Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: NIP received - jointly registered vehicle
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Mustard
We have received a NIP for apparently contravening a red traffic light.

The car is held in joint names and the NIP has been addressed to

MICHAEL THOMAS LLOYD AND* JANE ANNE BE

That is exactly as it is shown and as you may have guessed it is missing the end of one of our surnames (It should be BENSON)

The offence is alledged to have taken place on 07/07/05 and it states the speed at the time was 21mph.

We do not know which one of us was driving.

What should we do?

Many thanks in anticipation.
Tamara-D
Can I suggest you edit the post and remove the personal information ASAP.

Some questions arise from the joint names.  Can a vehicle be registered in joint names? Does the first person named become the RK for legal reasons?

In the first instance I would write back and ask for the photographs to try and identify who was driving at the time.
andypandy
Firstly remove your names (prying eyes).   Were you given photos of the offence, if not write a simple letter requesting them to help in identifying the driver.

Did the alleged offence take place on a junction that you both use regulary?

If you genuinely cant remember then read FAQs unsure of driver defence.  If you can identify from the photos, nominate that driver by using the pace witness statement.

This is assuming you are up for a fight.
Mustard
QUOTE (Tamara-D)
Can I suggest you edit the post and remove the personal information ASAP.


Thanks for the concern but don't worry, they are not our real names  :wink:

QUOTE (Tamara-D)
Some questions arise from the joint names.  Can a vehicle be registered in joint names? Does the first person named become the RK for legal reasons?


Our car is definitely jointly registered.

QUOTE (Tamara-D)
In the first instance I would write back and ask for the photographs to try and identify who was driving at the time.


Thanks.
Mustard
QUOTE (andypandy)
Did the alleged offence take place on a junction that you both use regulary?


Yes.

QUOTE (andypandy)
If you genuinely cant remember then read FAQs unsure of driver defence.  If you can identify from the photos, nominate that driver by using the pace witness statement.

This is assuming you are up for a fight.


But first of all we should ask to look at the picture, yes?

Many thanks.
Tamara-D
QUOTE (andypandy)
If you genuinely cant remember then read FAQs unsure of driver defence.  If you can identify from the photos, nominate that driver by using the pace witness statement.

If you can register a vehicle in joint names then the question arises whether they can go for an s172 charge against two people.  Who would be charged? Could they say both failed to respond? Jeffrey should know the answers to this one.  :D

If they can't prosecute for s172 in this instance then the unsure of driver option becomes irrelevant.
Mustard
This is my draft response to the Central Ticket Office:

QUOTE
Dear Sirs

REFERENCE: ?????????

We refer to the Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) dated 15 July 2005.

We, as joint owners and joint users of the motor vehicle stated within the aforementioned NIP, are unable to advise who was driving the vehicle at that time.

In this respect, we shall be grateful if you will provide us with the photographic evidence of the alleged offence, in order that we can ascertain who the driver was at the time.

Yours faithfully



MICHAEL THOMAS LLOYD AND JANE ANNE BENSON


Any comments would be gratefully received!

As an aside, we have recently married and have BOTH changed our surnames but have not yet advised the DVLA of this. We're not trying to make gain from this but I assume the fact we haven't advised DVLA yet won't cause us a problem?
Mustard
Sorry, just bumping this.

Any comments on the draft letter would be very much appreciated.
Mustard
QUOTE (Tamara-D)
QUOTE (andypandy)
If you genuinely cant remember then read FAQs unsure of driver defence.  If you can identify from the photos, nominate that driver by using the pace witness statement.

If you can register a vehicle in joint names then the question arises whether they can go for an s172 charge against two people.  Who would be charged? Could they say both failed to respond? Jeffrey should know the answers to this one.  biggrin.gif



Jeffrey?
andypandy
Hi

Your letter seems fine, you could trim it down if you wish and only use the last paragraph
Lance
Agree with Andy: the letter, brief though it is, is too wordy.

QUOTE (letter suggestion)
Your ref: XXX
Date: 18/07/05

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please send me the photographic evidence of this alleged offence to help identify the driver.

Yours faithfully,


Michael Lloyd


I suspect that if you are both RKs, then S172(2)(a) could apply to both of you. I suggest you start preparing a para 4 'reasonable diligence' defence. Look at bank records, cctv footage, diaries etc. to show that you have tried to establish the i.d. of the driver, but are still unable to do so.
Broadsword
As joint R/Os BOTH would be prosecuted for failing to nominate.
Mustard
Below is the the picture of the alleged offence:

Two points:

1) It is not clear as to who was driving (and we have doubts that we will be able to tell by going down to the CTO and checking the colour picture). We have no knowledge who it was because we both regularly drive through that area.

2) Regardless of who was responsible, is there not a case looking at the picture that we have a case to appeal. It must have been very tight bearing in mind how close the car in front is.

Any comments will be gratefully received.

chadders
QUOTE
2) Regardless of who was responsible, is there not a case looking at the picture that we have a case to appeal. It must have been very tight bearing in mind how close the car in front is.


Err... is it just me, or in that picture your car is blatantly going through the red light, you're already in the box junction ready to stop traffic on green. HOW IS THAT 'TIGHT' ?

If you're unsure of driver, then you need to prove reasonable dilligence in your attempts to identify the driver. When you're 'up before the beak' - you're going to have to say what steps you've taken.

P.S. a ^^bump^^ would have been better, eg JeffreyArcher is only on dial-up and you probably pi$$ him off loading your thread  :shock:
Insider
QUOTE
P.S. a ^^bump^^ would have been better, eg JeffreyArcher is only on dial-up and you probably pi$$ him & others off loading your thread


It does me, and I'm on 3meg broadband  :shock:
Mustard
QUOTE (chadders)
QUOTE

2) Regardless of who was responsible, is there not a case looking at the picture that we have a case to appeal. It must have been very tight bearing in mind how close the car in front is.


