Speeding Fine Dated April 09 -2006

[Guest craig030774]

hi opened a letter informing of intended prosecution as dated above bl**dy 4 months ago anyway just before filling in a cheque and posting license ,i looked at the road where the offence occured could not recall going along that road so got log book out (sorry v5) and yessssssssssssssssss i obtained car 2 days after the offence, the bloke who i bought the car off had emigrated so i filled in his details as the driver and enclosed a photo copy of the v5 and sent it back

 

got me wondering though how many people would of sent the money and bit of pink paper off without a second thought.

goiog to bed now up early for donnington ( tin top as taking both kids )

[Guest hypermick]

Far too many Craig.

 

Im sure Enforcer will correct me if Im wrong here but they only have 14 days to serve the NIP following a speeding offence detected by camera / autovision 3/ SPECS,. etc..

 

Many people forget that its always up to the prosecution to prove their case, not, in a circumstance such as this for you to sign a statement (one of the 7 parts on the rear of the document) (which by the way in the absence of photographic evidence clearly showing who the driver is) is the only evidence the prosecution can rely upon to secure their conviction at court.

 

West Mercia tried this on with me some years ago. Unfortunately they came unstuck. The NIP I received also said (as most of them do, that if I failed to give the information as to who the driver was,. (( which is actually directed usually at the registered keeper- which in this instance I was not)) then I would be prosecuted for that offence too.

When I got the prosecution dept on the phone and suggested to them that in saying this on an NIP I would view it as a direct form of pressurised coercion in order to extract a first statement of admission out of me. They were told in no uncertain terms to go for it,. that I would see them in court but also I made it clear that whoever signs off the summons had better be prepared to be personally served with seperate proceedings for attempting to furnish to the court a statement obtained illegally.

 

Guess what,...............it all went quietly away.

 

 

Mick.

[Swan Jnr]

"up early for donninton" ?

 

isnt it next weekend? you're going to bed impressively early if so.

[Guest GJR]

I agree with Mick, by law you should be notified within the 14 days otherwise the claim essentailly becomes void. But surley the DVLA should of looked at the sale date and should of notified the previous owner?

 

Gareth

[Guest elwe]

What was the date on the postmark?

 

Yes you have to be served the NIP within 14 days but posting by first class post is demed as serving the NIP. So if the Royal Mail are slow you could recieve the NIP 4 months later and it still be valid. I am suprised you haven't heard anything else if it was posted back then. Of course all this is slightly irrelevent since you didn;t own the car back then.

[Big Jim]

Tim is correct, it's the date of them posting it to you that has to be within the 14 days.

 

I'd have thought that you'd have had a team of armed Bobbies knocking your door down with a warrent for your address by now though, as you are obviously a major criminal at loose trying to evade your com-upances!

[Guest craig030774]

Tim is correct, it's the date of them posting it to you that has to be within the 14 days.

 

I'd have thought that you'd have had a team of armed Bobbies knocking your door down with a warrent for your address by now though, as you are obviously a major criminal at loose trying to evade your com-upances!

 

the letter was dated 22 aug with the offence being on the 9 april

[enforcer]

The whole point of the Notice Of Intended Prosecution being served within 14 days of the offence is to ensure you have a fair opportunity to recall the journey/incident. It is not necessary to serve an NIP in the case of a road traffic collision, for example, as it would reasonably be assumed that you would remember it. Usually they would be served as a matter of routine in all cases (a lorry driver might not realise they had scraped a parked car etc.) First class post to the registered keepers address within 14 days of the incident is held in law to be acceptable 'service' of the document.

 

It is unusual that this NIP has been sent so long after the date of the alleged offence, but provided the police have served the notice on the registered keeper (at the time of the offence) within 14 days it is entirely valid. I suspect that they have done this, and subsequently found that the vehicle had been sold on. The enquiry has probably stalled for a couple of months whilst the DVLA computer is updated with the new keeper details.

 

As others have said, it's all academic anyway because you did not own the vehicle at the time. Don't ignore it though, send it back with a covering letter, maybe a copy of the invoice for the vehicle etc just to corroborate your explanation and it will all go away.

 

And Mick, plenty have people have tried that defence - the old 'If I tell you who was driving it will incriminate me so I don't have to' does not I'm afraid, cut the mustard.

[Guest hypermick]

Hi Enforcer,.

As you say in Craigs case it is academic but with reference to mine I think you may be refering to the fact that others try to get around it by saying that it is in contravention of their human rights , or they can't remember who was driving etc,. which in my particular case was not even refered to.

