Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Using prohibited on restricted area
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Lynnzer
I have received a "Request for information to identify driver of a vehicle" subtitled Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988, and is from Northumbria Police
It says
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________

At **.** hours on **/07/2010 motor vehicle registered number ******* was observed at High Level Bridge, Newcastle.
Where it is alleged that the non endorsable offence of USING PROHIBITED VEHICLE ON RESTRICTED AREA was committed.
You are recorded as or have been named as the owner/keeper/hirer/driver of the above vehicle at the time of alleged offence.
If you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence you are required to provide the information as requested in part 1 and complete and sign the declaration at part 6 overleaf.

If you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, then you must provide the full name and address and date of birth (if known) of the person driving the vehicle or potential drivers' or any information you have which will lead to the driver being identified.

It is the legal responsibility of the vehicle's registered keeper to nominate who was driving at the time of the alleged offence.

Under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) you are required to supply the information requested above within 28 days of the service of this notice. Failure to to comply may result in court proceedings and if convicted a fine of up to £1000 plus 6 penalty points.
This information must be supplied on the reverse of this notice. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Signed (signature)
P Oliver on behalf of the Chief Constable.
______________________________________________________
The reverse is the same as on the standard NIP as served for speeding.
The alleged offence was on the 4th July (which sort of knocks out the intention of the asterisks to eliminate identity.)
This was received today, the 15th July by franked mail, cost 36 pence, dated 14th July.

I am pretty sure who the driver was then. It certainly wasn't myself as I was ill in bed with excruciating back pain.
I will be asking for the RTO for the High Level Bridge but am sure it will be in order as they have carried out a real blitz on this since some recent renovation.
That's another reason why it certainly wouldn't have been me anyway.
I've Google Street mapped the road and all seems in order sign-wise so a defective RTO would be the only way out I guess.

It appears that a camera is fixed to take details of incidents at this location but this operated by Newcastle City Council rather than the police. What impact if any would this make.
Any other ideas guys.
muckychimney
Posted in wrong forum I think, if its camera related then should be in http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=4
Fredd
QUOTE (muckychimney @ Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 13:11) *
Posted in wrong forum I think, if its camera related then should be in http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=4

No; this isn't a technical issue to do with cameras, it's a request for help with dealing with a police s172 requirement.
strollingplayer
I thought they were supposed to use s.112 RTRA for non-endorsable offences.
southpaw82
QUOTE (strollingplayer @ Thu, 15 Jul 2010 - 15:12) *
I thought they were supposed to use s.112 RTRA for non-endorsable offences.


No. I've moved this to SOCO.
Logician
QUOTE
I am pretty sure who the driver was then. It certainly wasn't myself as I was ill in bed with excruciating back pain.

So why not name the likely driver, and let them deal with the matter?
Hotel Oscar 87
I think Lynzzer, something of a legend a couple of years ago for his prolonged pursuit of a speeding case and one of the first regulars here to encounter the RSS "Dream Team", may have been hoping that the use of the s. 172 requirement was inappropriate/incorrect. He is undoubtedly fully aware of his duty as far as the requirement was concerned.

Although brief SP's reply says it all, really. Prohibited vehicle, restricted road is an offence under s. 36 RTA which is an offence to which s. 172 applies. Are any of the signs non-compliant?
Lynnzer
Nah, all signs seem to be in order from what I can see on Google Street View.
Have now also got the FULL pdf of all Newcastle City Councils TRO's.
The full download is at http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/wwwfileroot/cx...idatedAug09.pdf just in case it could prove useful to anyone else.
I think the missus is stuffed on this one but at least it doesn't carry points.

I was thinking that the S172 request in the format that it was presented, for a non endorseable offence was maybe inappropriate and whether or not S172 was the correct procedure to follow for non endorseable offences but I didn't see why not.
I'll wait and see what comes through for the wife now and there may some sort of incorrect wording or charge etc relating to her own NIP.

