Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] Requirement to give Information as to identity of Driver not NIP
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
superman325
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - February 2011
Date of the NIP: - 0 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 0 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Road, Lancashire
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? - 6
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 - My car was driven by someone else, and later in that evening the police turned up at my house asking who was driving the vehicle as it has no insurance and stating that we have checked you have a revoked license. I told them that is incorrect i have a provisional license. I told them someone else was driving it at the time with Valid License & Insurance. they gave me a Request To Give Information As To Identity Of Driver etc. Doesn't say NIP ANYWHERE. AND HAS ALSO BEEN 14DAYS SINCE OFFENCE now. the offences listed are Due Car/No License/No insurance. I do not know where they got Due Care from as the driver was merely turning right into a street a little fast to get out of the way of the police car with flashing lights approaching at speed.

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? - Unsure
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? - No
Do you know who was driving? - Yes

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • Complete the Section 172 statement naming the person you believe was driving.
    You aren't incriminating them - they'll receive a NIP to complete themselves in due course.

    (You might also like to let that person know that they can expect to receive one, and give them the link to this Wizard for when it arrives!)

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:44:21 +0000
Kickaha
You need to respond naming the driver, as there is no 14 day limit for requesting information on the driver.

I hope that the driver was insured, as you could find yourself in trouble if he wasn't and you allowed him to drive your car.
superman325
Hi,

Yes the driver has insurance to drive car. but i dont understand where this offence of "Due Care" has come from as i said above all the driver did was turn into a street a little quick to get out of the way of the fast approaching police car with flashing lights.
Kickaha
Without more details it is difficult to comment on the due care.

As for the insurance, are you aware that most (not all) insurance to drive any car specifies that the car in question must be covered under a separate policy, if this is the wording on his and your car is not insured then you and the driver may have problems
Gan
The "Due care" isn't your problem. All you must do is clearly identify the driver within the 28 days deadline.

Don't write anything else. It won't help and is frequently associated with the OPs who find themselves in the deepest holes.
superman325
All the details are simply - Driving along the road needed to do a u turn on country lane, as about to turn just before saw police car with flashin lights apporaching in other lane so turned into road quickly to get out of the way. did turn around in car park and back out.
Pancras
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 18:17) *
Hi,

Yes the driver has insurance to drive any car. but i dont understand where this offence of "Due Care" has come from as i said above all the driver did was turn into a street a little quick to get out of the way of the fast approaching police car with flashing lights.

With due respect the issues you raise are nothing to do with you. All you need to do is comply with the legislation and name the driver concerned. It's a matter for the driver to subsequently answer any allegations which the Police want to put to him.

I would be careful about getting involved in a debate about the merits of the allegation with the police.
superman325
Well ive just had a quick search of the internet if there are any laws relating to the use of indicators, and although you would fail in a driving test if you failed to use ur indicator, there are no specific laws for this only where an accident which was caused by the failure to indicate, which there was not in this instance.
nemo
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 18:41) *
Well ive just had a quick search of the internet if there are any laws relating to the use of indicators, and although you would fail in a driving test if you failed to use ur indicator, there are no specific laws for this only where an accident which was caused by the failure to indicate, which there was not in this instance.

With respect, your primary concern at this moment in time is to provide the police with the details of the person who was driving the vehicle. I assume you are absolutely certain that they were insured to drive your car ?

If the person you nominate receives their own NIP / s.172 as a result, then I'd suggest they sign up and start their own thread,
superman325
Also that night the police visited me at home, they seized my car at 10pm at night for suspicion of being used by myself and therefore incurred costs of £170 to release the car. How can i go about claiming costs back from the useless police force. When the car was parked on private property not on a public highway which i stated CLEARLY to the officer however he said he can still seize it, and i CLEARLY stated to him what was the piont of sezing the car for me to get it released tomorrow. Although i can only assume he sezied it to annoy me as he thought he was coming to get a driver with no insurance and no license.
jobo
no there no absolute requirment to use indecators other than to warn a car that needs warning of your intentions to alter direction, its prob just an add on, the police like to do that, they will say he coused them to brake hard swerve etc

but its academic if no NIP has been served in 14 days, as they cant do him for it anyway, are you convince that one wasnt served verbaly when they poped round ? how long after was that, exactly ?, it all gets a bit complex

there no 14 day requirement for insurance and DL
superman325
Yes they are Definately insured to drive any car.

Does anyone know the procedure after you reply with the driver details?
nemo
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 18:55) *
Does anyone know the procedure after you reply with the driver details?

