Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Sinaj
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Sinaj
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - July 2008
Date of the NIP: - 9 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 11 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A5001 Wellingborough Road Rushden
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
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 - Friend and her colleague borrowed my car, my son gave then the keys so I don't know which person drove. The friend then went back to work, she works for Cunard and was then on a world cruise for 6 months.
When I got the NIP I didn't think it was me driving as I know the camera is on that road. I checked my diary but nothing noted. I checked my debit card statement to see if I bought anything that day but nothing recorded. The only reason I would use that road is to go to the supermarket and I always pay by debit card.

I immediately phoned the police and told them the situation and I would not have contact with the friend until she had shore leave for christmas. I asked if they could contact me then and I would have the facts for them. They refused to allow me this time and proceeded to prosecute.

After many letters and e-mails to the court explaining the situation I was advised that as I had done all I could to inform the court of this. Later I was pressed into giving name by one of the court officers so I guessed which person I thought was driving and gave her name. I didn't know the surname of her colleague so I gave his first name. My son then told me that he heard the guy offer to drive but didn't take any notice who drove away. I felt bullied into making a guess and felt that was unreasonable as I was doing all I could to provide correct information.
The court also did not answer my question as to why I couldn't be allowed a few weeks to get what they wanted.

As time seemed to be of the essence for them it seems irrelevant now as it's nearly one year later.

Another court officer then told me I had been given the wrong advice by the other officer. I said again if they could just wait a few weeks I could give them accurate information rather than make assumptions and guess.

I was ill at the time and provided 2 doctor's letters to explain I was not well enough to attend court.

I was found guilty of MS90 in my absence. 6 points £150 and costs.

I have now put in an appeal on the grounds that I was not allowed the time to give the facts.

As it happened my friend said she knew nothing about a speed camera and she no longer worked with her colleague to check with him so to my disappointment she didn't take it further.

I then informed the court of this and said as the owner of the vehicle I realised it was my responsibilty to take the offence and pay the fine but they would not allow this. The speeding fine was dropped and I got an MS90. I feel as though I was penalised even heavier because I did not attend the hearing in person although I had put my case in writing.
The medication I was taking made me unable to think clearly or communicate well and the doctor felt a court appearance would be too stressful as I was being investigated for a heart condition.

The appeal is being scheduled for week commencing 15th June.

Is an MS90 common law or statute because if there is any case law relating to this situation I would like to read about it. Does it make any difference whether it is common law or statute?

I would appreciate any help or advice anyone can offer.

Regards
Sinaj


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? - Unsure
Do you know who was driving? - Unsure who was driving

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:07:16 +0100
7159keith
You were not driving so your task was simple, you had 28 days from receiving S172 request to provide the information on the possible drivers or at least the full name of your friend and you did not do this. The court will focus on your compliance with that request, not what happened after the 28 days.

You will have to show a good reason why you did not provide the potential drivers details within the 28 days or your appeal will fail. sadly it is that simple, events that followed will not be relevant.
andy_foster
Whilst you appear to have given us a fair amount of information regarding the case, it appears to be at best somewhat vague and almost certainly inaccurate.
We appreciate that much of this is all new to you, but it is extremely difficult to give meaningful advice without knowing the accurate facts of the case.

For example, you seem to have been having discussions with the court and court officers without any mention of having received a summons at that stage.
I suspect that you do not appreciate the distinction between the office of the police/safety camera partnership that sent the notice and required you to provide information under section 172 of the Road traffic Act 1988 and the court who effectively can only debate the issues with you at the trial you did not attend.

MS90 is the DVLA's endorsement code for an offence of failing to provide information regarding the driver's identity, contrary to section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - the clues being in the charge in the summons and the notice which originally required you to name the driver.

You need to provide us with a chronological list of all the communications you've had with any 'authorities' regarding the matter - what was sent to you, when and by whom, and what responses you made, when, how and to whom.

Regarding case law, the most obvious issue, from what you have told us so far, is that if you are unable to provide the driver's details, you must provide any information that is in your power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver within the 28 days (Flegg) (assuming that the notice you received contained such a requirement).
If you failed to provide partial information within the 28 days because you were waiting to get further information, you are almost certainly boned (assuming that the prosecution can prove that you had such information to give(Mohindra).
Sinaj
Thank you very much for your speedy reply. I didn't know there was a 28 day deadline to provide a name. As I said I immediately contacted the police to let them know the circumstances. I could not contact the friend for confirmation while she was on board the ship so had to wait until she contacted me on her next shore leave in December, not that I was withholding names, in fact I was trying to do the opposite. I really felt it was not morally right to 'shop' somebody without getting the facts first. I presumed the court would be more interested in facts than guesses.

I just didn't realise I could provide a name by guessing who was driving and I didn't know the surname of the colleague anyway so could not have got that until the friend contacted me..

Please could I ask again if there is any case law on this.

