Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] wrong time on nip
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
lord duckhunter
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - November 2012
Date of the NIP: - 5 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 7 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - a31 between st leonards hospital and hotel
Was the NIP addressed to you? - No
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - Wife owns car, but I am main driver
How many current points do you have? - 6
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - I was flashed at 1820 ish on the a31 near Ringwood. My sister lives nearby and said there are always mobile cameras there. The nip came within 14 days, but had the time of the offense wrong. It shows time as 10am. Wife owns car and was on work course at that time (with witnesses). I was working on house and car was 100% not on road at time nip states. Wife wants to ring them up and tell them their timings are wrong, I think she should write to them informing them she can't identify who was driving at 10am as car not in use. No point in mentioning later flash as they haven't asked who was driving at 1820. What is right approach and will I get off. Desperately need a break as have 6 points already.

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - No
Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - No

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • Do nothing!

    The police are not requesting the information from you, they are requesting it from the person the NIP is addressed to.
    Wait until you receive a NIP addressed to you personally, then come back here.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:25:58 +0000
The Rookie
Your wife should wait until AFTER 14 days from the offence and then write and tell them what you suggested, that dhe wasn't driving at the time, and that no-one was, tell them where the car was. Waiting ensures they can't send an amended NIP within the 14 days that they would have to, to get a prosecution.
AFCNEAL
Are we sure the OP's Wife had the car with her at the 1000 time?.....................We know she was on a work course, but not that she drove there.....
CuriousOrange
Indeed. If the OP is saying that the car was with him at home then all the wife can do is state that the car was to her knowledge at home and that only her husband had access. OP then gets his own S172 to which he'd answer that he wasn't on the road.

The thing here at least, should it go further, is that (provided the OP is 100% this isn't a NIP for a different offence rather than the 6.20pm one) the photos will show very much nighttime and 10am is very much daytime.

lord duckhunter
QUOTE (AFCNEAL @ Thu, 13 Dec 2012 - 08:00) *
Are we sure the OP's Wife had the car with her at the 1000 time?.....................We know she was on a work course, but not that she drove there.....


I can confirm the car was defo 100% with me. My wife got a new car and I kept her old one, we didn't change owner details as I didn't want another owner showing on log book. She rarely drives the car in question.

The only question for me is whether and amended NIP will lead to a conviction, because I can certainly prove that the car wasn't in use at the stated time.
Gan
That's the reason she should wait until at least 14 days after the alleged offence before making any reply

It's then too late to amend it
ItchyCrakus
I'm with Rookie. She would have shown reasonable diligence in asking her partner if he was driving at 10:00am and he has confirmed he wasnt. Therefore she can honestly say that nobody was driving the car. If Mr Duck Hunter lied to his wife then thats their problem. I have no doubt they are telling the truth, PCOJ is just not worth it.

She should reply after the 14 days and there should be no conviction.
CuriousOrange
QUOTE (ItchyCrakus @ Thu, 13 Dec 2012 - 14:19) *
She would have shown reasonable diligence in asking her partner if he was driving at 10:00am and he has confirmed he wasnt. Therefore she can honestly say that nobody was driving the car. If Mr Duck Hunter lied to his wife then thats their problem.

God no.

If person A gets served an S172 requirement for a vehicle that was with person B at the time, asks person B, is told 'no, wasn't on the road' and replies to their S172 requirement 'the car wasn't there at the time' with no reference at all to person B, and then it turns out person B lied...it's person A's problem, and they get six points.

Reasonable diligence in ascertaining the driver would have included asking for any photos (which would confirm the car really was there), realising B might be telling porkies and giving the name of B over. There was a thread here a year or two ago where someone ended up on an S172 charge in similar circumstances - providing information given to her by her husband rather than what she knew first hand. Bear in mind that cases where the presence of the vehicle is denied almost always get followed up and looked at more closely.