The person you nominate will receive their own NIP / s.172 requirement to name the driver of the vehicle at the material time.
Top Cat
For someone who says they weren't there and are therefore not responsible you seem mighty obsessed with the allegation of driving without due care.

As others have said , whatever the merits of what took place that night is irrelevant to the lawful requirement upon you to name the driver.

Just the same as for anyone else driving a car , a police officer in uniform has the lawful right to stop you and demand your name and address , the officer doesn't need to have a reason or give you a reason for doing so , you've got to give up the correct details and failure to co-operate will result in arrest.

jobo
they will write to who ever you name, asking them to confirm who was driving, then they mat well interview him and ask him to produce DL and insurance,, if those go away, the careless may go with them, or not, as we dont know what he actualy did, and how much oit anoyed the copper
superman325
Hi Jobo,

All they did was give the RTA 1988 section 172 Requirement to give driver info and just made me sign his copy to say id received it.

They popped round 4 hours after the offence.
nemo
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 18:52) *
How can i go about claiming costs back from the useless police force.

If the officer had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the vehicle was being driven without insurance, and you were unable to demonstrate the contrary, then the seizure was almost certainly lawful and, as such, you will have little chance of reclaiming any monies.

QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 18:52) *
When the car was parked on private property not on a public highway which i stated CLEARLY to the officer however he said he can still seize it..

He was quite correct - the relevant legislation only precludes him from actually entering a private dwelling house.
jobo
QUOTE (Top Cat @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 18:58) *
For someone who says they weren't there and are therefore not responsible you seem mighty obsessed with the allegation of driving without due care.
biggrin.gif im beggining to thing that forgeting to reply and taking the six ppoimts might be best ?
nemo
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 18:59) *
No the police car was about 5 cars behind me in right lane...

Behind you, or the person you claim was driving your vehicle ?
superman325
Its my friend so therefore just trying to establish the facts and if they are trying to pin extra offences on him.

It just states Due Care not Due Care & attention - so i think its just an add on they like to do for scare tactics.

5 Cars behind the person driving
jobo
he did something to make them follow up on him, the police clearly think its you, hence the ins and DL notification, so they may or may not follow up the careless when all is well with the docs, but i wouldnt bet they wont
nemo
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 19:01) *
It just states Due Care not Due Care & attention - so i think its just an add on they like to do for scare tactics.

It would be the same offence - Careless or inconsiderate driving, contrary to s.3 Road Traffic Act 1988.

3-9 points, discretionary disqualification, fine of up to £5,000 upon conviction.
superman325
Due Care for turning into a road a little quick to get out of the way of the police car. I find that very hard to believe they can prove and careless driving in that case.
AntonyMMM
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 19:12) *
Due Care for turning into a road a little quick to get out of the way of the police car. I find that very hard to believe they can prove and careless driving in that case.


But has been said a number of times .... that's not your problem, as you weren't driving ??
roadrunner 163
If you fail to furnish you get 6 points and huge fine and massive insurance premiums for the next 5 years.

if you drove carelessly and otherwise in accordance with a drivers licence then you get 3-9 or possible ban and a fine and inflated insurance for the next 5 years.

If you furnish someone else's details, get found out you don't get points, you get a cosy cell for a few weeks or months, and inflated insurance premiums for life

the choice is yours!!! Oh and stubbing over minor questions on here is a bad sign if you intend to defend yourself in court for ANY of the offences. The personal interests are misplaced as right now your in deeper mess than the driver assuming there not one and the same.

To be honest Im surprised they gave you a second chance, failing to name them on the door step completed the offence.
Durzel
You weren't driving so not sure why you need to be too concerned about the offences listed to be honest. Nominate the driver, as per the requirements of the S172 request, and hopefully that'll be the end of the matter.

ps. I assume you must've been in the car since you have such a lucid memory of the event down to specificities like indicator usage and how many cars back from you/the other guy the cop car was.
Aretnap
The friend who was driving your car wasn't foreign by any chance, was he?
Top Cat
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 19:04) *
It just states Due Care not Due Care & attention - so i think its just an add on they like to do for scare tactics.


Due care , due care and attention , careless driving - it's all understood to be the same thing , so no scare tactics needed.
superman325
Roadrunner163- I told them on my doorstep feel free to go and talk to my friend who will tell you all you need to know but for some strange reason they said we want it on the form.

