Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Failing to stop a mechanically propelled vehicle.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Nirmal
Hello all,

On Wednesday 21st September I was stuck on a single carriageway. This road is normally fast flowing and has little traffic during the afternoons.

Once I got a clearer view I noticed that a lorry had hit an iron bridge further up and the police had stopped the traffic. People were going onto the opposite lane and making U-turns since the oncoming vehicle had been stopped as well.

I decided to make the same manoeuvres as the other motorist and re-route my journey.

As I approached the police officer I asked are you letting and cars through. He replied "The bridge is structurally unsafe at the moment so no cars are passing". At the same time he also mentioned my manoeuvre was unsafe for oncoming vehicles since I was driving on the wrong side of the road.

Since I was getting late for a meeting and already frustrated I commented on his management on the situation and said "you really need to direct the traffic to turn around rather than just making people wait and call extra officers."

He told me to pull up to the side so he can have a word with me, so I turned the car around and on a side road to complete the U-turn and mentioned to the officer "I’m getting late for a meeting and I don't want to waste your time and will let you carry on doing your job."

He said some words in affect to, I have broken a road traffic act for not complying with an officer. The officer took down my registration and said you will hear from me through the post.

Below I have included a picture of the road and the bridge. I was travelling in the same direction as the picture and made the U-turn on the road to the right.





Now today morning I receive a brown envelope addressed to me in pen. The envelop has a red stamp saying "RESTRICTED" and mentions British Transport Police on the back again written in pen.

The letter states all the correct details with lactation and time. Under the offence details it says,

"Fail to stop a mechanically propelled vehicle when required by constable contrary to Section 163 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988."

On behalf of the Commissioner of Police and in accordance with Section 112 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by Section 21 Road Traffic Act 1991 I hereby require you to furnish, within 28 days of the date of this form, the name and address of the driver on the date and time specified above or to provide other information which may lead to the identification of the driver.



Attached with the letter was a reply form with 3 sections (B, C or D) for me to fill in regarding my details.

Section B asks for my details and a tick box saying "whether the register keeper at A and the driver at B are the same person. But there is no section A on this form.
Section C is to be complete if I am the registered keeper but dispute the information given.
Section D is if I have sold or disposed id the vehicle before the date of the alleged offence.



What section should I be filling out?

The letter is dated the 22nd September does this mean I have missed out 5 days of the 28 provided?


Any further help would be much appreciated, Thanks
jobo
allowing you mean September, no you have 28 days from recite which if you dont want an argument in court is taken as being two days after it was posted

the form is somewhat unusual, if this could be exploited is difficult to say, your duty is to name the driver at the time specified, not to confirm you ( RK) and the driver are the same person, you are quite at liberty to write giving the require info and see if this provokes them in to a mistake of charging you with failure to furnish, a charge you have a rock steady defence for


failing to stop isnt an endorsable offence but carries quite a high fine, you could try arguing, that you didnt fail to stop but rather failed to follow instructions/ directions, but this would get you points but a lower fine

it seems difficult to argue you were doing nether on the circumstances given
Nirmal
Yes sorry I meant September and not October. Post edited.

What do you mean by (RK) and also you mention failure to furnish, that I have a rock steady defence for that.

If you could elaborate it would be useful.

Thanks
jobo
this is BTP who dont usually deal with cars and arnt as clued in as other forces on the requirements of a 172 request, if you were to reply by letter giving only the stat information, they JUST might decided that you hadnt replied to their satisfaction and charge you with that instead or even as well, this would be very much in your favour

RK stand for register keeper

i suppose the fact that you did stop, all be it not instantly, but long enough for him to tell you youd be reported and then let you leave, might be a point to argue ?

or that you stopped some where other than directed means its a failure to follow direction and not failure to stop
2020Hindsight
Looks like they've NIP'd you for the wrong offence - they've gone for the more serious offence of failing to stop, which is more used for pursuits and the like, and they would struggle to get the CPS to go with that. The officer told you pull in one place and you turned around and then pulled up, so you didn't do as directed, but that's not a fail to stop.
Nirmal
I'm under the illusion that i have been given a form for the wrong offence.

What would be the best way to reply to the form bearing in mind there is nothing marked as "Section A" on the form.