For the case in hand, it would be stupid for the wife to be put at any risk of a successful S172 prosecution because she didn't give information she could and should have given (the name of the OP) regardless of the correctness or otherwise of the NIP, when the OP himself would have a far stronger defence to the same charge. There's also the argument that if she hardly ever drives the car she's not the person keeping the vehicle but instead any other person.

@OP: A corrected NIP after 14 days wouldn't remove the bar to conviction, which is another reason why it would be foolish to take any S172 risks. My advice would be for your wife to name you outside of the 14 days (and make sure it gets there and on time, given Christmas post), and when you get your own S172 you write to them explaining that the car was home with you between hours x and y and you suggest they check their photos to make sure it was your car. Hopefully then they'll realise they've got completely the wrong time.

QUOTE (ItchyCrakus @ Thu, 13 Dec 2012 - 14:19) *
I have no doubt they are telling the truth, PCOJ is just not worth it.
I don't suspect the OP of lying (though I can only hope that they're not mistaken about being on that road then), but the 's/he must be telling the truth as PCoJ isn't worth it for a minor traffic offence' is always a weak argument given that so many people do just that, some of whom should know a lot better.
jimster
If the OP's wife names him as the keeper of the car he will get his own s172 and can deal with the time issue...


That will take his wife out of the firing line

lord duckhunter
QUOTE (jimster @ Thu, 13 Dec 2012 - 17:19) *
If the OP's wife names him as the keeper of the car he will get his own s172 and can deal with the time issue...


That will take his wife out of the firing line


Really appreciate the advice given. 100% solid the only time I drove up that road was 6
20 it is about 10 miles from home, so remember it very clearly as not a journey I normally make.
Really need to take my wife out of this as her job would be in jeopardy if there was any sort of pcoj charge. If she sends back that I am keeper, could they notice mistake and correct before sending me nip. What I'm thinking of doing is getting her to return nip uncompleted with covering letter stating to the best of her knowledge it was not being used, but naming me as someone with use of the car. I just need to ensure that any charge relates to this nip or any new nip will be considered out of time. Will this be the case if i follow this route
Logician
No, do not get your wife to do that. Although there is case law to the effect that the information can legally be provided in a letter rather than on the form, I think that doing so will immediately mark the case out as being outside the usual run of these things, and may being additional attention. Your wife should simply nominate you as the driver with no further comment. That reply should then work its way through the system unremarked and result in a form being sent to you direct. A chain of replies is very common, for instance leasing company > client company > company car driver. Once you have the form it should still have the same time, and if it does, then follow the advice above, wait 14 days then reply as suggested.
sarahg1969
Is it light or dark in the photos?
mrh3369
Just make sure that she names you but sends the reply after 14 days and before the 28 days expire, she should keep a copy and get proof of postage.
lord duckhunter
QUOTE (mrh3369 @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 12:51) *
Just make sure that she names you but sends the reply after 14 days and before the 28 days expire, she should keep a copy and get proof of postage.


Surely she will be committing an offense by doing so because she knows that the car was not being used at that time.She will be delibrately making an untrue statement.

She knows I was not driving the car at the time on the NIP, because I told her so, but she also had a conversation with a neighbour who has the other half of the same drive. He confirms that the car was in the drive all day (he is older and doesn't work). I also had a skip on the drive, so he remembers the day in question, because I spent all day filling it up. She wasn't checking up on me, because she knows that I was flashed later in the day because I told her (this was before NIP arrived) and she was asking the neighbour if he's willing to confirm that the car wasn't used at the time on the NIP. .

The police are asking her who was driving at that time and geniunely there wasn't anybody doing so. Is it her duty to tell the police "my husband took the car out at 6pm" because they haven't asked any questions about who was driving at any other time during the day.
ItchyCrakus
Duck goes best with Orange, I am curious too.
Gan
Good point

She KNOWS that you were the keeper of the car so she can truthfully put that on the form.
Even though she wasn't the keeper she is required to provide all the information in her possession.

Rather than drag it out, my suggestion is that she names you on the form but staples a letter to it that she has confirmed with you and your neighbour that the car was not at the location at 10 am but parked outside your house.