Durzel - Im just trying to establish the details on behalf of my friend. I know all the details becasue i sat down with him and went through with what happend exactly and i am puzzled as to where they got due care from? but would love to see them proving it.

Aretnap -My friends is not foreign. Has the necessary license and Insurance required.

Top Cat - The reason i am asking in detail about this is because there is no evidence of the offence they have raised. I am bemused as to How they can bring the charge of due care from seeing a car turning into a road in the distance.

But i will definately be updating on here when all is sorted in due course.
superman325
TopCat there must be a difference between Due Care and Attention & Careless Driving otherwise they would have summarised it under 1 point and not separate.
nemo
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 22:08) *
TopCat there must be a difference between Due Care and Attention & Careless Driving otherwise they would have summarised it under 1 point and not separate.

There isn't.

QUOTE (Road Traffic Act 1988)
3. Careless, and inconsiderate, driving

If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.

roadrunner 163

Complete the 172 request naming the driver and he will receive correspondence in due time. end of problem for you.

not sure if the NIP issue has been resolved but i assume if not served at the time or in writing at the door then one may still be on the way in the post.
Although often they are a combined documents that contain the name, time, date and location of offences, Vehicle details and the request to provide the details also. if not this will not prevent any prosecution of any document offences but would seriously hinder the careless driving in the circumstances given.

Perhaps they have already sent one to the driver you named at the door step but that is pure speculation.
superman325
I have only been given a Request to identify driver. 14 days has passed today so if they wanted to prosecute for that wouldn't a NIP be needed for the Due Care.

roadrunner 163
Basically yes but there are one or two exceptions.

an RTC being one but I assume this never occurred.
Also assuming your the registered keeper at the address the police found you.
And that your friend hasn't already received one.

Can you sanitise the letter and post it for me to see. I am curious how they have phrased the 172 request in an individual letter format.
Kickaha
What if the police claim to have given a verbal NIP at the time of the visit? Would this be adequate given that the OP informed them that he was not driving.

I have a feeling that the police are setting up the OP for a fall and have more info than he thinks they have (CCTV maybe?) - so it is hoped that the OP is being honest.
roadrunner 163
Technically not as its not at the time of the incident.
V70pilot
Were you in the car with your friend?...perhaps he did something he has not told you about. Only if you were in the car will you know for certain.

If you were in the car and his insurance is not valid then your are guilty of 'using a vehicle without insurance'

Due Care / Careless is when a persons divig falls below the standard expected of a reasonable and competant driver.

Without reasonable consideration is just that.

Fill the form in and return it within the 28 days ... it is a legal requirement...or they have you guilty of an offence which will put points on your licence.

Let your 'friend' worry about any other allegations...afterall...'he' was the driver
nemo
QUOTE (Kickaha @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 23:26) *
What if the police claim to have given a verbal NIP at the time of the visit?

If a NIP / warning is required to be served, then this can be by post (within 14 days) or in person at the time of the alleged offence.

With respect to the issue of a verbal warning of prosecution, it has been held that the words 'at the time' do not necessarily limit the warning to the point at which the offence occurred.

Case law would tend to suggest, however, that a delay of 4 hours is unlikely to be regarded as 'at the time of the offence'.

If this is the case, and if the police wished to proceed a case of careless driving, a postal NIP would require to have been served upon the driver or registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 calendar days of the alleged offence.

QUOTE (Kickaha @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 23:26) *
Would this be adequate given that the OP informed them that he was not driving.

Probably not, no.

Worth noting also that if the police do not satisfy the requirements of service of a NIP / warning (where one is required to be served), then this should be a bar to conviction of any person of the offence to which the NIP / warning refers.
Logician
If you had been driving without insurance, as you are already on 6 points, you would be looking at a totting ban of 6 months and a helpful friend might have suggested you name him, as his trade insurance would cover him driving your car, but the allegation of careless driving would be a complication. It would be a VERY bad idea to take him up on his kind offer, as instead of a simple driving offence, that is an offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, for which the sentence is usually a spell inside. However, as you were not driving, that will not arise.
superman325
V70Pilot - He is a very good friend of mine and 100% has told me every detail needed, which isn't really much for the police to stand on.

Logician - The car was used by my friend purely for the fact that its a sports car and he took it for a drive.

RoadRunner163 & Kickaha - all it states is sec172 rta1988 requires me to provide driver. if i fail i can get prosecuted. ignoring this is fauilure. and however nothing about being prosecuted for due care.

