Hi,

It is now four months since my car was nipped (in England (over 200 miles away) - 49mph in a 30 limit(!)). Both my colleague and I were driving that day but we had no idea who was driving at the particular time (mobile van - no idea we had been snapped until the NIP arrived 9 days later).

I asked the "partnership" for more specific details where the offence took place (including the direction of travel) but they could not provide them as "they are not in our computer records". The photo of the back of the car didn't help either.

We're pretty sure we can tell who was driving if we can determine the direction of travel and now I have received the summons (for S172, they seem to have dropped the speeding case) the nice officer operating the dodgyscope has finally provided it in his witness statement.

Now, it turns out that it was my colleague who was actually driving so what should my next step be? It's far too late to fill in the NIP, surely? As the case has been passed to the CPS I don't suppose the partnership will be interested.

I have to send in the forms that came with the summons and plead not guilty, of course, but what should I do with the information that I now know for certain it wasn't me who was driving?

Will they "re-open" the speeding case?

Is there a good chance that if they do "re-open" it the case against my colleague will time out? I don't want to drop him in it and reckon that once they sort everything out, issue another NIP etc etc it stands a good chance of going over six months (less than two months to go).

What's my next step guys?

Cheers

DaveBhoy

Hi again

Well, after reading all the replies(!) I sent back my not guilty plea and indicated that thanks to the new information I could now identify the driver.

The only thing that they have sent back is a slip saying that a date has been set for a Pre-Trial Review and I can attend if I want.

Bearing in mind that it's more than a 400 mile round trip, is it worth attending? The slip gives me the option of not attending and pleading not guilty again and as it's just a pre-trial review and not a trial, they can't find me guilty in my absence. Or can they?

I want to avoid two trips if at all possible and don't want to turn up just to be given a date for trial and be sent on my way again.

Thoughts?

Dave

Unless you have a particular reason for attending a PTR (e.g. trying to get disclosure of a full session video), then the best result would be a day of your life and a 400 mile round trip wasted.
You can't be convicted at a PTR.

Cheers Andy, that's what I thought. Of course, they arranged the PTR for one of the dates I had said I couldn't have attended so I would have had to ask for a further adjournment!

I'll send off the form saying I'm not going to attend and await the real trial date.

I'm hoping they might drop the case before it goes to trial - if they had provided the information I initially requested I could have identified the driver months ago.

Dave

DaveBhoy,
As I understand it, you were the last person to receive an NIP/S172 notice, and you are now able to name your colleague?

If so you should name him straight away.

Although it is not within the 28 days, that is not your fault and S172(7) provides:Do you see? Provided you name the driver now that the information is in your possession, i.e. as soon as reasonably practicable, you are not guilty of an offence, but a strict interpretation of the law would be that are now committing an offence, if you do not now write to the camera partnership with the info.

I would write immediately to the camera partnership, ideally enclosing a copy of the S172 form, if you have one, fully completed with your colleague's details. Basically write:Then if you've got a copy of the form:Or if you haven't:...which are the usual details requested.This will of course drop your colleague in it, but by the time he gets his own form and names himself it will be too late for them to summons him for speeding. He may receive a COFP which he should ignore.

Then I would also write to the CPSThere may also be a case for copying this letter, or writing a similar one, to the Clerk of the Court, so that it can be considered in your PTR. I see no harm in being straightforward when you have a strong case and the potential inconvenience of a trial is considerable.

What does anyone else think?

Thanks for this Lance.

You're right, the case against my mate will time out so there's nothing to lose by naming him now. When I sent my not guilty plea (three weeks ago) I told them I can now identify the driver and asked how I should go about it bearing in mind I had already filled in the NIP saying I couldn't. They didn't reply so I guess I can still say I'm identifying the driver as soon as practicable as I was waiting for advice from the court.

The sample letters are great, much appreciated.

If nobody can think of any reason why Lance's advice isn't spot on, I'll send everything off tomorrow.

Cheers

Dave

One worry, what if they don't offer a conditional offer of fixed penalty? and jump streight to summons? They dont have to do they... ? Would it not be prudent to wait till 5 months are up.

I am not sure on this thought and other opinions are welcomed.
Anton

5 months are up. I sent my original post last month but didn't get many replies (none, in fact).

If I now name my mate, he definitely has to get a S172 form to fill in himself admitting to it, doesn't he? Am I right in thinking that they have to give him 28 days to return it?

They can't proceeed directly to COFP/summons, can they?