Keep copies and get a receipt from the post office when it's sent back

This completely meets her S172 obligations

They haven't asked about 6 pm so don't mention it. If the police have got their times (or possibly dates) wrong she is not required to guess when the incident might have occurred

Going back to your original post, if you were flashed, wouldn't that be a GATSO fixed camera not a mobile ?
jdh
QUOTE (lord duckhunter @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 14:26) *
QUOTE (mrh3369 @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 12:51) *
Just make sure that she names you but sends the reply after 14 days and before the 28 days expire, she should keep a copy and get proof of postage.


Surely she will be committing an offense by doing so because she knows that the car was not being used at that time.She will be delibrately making an untrue statement.

She knows I was not driving the car at the time on the NIP, because I told her so, but she also had a conversation with a neighbour who has the other half of the same drive. He confirms that the car was in the drive all day (he is older and doesn't work). I also had a skip on the drive, so he remembers the day in question, because I spent all day filling it up. She wasn't checking up on me, because she knows that I was flashed later in the day because I told her (this was before NIP arrived) and she was asking the neighbour if he's willing to confirm that the car wasn't used at the time on the NIP. .

The police are asking her who was driving at that time and geniunely there wasn't anybody doing so. Is it her duty to tell the police "my husband took the car out at 6pm" because they haven't asked any questions about who was driving at any other time during the day.

Her best option is to tell the truth as she knows it - ie no one was driving at that time as she was at work and the car was at home with you, and that you only drove it later that day. If she does this after the 14 days and the police reply "oops, sorry we got the time wrong it was actually 1830" then of course she can reply naming you (clearing her of any S172 problem), and you can then call foul on their out of date NIP. If the police write back to her insistent it was being driven at 1000 then you've got some detective work to do.
ItchyCrakus
QUOTE (jdh @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 14:50) *
QUOTE (lord duckhunter @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 14:26) *
QUOTE (mrh3369 @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 12:51) *
Just make sure that she names you but sends the reply after 14 days and before the 28 days expire, she should keep a copy and get proof of postage.


Surely she will be committing an offense by doing so because she knows that the car was not being used at that time.She will be delibrately making an untrue statement.

She knows I was not driving the car at the time on the NIP, because I told her so, but she also had a conversation with a neighbour who has the other half of the same drive. He confirms that the car was in the drive all day (he is older and doesn't work). I also had a skip on the drive, so he remembers the day in question, because I spent all day filling it up. She wasn't checking up on me, because she knows that I was flashed later in the day because I told her (this was before NIP arrived) and she was asking the neighbour if he's willing to confirm that the car wasn't used at the time on the NIP. .

The police are asking her who was driving at that time and geniunely there wasn't anybody doing so. Is it her duty to tell the police "my husband took the car out at 6pm" because they haven't asked any questions about who was driving at any other time during the day.

If the police write back to her insistent it was being driven at 1000 then you've got some EXPLAINING detective work to do.


My Strikethrough above.

I suspect that this is all going to end up on Mr Kyles wonderful show. biggrin.gif
jimster
QUOTE (ItchyCrakus @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 14:58) *
I suspect that this is all going to end up on Mr Kyles wonderful show. biggrin.gif

biggrin.gif

The OP's wife does not know for fact if the car was driven at the time, she only knows what he has told her ... and he is not obliged to tell her the truth

She should just name him as the keeper.



Gan
If OP's wife only knew what he told her, I would agree with the bare minimum response

As she's confirmed it with a neighbour, I would go with the "Not there" information

Just to be safe in case they change the time later, provide the reply on a copy of the form and keep the untouched original
Logician
QUOTE (lord duckhunter @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 14:26) *
QUOTE (mrh3369 @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 12:51) *
Just make sure that she names you but sends the reply after 14 days and before the 28 days expire, she should keep a copy and get proof of postage.


Surely she will be committing an offense by doing so because she knows that the car was not being used at that time.She will be delibrately making an untrue statement.

