Hi everyone,

Fantastic site with great advice. I've been lurking a while but now need a little help myself. Story so far:-

1. Was the offence in England or Scotland - England
2. The name of the Constabulary - Northumbria Police
3. Date of the offence - 7th March
4. Date of the NIP - 14th March
5. Date you received the NIP - 17th March
6. Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
7. Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery?1st Class
8. Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? If not then what is your relationship with the vehicle? - Registered Keeper
9. Do you hold a UK or foreign driving licence. - UK
10. How many current points do you have? - 0


Myself and my wife do the same journey pretty much everyday, we take our children to school then go to the gym for an hour. We take the same route everyday. We have 2 cars in the family, but we both can drive them. Normally we take the smaller car to the gym, as it is only a short drive and the person ready first is the one who jumps into the driving seat. Probably a similar story all over the country.

Received the NIP with the details as above and followed it up with the following request:-

4 April 2005

Dear Sir / Madam,

I recently received a N.I.P from yourselves for one of my vehicles, Reg No XXXX XXX. The driver was allegedly driving at 41mph in a 30mph environment.

Unfortunately I have misplaced this letter and as a result urgently require a replacement. I have contacted yourselves in Ponteland and was instructed this was not a problem.

I also require the photograph taken to identify the driver as it could have been anyone of several people.

Regards,


This letter was dated the 4th April.

In the past, when I've noticed a mobile camera it has always been pointing from the back of a van onto oncoming traffic, therefore I expected a photo taken from the front clearly identifying the driver.

What I received was an extremely poor inkjet printout from the rear of the vehicle with the interior completely blacked out. Absolutely pointless. It also had the following letter:-

Dear Sir,

I refer to your recent communication and enclose a copy of the relevant photograph for your information which may or may not assist with the driver identification. The police, however, only have to identify the vehicle.

I have to inform you that under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is the responsibility of the keeper of the vehicle to supply the name and address of the driver at the time of the alleged offence, followinf formal notice served on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police requesting such information. Failure to comply with this requirement will render the keeper liable to prosecution.

If the driver information is not supplied within 14 days of this letter, papers will be submitted to the Prosecution Unit for an offence under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and unfortunately I will not be able to offer you any further assistance in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

It actually took well over a MONTH for the police to reply to my request. Indeed I received the photo on the 11th MAY, over 2 months since the alledged offence.

We tried to identify the driver via bank statements for petrol (none bought), asked friends at the school if they recall (if we can't why would they of course) and finally requested any CCTV footage from the gym, but as the police had taken so long to send the photo, the CCTV footage had been deleted.

After reading various posts from people in a similar position, I replied to the central ticket office with the following letter:-


Re: Notice of Intended Prosecution - *******

Dear

I have done everything in my power to help identify who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence but to no avail. That said, I can confirm that the people who drove the vehicle on or about that time were the following:

· Name and address of driver number 1; and
· Name and address of driver number 2,

Each of the drivers listed above have seen the photographic evidence but none of them are able to be clear as to who it actually is. I acknowledge my responsibilities under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but as is required by subsection 172(4) I believe that I have done as much as I possibly can to identify the driver, but that I have not been able, having exercised at the very least “reasonable diligence”, to ascertain who it was.

So other than reiterate what I have said in my previous letters, and having provided the details of the  individuals above, there is nothing else I can do. I very much hope that this matter can be avoided from going to court.

Yours sincerely,



The day I was to go on holiday I received the following:-

Dear Sir / Madam

Reference Number XXXXXXXXXX

With reference to you recent correspondence, and note that you are unable to identify the driver at the time of the alledged offence. In the circumstances we are unable to offer you a fixed penalty, as this would clearly be inappropriate. The fixed penalty can only be offered to the person who actually was driving the vehicle at the time.

We have to inform you that under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is the responsibility of the keeper of the vehicle to supply the name and address of the driver at the time of the alledged offence, following formal notice served on behalf of the Chief Officer of Police requesting such information.

As you have failed to comply with the requirements under Section 172 if the Road Traffic Act 1988, you will receive a summons in due course giving the time and date of the hearing. Any mitigating circumstances or explanation you may have can be put before the Magistrates on the day.

Please be advised that this could result in a fine of up to £1000 and penalty points. This is purely at the discretion of the Magistrates.

I regret that we can of no further assistance you in this matter.

Yours faithfully




xxxxx xxxxx
Unit Manager


I think this was actually typed by someone as some of the mistakes in spelling and grammer are in the text I've typed above.

Upto now, I haven't done anything and heard nothing else. Should I write back with my circumstances or await the CPS to be in touch.

Any help received gratefully.

Cheers.

You appear to have a strong defence under Para 4,

I believe the only thing to do is sit it out and wait for the summons, no point writing to them as it may alert them and flag up your case for attention

Cheers,
matt

I agree.


Priceless.  :D  This is a fantastic 'come back' to the scammers: particularly in light of the fact that they took so long in issuing you with the photographs.

It reminds me of welshy's wonderful account of his day in court.  :wink:  Only one of two appearances for this type of defence I have ever known to get to court (both not guilty).

Not wishing to appear sexist. You have two cars and usually, the smaller one is used by the female half of the relationship.
This said, it could be assurted that you as RK of both vehicles (I assume) are the 'keeper' of the large vehicle, and your partner/wife is the keeper of the actual car involved in the offence.

Now, you have undoubtedly given all the information in your power to give and despite as 'a person other than the keeper' having no obligation to investigate or show any kind of 'diligence'. You have none the less tried as hard as possible to help.



NB.
Moses is in error here... CPS must either prove keepership' OR 'in power to give'

Such proof is to a 'legal and evidencial' buden (criminal standard). And must be addressed as any other 'trial issue'. once raised by the defence.

Chris,

At magistrates level, the distinction will be lost between keeper and registered keeper and the different burdens of proof placed upon them.

In my opinion...

Thanks very much for the replies everyone. I was feeling extremely nervous about this, but am now more optimistic.

Would I receive any information from the CPS or would I need to give a written account of the actions I've taken to identify the driver, or would it simply go to court and we agrue the case?

Thanks again.

This one.




Have you never read 'Little red riding hood'? I'd sooner believe Tony Blair!

Chris,

Whilst I refuse to accept ff's mildly cynical view of the cognitive abilities of such upstanding pillocks of the community, I must also question your suggestion.

If the OP subsequently announces that he is not the keeper and that his wife is, that could well be deemed to be information that it was in his power to give that might lead to the identification of the driver.

The proposed fact that she is the keeper would enable them to use the thumbscrews on her, which might result in the driver being named (probably with scant regard for the accuracy of such information).

How could the OP assert that he was not the keeper without voluntarily giving the CPS the evidence they need?