For those who live or travel in this area, the Newcastle and Gateshead area is a minefield of poor signs from the Central Motorway right through most adjoining streets. They even have a single 40 sign which should be lit but which is not (it's been broken for at least 10 years), in the middle of a dark underpass and in the central strip (hardly reservation as it's nothing more than armco separating the carriageways.)
It's effect should really make a section of one of the most highly Gatso populated roads completely unenforceable however as I don't deliberately speed along there anyway I have yet to test this in court.
It will almost inevitably happen one day though.
Anyway, seems like this particular mistake will have to be settled by the chequebook in due course.
For the mods:
maybe if we could consolidate all the TRO's that have been collected along the way into a section of its own it would prove very useful.
Regards to all
emanresu
QUOTE
For the mods:
maybe if we could consolidate all the TRO's that have been collected along the way into a section of its own it would prove very useful.
Regards to all


Lynnzer the TPT already do this for us. Its here http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/login.aspx


As regards the hatched section is this the internal motorway coming off the bridge. Is it on Google StreetView
Lynnzer
QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 16 Jul 2010 - 11:22) *
QUOTE
For the mods:
maybe if we could consolidate all the TRO's that have been collected along the way into a section of its own it would prove very useful.
Regards to all


Lynnzer the TPT already do this for us. Its here http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/login.aspx


As regards the hatched section is this the internal motorway coming off the bridge. Is it on Google StreetView

Nah, the actual offence was committed (allegedly) by crossing the High Level Bridge (north to south). This has recently undergone a large refurbishment to the structure, and then made one way only with a 20 mph limit and access only to local buses and taxis. The signs seem to be OK but Google Street Maps seem to skirt the area, probably due to the fact that the car taking the pictures would have picked up a ticket if it had gone over the bridge itself.
The bridge spans the Tyne on the B1307 from the direction of The Close.
I had a reply from Newcastle Council who gave me the date of the publication of the changes in the Journal and another one for the consolidation Order to bring everything together.
Now, I submitted the S172 reply naming the wife, Mrs June Robson (who it was anyway) and there's a letter dropped through the letterbox this morning addressed to Mrs Jane Rodson. The name being wrong but the address being correct.
As there are two Robson's in the street, the other being only 60 yards away would I be right to send it back and advise them that no such person lives at this address. Can this be potentially timed out by the delay associated with the wrong details on the envelope or could I putting myself at risk of a S172 charge.
I did give the correct information in the first place. Also, if the missus doesn't respond due to wrong details on the envelope could they slap a S172 on her.
I won't open the envelope just yet. It may be better to hold it for a while.
Thinking of it, could the wife actually get a S172 for a non endorse-able offence anyway. She has been named the driver so they have that on record. All they don't have is her confession by completion of her own S172 request.
hdskyforce
It's not endorsable so as long as it was completed (as in information laid at court) within 6 months from the date of the offence it would not time out.

High Level Bridge is pretty water tight with it's TRO and signage due to the amount of money that was spent on refurbishing it. Just a point though for anyone that knows the area, when the High Level was closed for repairs the council restricted traffic from joining the Tyne Bridge at Swan House roundabout to buses only. Now that the High Level is open to buses only (and taxis, not sure why but they can do whatever they please in Newcastle Upon Tyne) you'd have thought that the restriction on Swan House would have been removed, but it hasn't.
Lynnzer
QUOTE (hdskyforce @ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 - 12:28) *
It's not endorsable so as long as it was completed (as in information laid at court) within 6 months from the date of the offence it would not time out.

High Level Bridge is pretty water tight with it's TRO and signage due to the amount of money that was spent on refurbishing it. Just a point though for anyone that knows the area, when the High Level was closed for repairs the council restricted traffic from joining the Tyne Bridge at Swan House roundabout to buses only. Now that the High Level is open to buses only (and taxis, not sure why but they can do whatever they please in Newcastle Upon Tyne) you'd have thought that the restriction on Swan House would have been removed, but it hasn't.