She knows I was not driving the car at the time on the NIP, because I told her so, but she also had a conversation with a neighbour who has the other half of the same drive. He confirms that the car was in the drive all day (he is older and doesn't work). I also had a skip on the drive, so he remembers the day in question, because I spent all day filling it up. She wasn't checking up on me, because she knows that I was flashed later in the day because I told her (this was before NIP arrived) and she was asking the neighbour if he's willing to confirm that the car wasn't used at the time on the NIP. .

The police are asking her who was driving at that time and geniunely there wasn't anybody doing so. Is it her duty to tell the police "my husband took the car out at 6pm" because they haven't asked any questions about who was driving at any other time during the day.


She knows nothing of her own knowledge except that the car was in your charge that day. What other people have told her is not evidence she can give, you say the car was not driven, the police say it was, one is clearly mistaken. Therefore she should simply name you.
.
mrh3369
QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 15:47) *
QUOTE (lord duckhunter @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 14:26) *
QUOTE (mrh3369 @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 12:51) *
Just make sure that she names you but sends the reply after 14 days and before the 28 days expire, she should keep a copy and get proof of postage.


Surely she will be committing an offense by doing so because she knows that the car was not being used at that time.She will be delibrately making an untrue statement.

She knows I was not driving the car at the time on the NIP, because I told her so, but she also had a conversation with a neighbour who has the other half of the same drive. He confirms that the car was in the drive all day (he is older and doesn't work). I also had a skip on the drive, so he remembers the day in question, because I spent all day filling it up. She wasn't checking up on me, because she knows that I was flashed later in the day because I told her (this was before NIP arrived) and she was asking the neighbour if he's willing to confirm that the car wasn't used at the time on the NIP. .

The police are asking her who was driving at that time and geniunely there wasn't anybody doing so. Is it her duty to tell the police "my husband took the car out at 6pm" because they haven't asked any questions about who was driving at any other time during the day.


She knows nothing of her own knowledge except that the car was in your charge that day. What other people have told her is not evidence she can give, you say the car was not driven, the police say it was, one is clearly mistaken. Therefore she should simply name you.
.


+1 When the wife names the op then she will have discharged her duty.
lord duckhunter


[/quote]
Her best option is to tell the truth as she knows it - ie no one was driving at that time as she was at work and the car was at home with you, and that you only drove it later that day. If she does this after the 14 days and the police reply "oops, sorry we got the time wrong it was actually 1830" then of course she can reply naming you (clearing her of any S172 problem), and you can then call foul on their out of date NIP. If the police write back to her insistent it was being driven at 1000 then you've got some detective work to do.
[/quote]

This is what I'm going to do.

Perhaps someone could advise will it become obvious from the picture whether it was taken at night or during the day? A typo and the time wrong on the NIP but right on the picture, I know what to do. Obvious time mistake from the picture (dark as oppossed to light) I know what to do. The only thing I'm struggling with is if the police insist that the car was driven in morning. Once I get into the realms of neighbour's statements ect, it could look like collusion (even though it's not). It is my only concern, that I've no way of proving they got the time wrong unless the pic clearly shows it's night time or the NIP was issued with an error on.
jimster
QUOTE (lord duckhunter @ Fri, 14 Dec 2012 - 17:42) *
This is what I'm going to do.

Perhaps someone could advise will it become obvious from the picture whether it was taken at night or during the day? A typo and the time wrong on the NIP but right on the picture, I know what to do. Obvious time mistake from the picture (dark as oppossed to light) I know what to do. The only thing I'm struggling with is if the police insist that the car was driven in morning. Once I get into the realms of neighbour's statements ect, it could look like collusion (even though it's not). It is my only concern, that I've no way of proving they got the time wrong unless the pic clearly shows it's night time or the NIP was issued with an error on.

All that may become into play when you recieve your s172, the important thing now is that your wife does not get dragged into the equation

The only thing she knows for sure is that you were the vehicle keeper...

How are the neighbours expected to vouch for the cars movements ...... were the watching it all day?

