' the Court Clerk has..

 :D  :D

Fingers crossed. Updates to follow....

Bu66er  

In response to the title of this post - yup, I think I did shoot myself in the foot.

removed some specifics


I think I may have to take this one on the chin and put it down to experience.

The summons has not yet been sent back but I'm thinking of just pleading guilty and get it over and done with. I don't know if I have the fight in me to ask for full disclosure of the video evidence and run the risk of an even bigger fine than the one I am likely to get.

I am seriously pi55ed off now...

You appear to be thinking that a NIP addressed to your employer subsequently filled in by you will satisfy sec 12 RTOA. It will not.

That was exactly what I was thinking.

I have read Sect.12 RTOA, extract below:

(a) it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in manner prescribed by rules made under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, that a requirement under section 112(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to give information as to the identity of the driver of a particular vehicle on the particular occasion to which the information relates has been served on the accused by post, and

(B) a statement in writing is produced to the court purporting to be signed by the accused that the accused was the driver of that vehicle on that occasion,

Head spinning......

edit; doh!

Update:

Thames Valley NIP, PACE witness statement, B&B letters, summons for speeding, etc etc.

Well, my court date is only a couple of days away. I have been reading with interest has the 'PACE defence died' and have picked up some useful pointers.

I think I'm reasonably prepared for the fact that the CPS will argue that PACE does not apply to RTOA but does anyone have any recent experience of how PACE is holding up at the Mags Courts

edit to add - adjourned

My court case for speeding is now only a couple of weeks away and I am still concerned regarding S12 RTOA and would appreciate some advice as to which way the mags are likely to go.

Now that I have joined the ranks of Bad Boyz & Girlz, is there any chance this thread can be moved to somewhere more 'private' ?

Thanks to the moderator for moving this thread.

Paranoid moment - details removed temporarily.

It might help if you scan the bundle, remove identifying details and post it.

Will do this evening, Andy

Sent you a little pm (for what it's worth)

Summonsed to court today (excess speed after PACE) and was accompanied by Andy Foster as a McKenzie Friend.

The disclosed summons bundle was somewhat short of evidence proving driver identity - no PACE statement and no S172 completed by me  8)

After lengthy delays due to 'CPS looking at my file and needing more time'   ,  I eventually got before the Mags mid-afternoon.

Within 5 minutes, the CPS tried to introduce a non-disclosed S172 document that had been addressed to my employer but completed by me as proof of driver.

A quick objection by me pointing out the disclosure obligations but concentrating on the 'S12 has not been satisfied' issue had the Prosecutor rambling on about complex case and points of law. Whatever. I respectfully pointed out that this was not an elaborate or exotic case.

The Mags allowed a 10 minute break for 'legal discussions' between me, Andy, CPS and the Clerk. I had not objected fundamentally to the break but I think it may have been somewhat 'rude' to have suggested that I didn't feel the break was appropriate merely for the Prosecution to try and plug holes in a leaky case  

When the Mags returned, the CPS admitted that I was correct that the S172 was inadmissible and dropped the charges there and then

I applied for a Defendant's Costs order and this was agreed to by the Mags without hesitation

Thanks go to everyone who helped out. Special thanks must go to Andy for his help and advice leading up to today and his excellent work as a McKenzie and to cjm99 for his guidance on disclosure, court procedures and resisting adjournment (although the latter was not necessary). Their help in particular proved invaluable. Thanks guys