It's a real pigs ear isn't it?
To get out of Newcastle is a nightmare. The funny thing is that you can still join the Central Motorway onto the Tyne Bridge but you have to turn left at the exit just prior to it, then do an about turn onto it before the actual Swan House entrance, if you get what I mean. And once you're on, the speed limit is unenforceable due to a single non illuminated sign in the central strip under the Swan House tunnel that you simply cannot see properly. No way is this compliant.
hdskyforce
Yes, and the central motorway north bound has no signs stating that "End of Motorway Restritctions" your just met by a repeater national speed limit sign (when the CME is 50mph) and then a green background direction sign so the motorway must have ended. It's appauling that it is called a motorway and the signage is so poor. Half a mile of motorway too!!! What's the point.
Lynnzer
So, still waiting for any useful advice on the letter from the police camera unit. It isn't addressed to the right person named on my S172 request. the address is correct but the name is mrs Jane Rodson instead of Mrs June Robson begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting.
Bearing in mind that there's another Robson living a hundred yards away should I just return this as being undelivered?
What implications would arise for such poor addressing if it went to court for a S172 offence?
How would it look if I sat on this until day 26 then sent it back as no such person living at this address. This would be within 28 days and although it would fail to provide them with the S172 completion due to the letter not being opened they cannot say it hadn't been responded to.
Logician
With an error in both names, and in fact errors that make it another valid name, I think I would be very tempted to do what you suggest.
Lynnzer
The wife has opened the bloody envelope AAAaarrrgghhhhh

Anyway, the name is shown on the form exactly as that on the envelope, in fact the envelope has a see through address panel which shows the name on the form itself.
So, now knowing that the S172 request is named specifically to Mrs Jane Rodson would you expect it to be an offence of some sort to complete it anyway?
I mean it isn't addressed to anyone here so we have no right to complete it I suppose?
roadrunner 163
did the original 172 request come to your self being Mr Robson at your address and then in response to the information you furnished a second 172 request arrives at the same address to a Mrs Rodson.

If it is the same address and to be frank a small error on the name then I think your / in this case your wife is taking a huge risk for such a small potential victory if you / she were to contest this.
fatboytim
Perhaps Jane Rodson could fill out the 172 naming June Robson and see what happens.
Lynnzer
QUOTE (fatboytim @ Fri, 6 Aug 2010 - 16:48) *
Perhaps Jane Rodson could fill out the 172 naming June Robson and see what happens.

Bloody good idea. At day 26 too.
Thanks for that. I was just going to return it opened with a note to the effect that no such person is known at this address.
Maybe I'll still do that anyway since there is no such person at this address. The S172 request is quite specific. "WARNING: It is an offence to provide a false statement" which is exactly what the wife would be doing if she completed it as the nominated person showing on the form.

Also, although she knows it was her driving, by the very fact that the form is made out to a different person she cannot complete it.
Another thing is that the S172 request states quite specifically "It is the legal responsibility of the Vehicles Keeper to nominate who was driving at the time of the alleged offence". I did exactly that so my own backside is well covered.
adrianL
QUOTE (hdskyforce @ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 - 13:28) *
Yes, and the central motorway north bound has no signs stating that "End of Motorway Restritctions" your just met by a repeater national speed limit sign (when the CME is 50mph) and then a green background direction sign so the motorway must have ended. It's appauling that it is called a motorway and the signage is so poor. Half a mile of motorway too!!! What's the point.


(hijack) And to add to the daftness, heading south on the A167, it's a dual carriageway at National Speed Limit. It then transforms into a half mile motorway with a 50 limit !!

(end jijack, apologies in advance, have always thought Newcastle road planning a disaster since the 70s, a chance to propagate my belief!)
Adrian
Lynnzer
QUOTE (adrianL @ Tue, 10 Aug 2010 - 12:52) *
QUOTE (hdskyforce @ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 - 13:28) *
Yes, and the central motorway north bound has no signs stating that "End of Motorway Restritctions" your just met by a repeater national speed limit sign (when the CME is 50mph) and then a green background direction sign so the motorway must have ended. It's appauling that it is called a motorway and the signage is so poor. Half a mile of motorway too!!! What's the point.


(hijack) And to add to the daftness, heading south on the A167, it's a dual carriageway at National Speed Limit. It then transforms into a half mile motorway with a 50 limit !!

(end jijack, apologies in advance, have always thought Newcastle road planning a disaster since the 70s, a chance to propagate my belief!)
Adrian

No need for apologies for the hijack. The whole area is so badly signed that it would be at least a 70/30 chance of a good defence for speeding anywhere around Newcastle-Gateshead.
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.