Will upload the letter later in afternoon.
Pancras
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 22:41) *
I have only been given a Request to identify driver. 14 days has passed today so if they wanted to prosecute for that wouldn't a NIP be needed for the Due Care.

They have as long as they like to serve the NIP on 'your friend', they only have 14 days to serve it on you, because you are the registered keeper.

Anyway you protest too much sir, and the only reason that I can see why you are doing so is because it was you behind the wheel at the time. I would strongly suggest if it was yourself then you name yourself on the form. If it really was 'your friend' then we are going round in circles - you have a legal duty to name him which will be sure to cost you 6 points and a big fine if you don't - there isn't a court in the land which would believe that with reasonable diligence you can't name him when you was handed the request after only four hours...
CuriousOrange
QUOTE (roadrunner 163 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 23:47) *
Technically not as its not at the time of the incident.
This has been discussed before. There's no legally-defined cut-off point of when it stops being the time of the incident. The court might decide that four hours later for a car that scarpered is reasonable. The 14-day rule is not a slam-dunk here.


QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 18:59) *
No the police car was about 5 cars behind me in right lane...
If you can make a slip-up like that on an internet forum, with no pressure and plenty of time to review what you post, you'd better hope you don't end up in a police interview or in court. Neither of those have an edit function.

If you name your friend, and he names himself, and he wasn't driving, you could both end up in jail. If it's all getting a bit shaky now that he's worried he's facing a due-care charge, how well do you think he'd bear up if they ever put that to him?


roadrunner 163
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 10:03) *
QUOTE (roadrunner 163 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 23:47) *
Technically not as its not at the time of the incident.
This has been discussed before. There's no legally-defined cut-off point of when it stops being the time of the incident. The court might decide that four hours later for a car that scarpered is reasonable. The 14-day rule is not a slam-dunk here.



Your right the court might decide 4 hours is fine and I suspect in this case they would as the circumstances seem so conflicting it will not hold up to scrutiny and any concerns the magistrates have will reflect their lack of compassion for whom ever the accursed becomes.

Hence the word technically. I doubt that this will ever be the defining case for when being warned at the time of an incident is settled.

If the driver had just returned the car and the offence was being committed for the 4 hours by the driver and the police arrived a minute or two after the driver got home. Now I would suggest the verbal NIP is sufficient.

But this is pure speculation as I am unaware of any case law applicable... Please send links if any is out there though as it does interest me greatly.

Considering we use the 14 day rule to advance our rights to the absolute limit. I for one personally benefited on a monumental scale. 00:00 hours on day 15 suddenly we cant be expected to recall an incident or where our car was at a time and date specified but ask me at 23:59 on day 14 and I am to remember all this and more. I am shocked that this issue does not have more of a defined answer or guidance though.





Aretnap
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 10:03) *
QUOTE (superman325 @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 18:59) *
No the police car was about 5 cars behind me in right lane...
If you can make a slip-up like that on an internet forum, with no pressure and plenty of time to review what you post, you'd better hope you don't end up in a police interview or in court. Neither of those have an edit function.

If you name your friend, and he names himself, and he wasn't driving, you could both end up in jail. If it's all getting a bit shaky now that he's worried he's facing a due-care charge, how well do you think he'd bear up if they ever put that to him?

And it's worth stressing that if you get caught, 'jail' doesn't mean 'theoretical possibility of jail but actually probably a fine or a bit of community service', it means 'very high probability of jail'. The police suspect you of driving unlicensed and uninsured and will not be easily fobbed off with a story about your convenient mate with a motor trade policy taking the car for a random spin; you should be prepared for some pretty searching questions.

If it was your mate driving then you need to get on with naming him and let him worry about the careless driving charge.

If it was you, then you need to think seriously about the fact that while owning up will probably get you a few months driving ban and high insurance premiums for a few years, lying and going to prison for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice would in all probability ruin not only your own life, but your mate's life too.
CuriousOrange
The previous discussion was here.

The point is that it's not technical. 'Technically' when the officer with a speed gun stops you at the side of the road you're no longer committing the offence so the verbal NIP isn't given, as the statute says, "at the time of the offence". This is why it's open to interpretation not technicality, so it'll be down to the court to decide, with due deference to whatever case law is out there. (The thread mentions two cases and two rough timings, but I very much doubt either case would have defined an exact cut-off point so the deference would have to be to the reasoning.)

