Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Sussex Police Mobile Van.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
NSXGB
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - September 2009
Date of the NIP: - 6 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 7 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Worth Road, Pound Hill, Crawley at 11:23.
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
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 - If it was me, I was following a car closely down the hill where the mobile camera was located (in a layby amongst a line of other parked cars). I only noticed it just as I passed it but thought I was ok as the car I was following closely was slowing me anyway.
This is the only time I have seen the mobile van on this road so I'm guessing it was me, my wife has borrowed the car recently but does not use it much.
EXCESS SPEED - 30MPH (automatic camera device/speed detection device) travelling at 36 mph on 15/09/2009.


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? - Yes
- Yes
- Unsure

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: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:18:48 +0100
Hotel Oscar 87
If there is a possibility that your wife was driving then I suggest that your write back to the SCP as soon as possible asking that you be forwarded any photos they may have that would "assist me in identifying the driver at the time". Keep the letter short, sweet and to the point. Do not elaborate beyond your request for the photos and do not use the words "evidence" or "proof".

At the speed alleged it is likely that you would be offered a speed awareness course and you would normally be ineligible if you have attended a course within the last 3 years. In the alternative this speed would attract a conditional offer of fixed penalty i.e. 3 points and £60.

Pete D
This was not a camera van it was an Automatic Camera so either a Gatso from the rear of a Truvelo from the front. I suggest you write to them and ask for copies of any photo's to help you identify the driver. Do not elaborate or use the words evidence or proof. This does not stop the 28 day clock so write today. Pete D

I was typing at the time Hotel Oscar. Pete D
NSXGB
Thanks guys.

So, to confirm, 'delaying tactics' would not help in this situation?
I've had experience that Surrey Police get round to issuing the summons but Essex Police on 4 occasions (for others) didn't.

Should I be offered it, would a speed awareness course mean I would escape the fine and points?

Is there any weight to my case with regard to the camera being located at the bottom of a hill?

I remember reading somewhere that the point at which they decide you get prosecuted for a 30 mph zone is 10% + 2. So anything above 35 mph in a 30 zone? That coupled with the hill means a) I'm unlucky with 36 or b) should stop whinging and pay up!

If this was me driving at the time I think I was very close behind the car in front, would this confuse the camera?
Pete D
This was not a scamera van ping. It was an automatic hit so a Gatso or Truvelo fixed camera. Were you in the area of the location at 11.23 on a Tuesday ???
The driver may be offered a SAC but you are/were unsure who the driver was. Pete D
NSXGB
QUOTE (Pete D @ Wed, 23 Sep 2009 - 16:11) *
This was not a scamera van ping. It was an automatic hit so a Gatso or Truvelo fixed camera. Were you in the area of the location at 11.23 on a Tuesday ???
The driver may be offered a SAC but you are/were unsure who the driver was. Pete D


Looking back at my shifts it seems it must have been me. There is no GATSO on this stretch of road, I have just noticed this one time where the van was parked in the layby (concealed by other cars), back doors open with the camera mounted in the back - I thought this was a scamera van?
NSXGB

Is there a discrepancy here? Are you are saying the details indicate a GATSO camera but I know it's not???
glasgow_bhoy
It was almost certainly a mobile scammera van


http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/newsnew...worth-road.html
NSXGB
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Fri, 25 Sep 2009 - 16:04) *
It was almost certainly a mobile scammera van


http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/newsnew...worth-road.html



I'm sure it was a scamera van but Pete D suggests otherwise, if this is the case I'm clutching at straws that there may be a way out for me if they've sent the wrong details??
Pete D
'automatic camera device/speed detection device' is Gatso, Truvelo and Redspeed type camera's. Manned is laser hand held, laser scamera van or rarely a manual radar devices. Or it is an error in the NIP, not likely, have you requested the photo's yet. Pete D
captain swoop
Maybe a Mobile Gatso? Cleveland use one

Pete D
A Scamera van is a manual detection, the operator forms a prior opinion ( cough, cough ) and then manually aims the laser/camera and manually pulls the tigger and if the laser detection supports the excess of speed then a NIP is issued. Have you asked for photo's yet. Pete D
BaggieBoy
There is no fixed camera at this location according to PGPSW database, so unless it is new there seems to me some error on the NIP. However I don't believe this would invalidate the NIP as the type of camera is irrelevent at this stage.
NSXGB
QUOTE (Pete D @ Sat, 26 Sep 2009 - 16:43) *
A Scamera van is a manual detection, the operator forms a prior opinion ( cough, cough ) and then manually aims the laser/camera and manually pulls the tigger and if the laser detection supports the excess of speed then a NIP is issued. Have you asked for photo's yet. Pete D



Not asked for photo's yet, would that jeopordise my chances of 'getting away' with the Speed Awareness course?
BaggieBoy
QUOTE (NSXGB @ Sat, 26 Sep 2009 - 20:42) *
Not asked for photo's yet, would that jeopordise my chances of 'getting away' with the Speed Awareness course?