Section B asks for my details and a tick box saying "whether the register keeper at A and the driver at B are the same person. But there is no section A on this form.
Section C is to be complete if I am the registered keeper but dispute the information given.
Section D is if I have sold or disposed id the vehicle before the date of the alleged offence.

Can i simply fill out section C and attach my evidence from above onto the form?
jobo
QUOTE (Nirmal @ Tue, 4 Oct 2011 - 13:16) *
I'm under the illusion that i have been given a form for the wrong offence.


no, i thing that form is unlawful as its requiring you to give info and a plea they have no right to ask for, there being no other way of completing the form with out doing so, im not sure if its worth while risking not replying because of the form defects ?

myself, i would do as i suggested above, which is write giving the legal require information, the N&A of the driver and ant DL DoB requirements and sign and date it

then wait to see what happens next

see what other say
Nirmal
Here is an image of the form i have received for people to view and comment. notice there is no BOX A

Gan
Yes

Section C is probably intended for if you dispute the presence of the car at the time but it isn't clear

I would write "see attached" and staple a letter to the form giving the bare information that's legally required. My thoughts are that completing section C is providing more information than you have to and possibly closing off your options. If it will be interpreted as "car not there" it gets confusing.

Completing section B could imply that you accept the allegation as true because you didn't complete Section C.

Keep copies of everything and return by First Class getting a receipt of posting, or by recorded delivery.
jobo
you have left your name on

that forms not as bad as i thought, though i note with some amusement that it promises not to convict you of failing to name the driver if you no longer own the vehicle

wonder if it would be worth selling the car and not replying as they would then not be a position to prosecute for FtF wink.gif it says nothing of the RK responsibilities just the owner

can ypou post up the rest, with you details redacted, im beginning to suspect its not a legal 172 request
squaredeal
I don't suppose the missing 'BOX A' is the name and address section on the front (reverse) of the form?
Ferret
"On behalf of the Commissioner of Police and in accordance with Section 112 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by Section 21 Road Traffic Act 1991 I hereby require you to furnish, within 28 days of the date of this form, the name and address of the driver on the date and time specified above or to provide other information which may lead to the identification of the driver."

Does the use of the word "or" allow you to reply merely saying that the driver at the time was a male? An extended game of 20 questions should take you past any statutory limits.....
The Rookie
I would say that is a bad idea!

Within 28 days of the date of this form is wrong as well, it is 28 days from the date it was served! This lot sure are clueless!

What is with asking for signature of driver (if not addressee) and whether they are the person in boxA etc etc.......I'd be inclined to reply in the form of a letter mix up the info a bit (but give all asked for) and staple it to the form before replying, with this quality of staff they are almost bound to screw it up!

Simon
jobo
edit
jobo
QUOTE (Ferret @ Wed, 5 Oct 2011 - 10:08) *
"On behalf of the Commissioner of Police and in accordance with Section 112 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by Section 21 Road Traffic Act 1991 I hereby require you to furnish, within 28 days of the date of this form, the name and address of the driver on the date and time specified above or to provide other information which may lead to the identification of the driver."

Does the use of the word "or" allow you to reply merely saying that the driver at the time was a male? An extended game of 20 questions should take you past any statutory limits.....


dont 172s need to be made on behalf of the chief constable
Hotel Oscar 87
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 5 Oct 2011 - 11:43) *
QUOTE (Ferret @ Wed, 5 Oct 2011 - 10:08) *
"On behalf of the Commissioner of Police and in accordance with Section 112 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by Section 21 Road Traffic Act 1991 I hereby require you to furnish, within 28 days of the date of this form, the name and address of the driver on the date and time specified above or to provide other information which may lead to the identification of the driver."

Does the use of the word "or" allow you to reply merely saying that the driver at the time was a male? An extended game of 20 questions should take you past any statutory limits.....


dont 172s need to be made on behalf of the chief constable

The wording is actually "chief officer of police" which makes it slightly interesting as British Transport Police do not have a Commissioner but a Chief Constable. They have simply borrowed a Met or City form and used it. Not that I think it will matter as I suspect it would be ruled de minimis if a defence was run that this invalidated the requirement.

As for the offence, failing to stop for a constable, IME it has been used far more widely in cases such as this where attempts are made by officers on foot to stop vehicles rather than in relation vehicle pursuits.
Nirmal
im still not sure how i should reply to this form. would it be wise to head down to the local police station and point out the flaws of the notice and plea my innocences?

below are all 3 pages i have received which need to sent back directly to the same PC who has issued me with the notice in the envelope provided





sgtdixie
2 points to consider.