It just happens that there is now just 28 days until the speeding offence times out so I reckon he's OK.

Can anybody confirm?

Dave

Yes, your form cannot be used in court against him.

Only if they had other evidence identifying him already, which is most unlikely.

Yes you're right, but I'd stongly advise you to forget considerations for him at the moment. If you delay to 'save' him, then you will not have a defence under S172(7), and you may get a S172 conviction. Even if his speeding wouldn't time out, we have other ideas to fight that. Your mate should just fill in the S172 naming himself and send it off as late as possible and ignore all further correspondence.

If you write the letters, then if might not be a bad idea to refer to your letter to the court in which you said that you could now name the driver and wanted advice on what you should do. Say that in the absence of a reply to that letter, you have now written to the partnership naming the driver. That accounts for any additional delay between your ability to name the driver and naming him.

I believe that you have acted reasonably throughout and ought not to be convicted of anything. It is a poor reflection on the the CPS and camera partnership that they are happy for a prosecution against you to go ahead while not following up your letters that could have enabled them to go after the person who actually commissioned the offence. Pathetic.

Thanks again Lance.

I've got the letters produced and they're going off to the various parties this afternoon.

I'll keep you all updated with the responses.

Dave

Dave, My brother in law was in a very similar position. basically he was so drunk one night he got carried to his car and driven home and straight into the dog-house!!
10 days later he got a NIP for a speeding offence but neither of the two potential drivers would confess or blame the other. he explained all this to the scammers but got summonsed. THEN his missus finally admitted it was her sister driving - he did a letter very similar to Lance's recommendation but including the relevant passage from S172 and they dropped his case and didn't even bother to write to the driver.
Should work the same for you - just ensure you send them copies of your requests for info to help ID the driver so they don't think you are pulling a fast one.

Thanks Nige. No matter how confident I am that I'm suggesting the right course of action, it is always good to have this backed up by somebody else, especially if they can provide an example of how it worked in practice.

Isn't it nice when a plan comes together.

"Isn't it nice when a plan comes together."

Well, I certainly hope it does!

This has been hanging over me for months and I want it over and done with. If I have to go to court so be it - I know I have a strong case. Although I've never stepped foot in a court room in my life I'm determined to see it through.

Anyway - letters are away and I await with bated breath...

Dave

When you have some free time you should take a look at the cases going on in your local magistrates courts.  The staff are very helpful and will tell you the days that motoring offences are heard.  You then just sit at the back and listen to the cases.

This is realy worth doing. You will see how foolish and nieve some people are. you will also see the supermarket checkout in action beeep,beep guilty, next.

To be fair to the courts lots of them leave the court with no other option!

You need a tactic to slow thier pace. You will also learn who is going to speek next and thier roll.

OK, a confession first.  :oops:

I was so paranoid about the authorities discovering my identity and using whatever I posted against me, I “massaged” some details. The basic facts are the true but the incident occurred in north Wales (the heart of Brunstromia), not England, and the reason I was so worried about protecting my “mate” was because I’ve been married to her for five years (yes, she really is my “mate”)! Anyway, sorry for being misleading but, as I say, the basic facts are true – we could not tell who was driving without the direction of travel.

After I sent off my letters in August the only reply I got was from the court giving the date for trial. Not encouraging! Nothing from the scamera people (good) and nothing from the CPS (bad).

After a month I sent a follow up letter by post and fax to the CPS pointing out that I did not wish to have to claim 420 miles petrol costs from public funds after I was found Not Guilty and, finally, a letter arrived today containing the magic sentence:

“The decision to discontinue these charges has been taken because there is not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.”

Ya beauty!! Another PePiPoo Success Story!!  :D

To say I’m relieved is an understatement. It seems like it has constantly been at least at the back of my mind since March and finally it’s over. Well, not quite. I will be claiming costs (several special delivery letters and much photocopying). Am I right in thinking that I can’t claim for time wasted over this whole debacle (a good few hours, I can tell you)?

Anyway, thanks to everyone who contributes to this site, especially Lance whose advice worked a treat.

Cheers

Dave

Well done, notices of discontinuance seem to be their latest escape route. I wonder if we are taking up too much of their time See you soon in the bulging success stories gallery.



Not exactly, although it takes some doing, it has been done, have a look at this thread for inspiration and advice:

[forum link]

I do not blame you about being paranoid. because some of them are out to get you.


congratulations!

Excellent! Very glad to hear the news. Great idea to change the story while keeping all the important elements.