Shouldn't make any difference either way.
NSXGB
Got the photo's. Nice colour shots.
It is impossible to see on either photo who the driver was. It looks like the day in question, at 11:20 in the morning was very dull as all cars had their headlights on making the image dark and the vehicle's cabin it totally blacked out. The first photo is taken from 230m and you cannot read the number plate, the second photo makes it possible to read the number plate as it's taken at about 30m and the shot is mainly number plate and bonnet, but what you can see of the cabin is still dark. All you can slightly make out is a hand on the steering wheel and is cut off above that.

So, would they have higher resolution photo's for me to see?

What's my next move?


BTW, thanks to every one for your help so far.
Pete D
Contrary to the NIP this was in fact a manned speeding device, but that is not going to help you. You do not need to see who the driver was a s you know it was you and you saw the van. What happened to the vehicle you were following closely. Is it a clean ping. The video of the whole session is much higher resolution and they may permit you to view it by appointment at the SCP offices. IF you are unsure about the ping then wash off the ID and Reg and post it in your thread using the instructions in the FAQ section. Pete D
NSXGB
As you can tell from my various replies, I was not 100% sure who was driving (admittedly most likely me).
I've seen a van at least once there and two cops with hand held guns recently so just because I remember seeing a van once does not confirm to me that was the time the car was snapped.

It looks like a clean ping, I was not near to another car in the shot.

I suppose I'll request to see the video then. If you say there is a video to watch and these shots are taken from it, I'm confused as to why they have not sent me a still showing the driver up close?
Pete D
You will only get the video if you go not guilty and take this to court and even then it will be a fight. Either ask for a better shot yo help you idenfy the driver or go and view the video. I do not see a defence here and taking it to court would probably lock you out of any SAC which you may be offered when you return the completed NIP. I have never heard of a SAC being offered in court. Who else uses your car. Pete D
NSXGB
I will reply straight away to ask for a better shot or get a chance to view the video. My wife also uses the car.

Thanks for your reply.
The Last Minute
Not withstanding any extension you may have been given when you received the photos, the correspondence you are having with the Scamera Partnership doesn't stop the clock on the 28 days. Fail to get all the information requested to them in time and you will be guilty of a s.172 offence which is a minimum of 6 points and largish fine on conviction!

Also bear in mind that the main reason for getting the photo's was to see if the ping was clean rather than to find out who the driver was. Just because it's not clear in the video, as the keeper it's you who has the duty to use reasonable diligence to find out who the driver was (not just who it might have been or otherwise!)

(PS hope this is right, I've been lurking here a while and though it was about time I posted something!)
Chas820
QUOTE
you will be guilty of a s.178 offence


S172
The Last Minute
QUOTE (Chas820 @ Mon, 12 Oct 2009 - 14:53) *
QUOTE
you will be guilty of a s.178 offence

S172


Whoops! icon_redface.gif Edited now - thanks Chas820!
NSXGB
A quick update;

I called the helpline number after receiving the photo's to tell them that they did not assist me in identifying the driver and what should I do next?
I was advised to write to them explaining this so that it was on record, which I did.

I received a reply stating that the photo's are not provided to identify the driver but to identify the offense. If I did not return the NIP with the drivers details I would face 6 points and up to £1k fine etc. However, if I was to return the NIP with the driver details I would be eligable for a £60 fine and 3 points (or SAC) if it was returned within 60 days iof the offence.

It's like they try to scare you to force your hand...


So, my next move is??

Wait for the court papers, what are my prospects?

Flip a coin and decide whether me or my wife gets the points?
southpaw82
What else have you dont to try to ID the driver? Have you told the police who the possible drivers were?
NSXGB
I told the Police that it was a choice of my wife or me. Neither of us can remember who would have been driving or even what the purpose of the journey would have been for. I don't think there will be any CCTV available in the area. Looked at my bank statement and I purchased some petrol that day but it does not give a time.
Would the bank be able to give a time of the transaction and if it was around the time in question, would the petrol station release CCTV footage to me?

I'm doubting the possibility of getting the CCTV footage.

After reading another post on here of somebody in a similar situation I'm starting to think I'll take the 3 points and fine, if nothing else, it's a less stressful route.....but not as stressful as the house move I'm going through at the moment! Just don't need any more stress....

Can I get done for perjury if I'm essentially saying it was me driving whan I'm not actually sure?
southpaw82
 
QUOTE (NSXGB @ Fri, 6 Nov 2009 - 19:58) *
Can I get done for perjury if I'm essentially saying it was me driving whan I'm not actually sure?


No, you can't (though you may get done for s. 172).
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.