The 14-day limit is set in statute so no interpretation. It doesn't mean 'everyone remembers everything within 14 days and forgets everything after'. Parliament decided there needed to be a time limit for a postal NIP for most traffic offences as people's memories fade with time, and chose fourteen days as a cut off, and even that's not absolute if someone hasn't kept their details up to date.

Set some x hour limit in law for the giving of the verbal NIP and you'd have people arguing whether they were stopped a few minutes later or the offence committed a few minutes earlier. (If you're doing 80 mph on the motorway, is the time of the offence when the officer sees you or when you started doing it, which could've been an hour or more earlier?)

I'd be more shocked if Parliament tried to set an arbitrary interval defining when a verbal NIP had to be delivered by rather than leave it up to a judgment in each individual case.

superman325
Pancras - "They have as long as they like to serve the NIP on 'your friend', they only have 14 days to serve it on you, because you are the registered keeper".

I have not sent it off yet naming my friend and 15 days has now passed. So they cannot technically do anything about any charges now can they?

CuriousOrange - I am discussing this on behalf of my friend to get to the bottom of the details as its intriguing to know the ins and outs of the law. Also my friend is replying to some of these posts therefore hence the " 5 cars behind me" was written by the person driving.

And if they have no evidence of who was driving how can they prove due care from a 2 seconds video footage if any as it was on a country lane no cameras etc.

peterguk
QUOTE (superman325 @ Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 16:28) *
I have not sent it off yet naming my friend and 15 days has now passed. So they cannot technically do anything about any charges now can they?

And if they have no evidence of who was driving how can they prove due care from a 2 seconds video footage if any as it was on a country lane no cameras etc.


14 days to serve the 1st NIP. There is actually only one NIP. Subesequent S.172s are not constrained to the same 14 day period. Simples.

If you don't name the driver - 6 points for you for FtF, none for your "friend". Simples again.
Gan
You really are making hard work of this.

You have been given 28 days to name who was driving so just do it. If you don't, you can look forward to another six points, a very heavy fine in £500 territory and most insurance companies won't touch you afterward.

The police don't need to identify who was driving the car. It may be unfair but that's your job. Your friend will get his own S172 request in turn. As he's not the first one in the chain, the 14 day rule doesn't apply to him.

What makes you think they need video footage ?



Pancras
QUOTE (superman325 @ Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 16:28) *
I have not sent it off yet naming my friend and 15 days has now passed. So they cannot technically do anything about any charges now can they?

This really isn't rocket science...

If it was you driving, and you name yourself on the s.172 request, and you have not had an NIP for any offences, they can not prosecute you for any offence which an NIP is needed for (Due Care). They could still prosecute you for any offences which an NIP is not needed for (No Insurance, Licence etc.).

If it was your friend who was driving, and you name him, the fact that there are now 15 days since the incident is of no relevance to him, because the NIP only needs to be served on the registered keeper (you) within 14 days, and they then send your friend a NIP (and his own s.172 notice) which would be valid.

If you make no response to the s.172 notice, then it's a prosecution for FTF for you.

If you make a false declaration on the s.172 notice and that subsequently comes to light, then you (and anyone who you agree to go along with the plan) is prosecuted for Perverting the course of Justice, which means you gripping the brass rail in Crown Court, and meeting Bubba if convicted.

QUOTE (superman325 @ Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 16:28) *
CuriousOrange - I am discussing this on behalf of my friend to get to the bottom of the details as its intriguing to know the ins and outs of the law. Also my friend is replying to some of these posts therefore hence the " 5 cars behind me" was written by the person driving.

Perhaps you would like to get "your friend" to set his own account up, to avoid such confusion.

QUOTE (superman325 @ Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 16:28) *
And if they have no evidence of who was driving how can they prove due care from a 2 seconds video footage if any as it was on a country lane no cameras etc.

If you refuse to name the driver, then the due care matter will be dropped due to insufficient evidence as to who the driver is, and "your friend" gets away with that. You will be prosecuted for FTF however, which as has been pointed out is a fine in the region of £500 (maximum £1000) and 6 penalty points.
Kickaha
QUOTE (superman325 @ Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 16:28) *
......................
CuriousOrange - I am discussing this on behalf of my friend to get to the bottom of the details as its intriguing to know the ins and outs of the law. Also my friend is replying to some of these posts therefore hence the " 5 cars behind me" was written by the person driving.
....................

Good comeback, but too late to be convincing. It is probably wise to edit your posts, but you are quoted in other members.

It is obvious that it was you driving (or at the very least in the car at the time) and the best advice - as has been given - is to own up and take the rap.

Think I will give this one a wide berth.
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.