What if it turns out you are mistaken?

Your wife should not be exposed to the risk of prosecution
lord duckhunter
Just need a bit of advise following on from my initial thread.

My wife sent back initial NIP with "car not on road at time of alleged offence". She has now received a letter from Dorset camera partnership saying that "there was a clerical error on the NIP and the time was wrong" it goes on to add "this does not invalidate the offence". They have also enclosed another NIP with the correct time on. However, this NIP is dated 25/01/2013 and the offense took place on 28/11/2012.

I am going to use the RAC timed out letter, but would like some advise. Does my Mrs need to send the RAC timed out letter with a completed NIP (my understanding is that there is no time limit on the s172 naming of driver) or does she send it back naming me, and then when I receive a NIP then send the RAC timed out letter.

Does the registered keeper send the RAC letter or the driver?

Any help would be appreciated.

Jlc
Section 1 of the RTOA says:

QUOTE
within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed


They have clearly failed to do this but this might not stop them progressing. After naming the driver they will proceed to make the usual offers (course of fixed penalty) or summons if particularly fast (what is the alleged speed/limit?).

If you fail to take one of the offers then they are likely to summons unless they suddenly realise.

It's an issue for the driver, not the registered keeper. There is always a 28 day limit of s172 requests.
Gan
She MUST send the reply stating that you were driving.

She may as well send the RAC letter herself but put it in her own words.

Wait for further comments but I don't see why she shouldn't note their admission that, as a result of their own error, they failed to serve a NIP with the required information within the deadline.

When you get your own S172 request you can send a similar letter but change the wording along the lines that you have fulfilled your legal obligation but your reply cannot be acted upon.
The Rookie
QUOTE (lord duckhunter @ Sun, 27 Jan 2013 - 20:25) *
"this does not invalidate the offence"

Confuseology, what the heck is that actually meant to mean, the offence is neither validated not invalidated by anything it's a fact!

Logician
As Gan says, when sending a letter along the RAC lines, re-write it in your own words. You have not had advice from the RAC, so do not mention them, and change "police person" at the very least. An unadapted template letter creates a bad impression.
Gan
We advise against template letters because OPs need to understand what they're sending.

Writing drafts in their own words and posting them for comment helps with the learning.
lord duckhunter
The Mrs was going to reply along these lines.



Dear ***********,

********* - Notice of Intended Prosecution

I received your letter dated *********, . I have enclosed a copy of the Notice completed with the drivers details.

You have written to me because I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle . My address is correct as per the details at DVLC, and the vehicle was not a Company car, and was neither hired nor borrowed.

No Officer spoke to me or the driver at the time of the alleged offence, and no accident took place. Also, nobody has spoken with me or the driver at or near the time and place detailed in your Notice. The written Notice is the first indication from you of any intention to prosecute the offense listed on the NIP.

Your Notice details the alleged offence as ******* on *********. The Notice is dated ********, and it came to me by post, received on ********.

Excluding the day of the alleged offence, this was **th day from the date detailed in your Notice.

I believe that the Notice cannot be acted upon as it is time-expired. For this Notice to have been valid, it ought to have been with me within 14 days of the alleged offence [Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside [2009] EWHC 2924 (Admin)], however I have complied with my obligation under S172 of the Road traffic act and named the driver.

.

Yours sincerely

VVVVVVVVV
Registered Keeper



Is this OK? If they then send me a NIP I will post asking further advise,

Many thanks
Glacier2
The DVLC has not existed for many years.
Gan
QUOTE (lord duckhunter @ Sun, 27 Jan 2013 - 23:30) *
The Mrs was going to reply along these lines.



Dear ***********,

********* - Notice of Intended Prosecution

I received your letter dated *********, . I have enclosed a copy of the Notice completed with the drivers details.

You have written to me because I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle . My address is correct as per the details at DVLA, and the vehicle was not a Company car, and was neither hired nor borrowed.