Err... is it just me, or in that picture your car is blatantly going through the red light, you're already in the box junction ready to stop traffic on green. HOW IS THAT 'TIGHT' ?


What is your logic with that comment please?

In addition, why could the lights not be orange when the car started to go through.
Mustard
QUOTE (Insider)
QUOTE
P.S. a ^^bump^^ would have been better, eg JeffreyArcher is only on dial-up and you probably pi$$ him & others off loading your thread


It does me, and I'm on 3meg broadband  icon_eek.gif


It's a bit hypocritical to express annoyance about the effect on download time for people with (and without) dial-up, when you have a picture avatar.
Broadsword
As I recall it the evidence for a red light offence is "when the ATS were showing red against it the vehicle CROSSED the white stop line......"
If you were across the stop line prior to the red light then no offence otherwise "you're nicked son" are there any other pictures?. As regards the box junction I am aware that drivers will creep across the stop line up to the box junction whilst the lights are showing green and then get stranded in 'no man's land' when the lights show red, again, as long as they have not entered the box junction then no offence.  
HOWEVER the ATS Cameras have sensors on the stop line that activate the camera ONLY after the light is showing red think on that.
firefly
I've removed the Mr Men pictures as they were loading the thread and serving no useful purpose.

Mustard, I've no intention of rubbing anyone up the wrong way, but two things spring to mind:
1) You haven't a hope in hell of convincing the court you couldn't remember who was driving.  
2) The orange light stays on for a considerable length of time: plenty of time to stop.

If I'm wrong with the following analysis, then please correct me:
The driver (whose identity is known to you) approached the lights.  They turned amber from green yet the driver proceeded.  The car crossed the line too late and it was flashed.

If you want our help, don't tell us porkies.
Mustard
QUOTE (firefly)
I've removed the Mr Men pictures as they were loading the thread and serving no useful purpose.

Mustard, I've no intention of rubbing anyone up the wrong way, but two things spring to mind:
1) You haven't a hope in hell of convincing the court you couldn't remember who was driving.  
2) The orange light stays on for a considerable length of time: plenty of time to stop.

If I'm wrong with the following analysis, then please correct me:
The driver (whose identity is known to you) approached the lights.  They turned amber from green yet the driver proceeded.  The car crossed the line too late and it was flashed.

If you want our help, don't tell us porkies.


Who is telling porkies? We take exception at your inference!

We have two cars both of which are registered in joint names, both of which we regularly drive (the first one out of the house in the morning drives the last car parked in the garage at night). The last few miles of our respective drives home covers the same route. The time of the journey home usually varies each day for both of us and we don't keep details of when we left our respective offices and arrived home.

Based on all those facts and the facts already stated above, I'm surprised you leapt before looking.

P.S. We're sorry if the tone of the above is not-overly friendly but we're surprised at preceived flak we're getting when we've been open and friendly with our posts.
chadders
QUOTE (Mustard)
1) It is not clear as to who was driving (and we have doubts that we will be able to tell by going down to the CTO and checking the colour picture). We have no knowledge who it was because we both regularly drive through that area.


QUOTE (chadders)
If you're unsure of driver, then you need to prove reasonable dilligence in your attempts to identify the driver. When you're 'up before the beak' - you're going to have to say what steps you've taken.


So, don't fill in the NIP, and be prepared to defend the S172 charge by saying we couldn't remember, nor find out whom it was.

If you fancy your chances on slating the alleged offence based on those pictures, and it being 'tight' so go on let the person (whom we don't know) off, go ahead - but my monies elsewhere.

P.S. my avatar is a measely 3.36kb, and at any point it pi$$es someone off, then once I'm told it would be removed.
DW190
QUOTE
P.S. my avatar is a measely 3.36kb, and at any point it pi$$es someone off, then once I'm told it would be removed.


All pictures posted are a pain but one should also note only one picture of the alleged offence.

I understood red light cameras to produce two photos.  One with the car showing before the line and the lights on red and the second showing the (whole) of the car half way through the junction.
chadders
QUOTE
All pictures posted are a pain but one should also note only one picture of the alleged offence.


It wasn't the useful photo causing the problem, you missed the huge repeated piccies of Mr Bump icon_wink.gif

If it's unsure of driver, then be 100% sure and express reasonable dilligence in obtaining the identity. If no joy, that is your (legal) defence to alleged offence.

Which is what I said at the start... if it's not... then I would presume a PACE letter, or the S172 / MS90 if points are a problem.

Either way, I don't think that without emperical evidence (say go watch and note the lights sequence) and looking also at the 2nd photo, you have much chance of not being prosecuted - your car is over the line, the light is on red. If you think I or anyone else has given you a hard time, wait until you get to court...
Mustard
A mini update:

We went to the Central Ticket Office to see the digital picture which infortunately didn't help.

Whilst speaking with the member of staff at the Central Ticket Office who showed us the picture, he said that we should write a letter returning the s172 form explaining that we have looked at the colour picture but that it was still not possible to identify the driver.

This we did, and we have since received a letter from The Central Ticket Office saying that matter has been referred back to the prosecuting officer for them to issue a summons and this is where we now are.

As you would expect, it's like waiting for heaven . . .
Mustard
Another update:

A further 6 weeks have passed and still nothing.

Is it recommended that we contact The Central Ticket Office for the name of the prosecuting officer?
DW190
QUOTE (Mustard)
Another update:

A further 6 weeks have passed and still nothing.

Is it recommended that we contact The Central Ticket Office for the name of the prosecuting officer?


No

Silence is Golden
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.