Regards
Sinaj

Thank you Andy

You are right I haven't any idea how these things work.

I will go through all my correspondence and post the information. Please could you tell me what you think is inaccurate so I can clarify that. It is perhaps a bit vague because I wanted to keep the post concise.

I have tried to find the Flegg case but don't know the name of the other party. Do you have a link to it?

Please could you also explain what you mean by If you failed to provide partial information within the 28 days because you were waiting to get further information, you are almost certainly boned

Regards
Sinaj
The Rookie
Flegg V new forest

Providing a responce IN WRITING giving info in power to give, so you only had to say in writing that the car was leant by the son to the two of them and you don't know which one was driving, those are the facts the court would be interested in and which would have given you a defence.

If you didn't give such info in writing as you could have within the 28 days permitted in law, you ARE guilty, no ifs buts or maybe's provide a defence to that fact - boned is Andy's word of the month for sunk, stuffed, scr3wed etc.

Simon
Sinaj
Thank you for the 'translation' Simon.

I will go through all my correspondence and see if I did comply within the 28 days. It was my mistake for trying to be reasonable and make sense of what what was required rather than just giving incorrect information.

I still can't find the Flegg case without paying for it. Please could you tell me where I can go to read it. As you can see I'm not used to the legal system apart from a messy divorce where the other side lied and got away with it. Perjury ....the court didn't want to know even when presented with evidence.
That is the reason I was trying to get 100% certain of my facts in this case. My confidence in the legal system went out of the window.

Regards
Sinaj
The Rookie
Flegg

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/396.html

For free!

Simon
Sinaj
Thank you Simon.

Regards
Sinaj
Hotel Oscar 87
Hi Sinaj

I think a read through of Flegg will clarify matters for you. Your problem is, I believe, that as you were not the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence you were only obliged to provide such information as was in your power to give. You may not have known who was driving but (and as alluded to in Flegg did not have any suspicion as to who was doing so) you do not appear to have provided any information within the timescale required. Furthermore, (although we do not know your precise words) your apparent hesitation and comments, to the police, regarding your friend would have been highly indicative of your having relevant information (as per Mohindra) and your subsequent information would have confirmed it.

Overall, at this stage, I'm with andy and think you were probably rightly convicted. Sorry that may not have been the news you wanted.
Sinaj
Thanks for your reply.

I was/am the registered keeper.

I will spend the weekend collating all the correspondence and post it on Monday. No doubt you are right that I will be convicted, I only had the name of the person who asked to borrow my car. I was told her colleague offered to drive but as I wasn't there at the time and my son didn't see who actually drove away neither of us knew for sure. I only know the guy by his first name so couldn't possibly have withheld a name I didn't know. The only way for me to find out was to wait until my friend was on her next shore leave and ask her for the facts. All I ever asked was for the matter to be held until I was able to speak to her for confirmation. I said all along I was trying to provide a name not just make assumptions and guess.

It is not possible to simply phone someone while they are working on a world cruise and on the other side of world. I knew she would phone me when she was back on land. And no....it's not a wonderful job.... if you are wondering.

Regards
Sinaj

srg
QUOTE (Sinaj @ Sat, 30 May 2009 - 13:12) *
I only had the name of the person who asked to borrow my car. I was told her colleague offered to drive but as I wasn't there at the time and my son didn't see who actually drove away neither of us knew for sure. I only know the guy by his first name so couldn't possibly have withheld a name I didn't know.


For future reference, you always have to be very careful when you let people drive your car. If they turn out not to be insured, both you and them get into trouble equally. If you only know their first name, are you sure they were insured to drive your car?
Hotel Oscar 87
QUOTE (Sinaj @ Sat, 30 May 2009 - 13:12) *
Thanks for your reply.

I was/am the registered keeper.

Sinaj

In this context the words registered keeper and keeper have entirely different interpretations. For the purposes of Sec. 172 the word keeper effectively means "the person holding the keys". At the time of the alleged offence you were the registered keeper but were not the keeper. The keeper (probably, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary) was your friend who is now on the cruise. Responsibilities differ (Sec. 172(2)):

QUOTE
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and

(b) 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 were "any other person" and the information which was in your power to give would have included your knowledge, beliefs, understandings and suspicions.
The Rookie
QUOTE (Hotel Oscar 87 @ Sat, 30 May 2009 - 19:33) *
In this context the words registered keeper and keeper have entirely different interpretations. For the purposes of Sec. 172 the word keeper effectively means "the person holding the keys".


While I agree the 2 are not the same, the 'person holding the keys' has, as far as I know, never been the Keeper by default, its more complicated than that.

For future ref Sinaj, you should have named the 'best' person you could, the trouble being that the 6 month tieout for prosecution all to coincidentally fell before that person returned, and in modern communication times I think most people wouldn't quite believe what you said.

Simon
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.