I'm hoping to get some advice here on behalf of my sister-in-law. She has just received a NIP from Tayside police for the alleged offence of doing 60 in a 50. It was her car but she doesn't know whether it was her or her colleague driving at the time of the alleged offence because she had let her colleague use the car to make the same journey she'd made herself about 20 mins before. They were setting up for an exhibition together and her colleague realised she had left some stuff they needed at work and so my sister-in-law let her take the car to go back and get it. She suspects it was her colleague who was driving at the time but as neither of them can remember the exact times she can't be sure.

Should she initially avoid signing the NIP and instead write to Tayside police stating the NIP referece and requesting copies of the photographic evidence in the hope that it may help to identify the driver or should she sign section D of the NIP to confirm that she is the owner but does not know who the driver was? By signing section D though she is also agreeing to 'understand that this may lead to further enquiries being made by the police'. What type of enquiries are these likely to be?

What are the chances that Tayside Police are able to provide a photo from which it is easy to identify who the driver is? Usually the photographic evidence is only any use for identifying the type of vehicle and reg number by showing the rear of the car from a distance.

If the police do provide her with a photo and it is completely inconclusive then what are her options? In that scenario would she then be legally obliged to sign the NIP and incriminate herself as the driver? What happens if she provides her colleague's details on the NIP response and the police then contact her colleague who then subsequently denies the offence on the same basis? Would my sister-in-law ultimately be the one who gets the conviction for being the registered keeper?

Any advice I can pass on to her would be appreciated.

Asking for photo's is a good start. It will depend on the type of camera but the image may identify the driver. However, the request should be made to help identify the driver - do not ask for 'evidence' as none is entitled to at this stage. They will usually provide the photo's and these can often be used to check the 'ping', especially the secondary evidence if present (lines on the road).

This part of the process is under section 172 (s172) of the Road Traffic Act where the identity of the driver is being requested in relation to an alleged offence. Failure to meet this request often has a nasty outcome - 6 points and large fine (Around £500) and an insurance code that will impact premiums for 5 years. Given that the alleged offence is in the fixed penalty (3 points/£60) bracket and potentially awareness course offer to avoid the points completely it's usually a good idea unequivocally name the driver. The 28 days to name the driver does not stop when asking for photos.

Of course, the s172 offence can be defended and I suspect this is the likely action if section D is selected. Even if the photos are 'inconclusive' the requirement is still to name the driver. Reasonable diligence would have to be shown that the driver could not be identified - this is increasingly more difficult and the bench will be sceptical. A good start might be to check any phone records, purchases or similar around the time of the alleged offence. The best action would be for them to agree who the most likely driver was and go with that to avoid 'messing' around which may trigger further action.

The phrase 'incriminate herself' sets some alarm bells off - yes, fundamentally the driver has to name themselves and the failure to do so is detailed above. Thinking that they have to prove who the driver was etc. to prosecute is true and without the driver nomination they can't but the s172 is a separate offence.

Insurance hasn't been mentioned in your post - did the other driver have insurance to drive the car?

I presume the NIP was served within 14 days?

Number one piece of advice is to get her to post instead, as it just create arse-ache trying to do everything secondhand, not matter how helpful you think you're being.

From your sister in law's point of view, while many people often think it's in their best interest not to try too hard to remember/determine the driver in such circumstance, it's actually very much in their interests to try as hard as they can.

If she names her colleague then one of three things can happen: the colleague names her ownself and so gets the offer of a fixed penalty or a SAC; the colleague doesn't name anybody unequivocally and faces an S172 charge instead of your sister; or the colleague names your sister-in-law as the driver. In the last case they'll go back to your sister-in-law and ask her again who was driving. If she sticks with naming the colleague they'll take one or both of them to court over S172. If they take one, it'll almost certainly be your sister-in-law.

The best thing is still for her to post herself.

Agree with jlc

"Unable to identify driver" will always result in a prosecution with a potential £500/6 points for an offence that should only result in a course.

Always ask for photos "to identify the driver", never "photographic evidence".
Any chance that the exhibition materials might show up in the photos ?
Would there be two people in the car on the first journey ?

Both of them should check email and phone records

If that doesn't work, pick the more likely person. If all else fails flip a coin and split the cost.

Is the friend insured to drive the car AND does it have Business Insurance ?
If not, they would both end up with 6 points if the police decide to check

Nobody here will advise a deliberate lie but, if there's any doubt, SIL naming herself and taking the course is the best option

Forget a SAC this is Tayside Scotland so no SAC available. The Regisated Keeper need to take over this tread as there are a few questions they need to answer directly. Like the details on theNIP. We need the NIP Wizard completed. Like does the location detail the direction of travel, was it a fixed or manual flash/ping. Please ask you sister in law to post here. Pete D

Good spot. I guess there still is the 'unsigned' route.

Did they have to sign in when they set up the exibition?

The SiL should first ask her colleague if they remember anything about the incident.

If the colleague was going back for something they forgot, maybe they had more reason to be speeding?

Tayside only enforce five 50mph limits, all on the A90 and all with portable cameras(van/tripod). That means it would be front-facing, so the pictures might be of use.

It's quite possible that the speeding vehicle was going away from the van at the time, so would show the back. They normally enforce traffic in both directions unless they couldn't see the other carriageway (e.g. central reservation with trees etc.).

Yes, the Partnership website says that all mobile cameras can monitor in both directions.

However, for them to actually do it, the requirements of the Scottish Safety Camera Partnership must be met in both directions; it's possible they are for this particular site (I know there's a couple round here where they aren't), but if they aren't then while it's not a defence in court, I'd be surprised if TSCP would put their funding in jeopardy by monitoring a non-compliant route.

Anyway, I think we're getting away from the point slightly! Since it will have been a mobile camera, then there's at least a chance of it showing the driver (unlike the fixed GATSOs in Tayside that are rear-only), so it's worth the OP's SIL getting the photos.

We'll have to wait for OP to return

Looks like he/she logged out immediately and hasn't returned yet to read any replies

Bit of a night hawk...

Wow, thanks everyone for all the helpfull info and advice! I completely agree it will be much easier here if I just get her to post on this forum herself and be able to provide information first hand and she'll also be able to complete the NIP wizard details as suggested. I mentioned this forum to her as I used it a few years ago to get advice on a traffic light offence and said I'd post the provisional enquiry.

I've only spoken to her about her NIP in passing and didn't think to ask her half the questions that clearly need to be answered before she makes a decision on what to do. She did say she'd spoken to the colleague and she was also adamant that she hadn't seen any camera flashes or mobile speed traps when she was driving so based on what people are saying it looks like she has a very good case for requesting photos.

It's a good point someone made about insurance though and whether her colleague was actually insured to drive her car. If she wasn't then I suspect my sister in law will just say she was driving and take the fine and points for fear of getting into more trouble if this came to light through further police enquiries.

I'll speak to her later and suggest that she posts on here herself.

Thanks once again.

That's the decision most of us would make

Thinking that your insurance covers other cars is an increasingly common mistake

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22...iends-cars.html

Carrying exhibition materials would have required Business insurance and several OPs have been caught over this issue.

Of course, if she goes unsigned she might not receive any fine or points at all.