No Officer spoke to me or the driver at the time of the alleged offence, and no accident took place. Also, nobody has spoken with me or the driver at or near the time and place detailed in your Notice. The written Notice is the first indication from you of any intention to prosecute the offence listed on the NIP.

Your Notice details the alleged offence as ******* on *********. The Notice is dated ********, and it came to me by post, received on ********.

Excluding the day of the alleged offence, this was **th day from the date detailed in your Notice.

I believe that The Notice cannot be acted upon as it is time-expired. For this Notice to have been valid, it ought to have been with me within 14 days of the alleged offence. Your letter is dated fully nine weeks after the alleged offence.
I note from its contents that you are not only aware of the delay but explain that it was a result of your own error and not because of incorrect information regarding my address.

I have, however, complied with my obligation under S172 of the Road traffic act and named the driver.

.
Yours sincerely

VVVVVVVVV
Registered Keeper



Is this OK? If they then send me a NIP I will post asking further advise,

Many thanks


I've suggested some changes

Gidden isn't relevant and an example of why template letters are best avoided :

It concerned a NIP that was sent on time but was delayed by a postal strike and arrived outside the fourteen days
The point about your case is that no NIP was ever sent that would arrive within the 14 days
thelonegunman
I believe that the Notice cannot be acted upon as it is time-expired

change the above to

I reject this notice of intended prosecution because it is time barred.

That was what my brother was told by a solicitor when his nip was late and his case was dropped.
southpaw82
As a matter of good order you can't "reject" a notice. I would, however, change the belief into an absolute statement.
lord duckhunter
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 28 Jan 2013 - 20:01) *
As a matter of good order you can't "reject" a notice. I would, however, change the belief into an absolute statement.



What about "This notice of intended prosecution can not be acted upon because it is time barred".
sgtdixie
An NIP is simply a notification that a prosecution is being considered. The OP isn't rejecting it or challenging it.

The OP simply needs to make a statement that the NIP did not comply with S1 RTOA in that it did not specify the time of the alleged offence within 14 days of the alleged offence. As such it is the OP's intention to decline any offer and opt for court. In the event that the Police intend to summons for the offence the OP's defence will be the Police's failure to comply with S1 RTOA.

Their move then.
The Rookie
Agreed with SD, that seems to fit the bill....

Duckchaser, you can act on a NIP either, not without very small actors anyway! (Where's Mike TV?)
lord duckhunter
This just wont seem to go away.

Basically, what's happened now is that the Mrs sent back the out of date NIP naming me as the driver, with a covering letter as previously posted. She received a letter back from Dorset Safety partners saying they would not enter into any correspondence with her.

I have now received a NIP.

Do I just fill it in requesting court hearing or do I send in some sort of letter explaining that NIP was sent to registered keeper out of date and was invalid as timed out?
Jlc
If you've now received your own NIP it will have a valid s172 request (regardless of the NIP chain before it). You have to confirm the driver - which I presume is now 'ok' given that they've corrected their error?

After that they'll provide their 'offers'. You either accept the offer (3 points/£60) or ignore for a court hearing. You can obviously point out to them that they haven't met the requirements of s1 RTOA but that might not stop them...

What was the alleged speed and limit? It's possible an awareness course could still be offered - not that I'm suggesting taking it...
Logician
First of all you need to return the form admitting you were the driver. It must be better to try to stop this now, rather than having to go to court. Therefore send a letter along the lines suggested by sgtdixie.

Something like:

Dear Sirs

I enclose the completed form acknowledging that I was the driver of vehicle XX XX XXX at 1820(?) on the A31 road between St Leonards Hospital and the hotel. However, as already pointed out to you by the registered keeper, I cannot be convicted of any speeding offence at that time because the Notice of Intended Prosecution sent to the registered keeper did not comply with s1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, in that it did not specify the time of the alleged offence within the time allowed of 14 days from that alleged offence. As this is the case, I shall decline any offers of settlement made to me and opt to go to court. If summonsed to court my defence would be that the police have failed to comply with s1 RTOA 1988. I expect to recover any costs I incur in defending a misconceived prosecution.