The wording on the form, i.e. commisioner as opposed to CC is not relevant as this is a requirement to furnish details and the officer has made the request lawfully and you are legally obliged to reply or face possible prosecution.

Secondly the officer appears to have told you to stay where you were and not perform the manaouvre you did. Whilst there is an argument to be had about if you failed to comply with his direction or failed to stop that is something a court will rule on.

For your information if required to stop by a constable it is not sufficient to just stop for a moment to discharge your obligation. If this was the case in any pursuit where a suspect stopped at say a junction the fail to stop would cease. That is obviously not the case. If requested you must stop until directed or allowed to move provided the length of time is reasonable for the purpose of the stop.
The Rookie
The errors in the way the form is presented do no, as the sarge has pointed out, render the request unlawful, I refer you back to my previous suggestion!

Simon
Mattexmo
Good luck in finding a local BTP police station. They are few and very far between! wink.gif

Also, check if the officer was legally entitled to do what he did. In some roads there is a very sudden border change between BTP and the neighbouring force. Might hold things up a tad...
southpaw82
QUOTE (Mattexmo @ Fri, 7 Oct 2011 - 12:21) *
Also, check if the officer was legally entitled to do what he did. In some roads there is a very sudden border change between BTP and the neighbouring force. Might hold things up a tad...


There's a "very sudden" change all the time, as their jurisdiction is (generally) limited to railway property. However, since the introduction of s. 100 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 they can have the same powers as any other constable if necessary (inter alie) they believe it necessary where a person is committing an offence or minimising injury or damage to property. In any case, the constable was probably within his jurisdiction in relation to anything occurring on the railway (accident involving a railway bridge). Dead end.
Nirmal
thanks for all the informatory reply guys, think ill just fill out the first section of the form and see what follows. smile.gif
jobo
i though every one agree writing a letter was best ? oh well
Nirmal
QUOTE (jobo @ Sun, 9 Oct 2011 - 23:04) *
i though every one agree writing a letter was best ? oh well


okay so i dont fill up the form they have sent and simply write all the relevant information on a seperate paper and post it all back along with the orignal documents?

is that correct jobo? huh.gif
jobo
QUOTE (Nirmal @ Sun, 9 Oct 2011 - 22:20) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Sun, 9 Oct 2011 - 23:04) *
i though every one agree writing a letter was best ? oh well


okay so i dont fill up the form they have sent and simply write all the relevant information on a seperate paper and post it all back along with the orignal documents?

is that correct jobo? huh.gif


yes, but write see attached on the form and staple the letter to it

and not all the requested info, just the legal required info, which is that you were the driver at that time and place
Nirmal
QUOTE (jobo @ Sun, 9 Oct 2011 - 23:22) *
QUOTE (Nirmal @ Sun, 9 Oct 2011 - 22:20) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Sun, 9 Oct 2011 - 23:04) *
i though every one agree writing a letter was best ? oh well


okay so i dont fill up the form they have sent and simply write all the relevant information on a seperate paper and post it all back along with the orignal documents?

is that correct jobo? huh.gif


yes, but write see attached on the form and staple the letter to it

and not all the requested info, just the legal required info, which is that you were the driver at that time and place


thanks buddy happy.gif
Nirmal
one last question i have before posting the letter is, whether i should post it back using the envelope provided addressed directly to the same PC or if i should just post it to the same police station using my own envelope?

thanks
jobo
doesnt really matter, save the cost of an envelope ?, but send it at least with a record of posting

ive lost track now, but for no reason other than being awkward id keep hold of it till near the end of the 28 days
Nirmal
QUOTE (jobo @ Tue, 11 Oct 2011 - 13:51) *
doesnt really matter, save the cost of an envelope ?, but send it at least with a record of posting

ive lost track now, but for no reason other than being awkward id keep hold of it till near the end of the 28 days

yea i still have a week before it hits 28 days, i will type up the letter and post it up here for others to view
Nirmal
will the following reply typed up on a piece of paper be enough information required by the PC? I will attach the paper to the original form and send it back.

I Mr (Name) was the driver on Wednesday 21st September 2011 at 13.35hours at the location Long Drive, South Ruislip.
My address is (Adress)
My date of birth is (DOB)

Signed and dated
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.