YF
Jlc
+1
Gan
Refer to their written admission that the original NIP was in error
lord duckhunter
QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 28 Feb 2013 - 16:28) *
First of all you need to return the form admitting you were the driver. It must be better to try to stop this now, rather than having to go to court. Therefore send a letter along the lines suggested by sgtdixie.

Something like:

Dear Sirs

I enclose the completed form acknowledging that I was the driver of vehicle XX XX XXX at 1820(?) on the A31 road between St Leonards Hospital and the hotel. However, as already pointed out to you by the registered keeper, I cannot be convicted of any speeding offence at that time because the Notice of Intended Prosecution sent to the registered keeper did not comply with s1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, in that it did not specify the time of the alleged offence within the time allowed of 14 days from that alleged offence. As this is the case, I shall decline any offers of settlement made to me and opt to go to court. If summonsed to court my defence would be that the police have failed to comply with s1 RTOA 1988. I expect to recover any costs I incur in defending a misconceived prosecution.

YF


Thanks, I'll do this.

Should I tick the court box on the form or leave blank?

And is it worth mentioning in the letter that I was confused and disadvantaged by their error. My Mrs has written to them complaining that their original error caused her upset & stress because I denied being on that road at the time they said and it caused friction between us .She seems to think that going heavily on this angle may make them back down, but I'm not so sure. What do people think?
AFCNEAL
QUOTE (lord duckhunter @ Fri, 15 Mar 2013 - 15:45) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Thu, 28 Feb 2013 - 16:28) *
First of all you need to return the form admitting you were the driver. It must be better to try to stop this now, rather than having to go to court. Therefore send a letter along the lines suggested by sgtdixie.

Something like:

Dear Sirs

I enclose the completed form acknowledging that I was the driver of vehicle XX XX XXX at 1820(?) on the A31 road between St Leonards Hospital and the hotel. However, as already pointed out to you by the registered keeper, I cannot be convicted of any speeding offence at that time because the Notice of Intended Prosecution sent to the registered keeper did not comply with s1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, in that it did not specify the time of the alleged offence within the time allowed of 14 days from that alleged offence. As this is the case, I shall decline any offers of settlement made to me and opt to go to court. If summonsed to court my defence would be that the police have failed to comply with s1 RTOA 1988. I expect to recover any costs I incur in defending a misconceived prosecution.

YF


Thanks, I'll do this.

Should I tick the court box on the form or leave blank?

And is it worth mentioning in the letter that I was confused and disadvantaged by their error. My Mrs has written to them complaining that their original error caused her upset & stress because I denied being on that road at the time they said and it caused friction between us .She seems to think that going heavily on this angle may make them back down, but I'm not so sure. What do people think?


I very much doubt they could care less about any marital friction- it has no material relevance whatsoever! You were not confused as you know who was where at the time stated so there is not disadvantage. But I fear you're missing the point.....
Gan
Send Logician's letter

It contains the essential facts and nothing more - as a good letter should

If the court box is for "I'll reject any COFP because I want it to go to court", leave it blank

You don't actually want it to go to court.
You want them to drop the matter

Leave it blank and they'll have to decide what to do
ukboxer
If OP is named as the driver would that not invalidate the 14 day rule as he is not the registered keeper?

Could they then issue the NIP to him in his name with their errors corrected and still procecute?
Jlc
No, see s1 RTOA.
Logician
QUOTE (Gan @ Fri, 15 Mar 2013 - 16:34) *
Send Logician's letter

It contains the essential facts and nothing more - as a good letter should

If the court box is for "I'll reject any COFP because I want it to go to court", leave it blank

You don't actually want it to go to court.
You want them to drop the matter

Leave it blank and they'll have to decide what to do


Agreed. It would be quite pointless mentioning confusion, worry, marital discord, or your budgie losing his feathers.
sgtdixie
In fact the OP does want to elect court. If he can persuade the CPS to drop it before all well and good. If not the court will have to do the job.
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.