 

I went through this with an old friend (who is a Q.C. and district judge, ) and within minutes he was picking holes in the paperwork.

 

What is applicable here is how you interpret S172 (2) & (3) of RTA 1988,. in particular and in respect of who can provide information as to the identity of the driver. If is is not within your power, or even with all due dilligence you still cannot provide this information then you cannot be convicted of the offence of failing to provide the information. If you have the information and it can be proved that you witheld it then the conviction will be successful.

 

As I said in the other thread, my point was made on the basis that signing a part of the multi response on the back of the form constituted the making of a statement which it does. The application of using the threat of secondary prosecution (for failing to provide the information) on the basis of forcing the first statement deems the first statement inadmissable.

 

I have to also say that if the form is completed in one of the parts, but ultimately not signed, but returned you cannot be convicted for not providing the information, because in the eyes of the law you have complied. Where it gets difficult for the prosecution is that it cannot be used as a statement because it isn't signed, and for it to be constituted as a statement in the true sense it has to be signed since theres no evidence in the absence of the signature as to who completed the paperwork. (there is case history to this effect,. various celebrities + 1 footballer to my knowledge)

 

As we all know, obtain any statement other than by free will and it isnt admissable in any way as evidence. The only obligation is, with any summons, that you turn up at court, there is no compulsion for you to do anything else, and that includes addressing any paperwork you might receive.

 

 

Mick

[enforcer]

Hmm. At the end of the day if a Registered Keeper has been sent an NIP and they were the driver at the time then they should declare so and take what is coming.

 

If they were not the driver then they should co-operate fully and provide the information. Similarly if they have been sent the form in error they should similarly co-operate to assist the enquiry. After all, if you are starting to receive 'official' post regarding your car that you knew was nothing to do with you then you would assist in every way to ensure the authorities were informed that something was not quite right. There have been many examples of 'cloned' vehicles being used by drivers to evade disqualification.

 

If the driver knew they were likely to have committed the offence they should accept that they were unlucky to have been caught, but take the penalty all the same.

[Knock-on]

Hmm. At the end of the day if a Registered Keeper has been sent an NIP and they were the driver at the time then they should declare so and take what is coming.

 

Well, "Take what's coming" rather depends if you're a normal bloke caught a couple of miles over the limit or a Police officer abusing his authority:

 

http://www.snoopers.co.uk/news_86mph_polic...ten_warning.asp

 

or you fancy finding out what your motor can do and blat it down the motorway at 159mph

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/5284962.stm

 

It seems that taking whats coming only applies to those not currently serving in the Police

[Guest stu205]

It seems that taking whats coming only applies to those not currently serving in the Police

 

I think loosing your job (subject to appeal) is taking whats coming, we have already had the "copper doing 159mph" chat along time ago lets not go there again eh!

 

not to mention

 

Mr Owen's driver, PC Mark Bradley, 44, was prosecuted and received a £250 fine and six penalty points over the incident.

 

so again the DRIVER took what was coming

[enforcer]

Well, "Take what's coming" rather depends if you're a normal bloke caught a couple of miles over the limit or a Police officer abusing his authority:

 

It seems that taking whats coming only applies to those not currently serving in the Police

 

It was the police that prosecuted him wasn't it? That officer has been through more than you could possibly imagine since that night and it's still a long way from over. Don't start all that one rule for us one rule for them nonsense.

 

Good shout Stu.

[Knock-on]

I think loosing your job (subject to appeal) is taking whats coming, we have already had the "copper doing 159mph" chat along time ago lets not go there again eh!

 

not to mention

so again the DRIVER took what was coming

 

So, a senior member of the Force who has championed tackling speeding can instruct his driver to break the law and get away scot free?

 

If we have discussed a matter before, who is to say it cannot be raised again in relation to a related thread?

 

I think it would also be naive to claim there isn't a "one law for them, one for us" attitude. On occasions, police officers will get prosecuted but this is far from the norm. The stigma attached to a police officer that nicks one of his colleagues would be intense.

 

Face it Enforcer, would you nick a person you work with on a daily basis if you caught them doing 40 in a 30?

 

I appreciate that you cannot answer in the negative as this would constitute a breach of your employment obligations. However, how many police officer in your force have received points in the last year for speeding?

 

I'm not against the police and certainly not against you personally. However, we all know there are some perks to the job

[Longboarder]

This doesn't realy wash Knock-on. Its basicaly a bit of jealousy for an advantage that you presume or imagine the police have. Cops have some discretion in many matters thankfully. A fair few drivers on this board have been stopped and recieved a friendly finger wag and a chat about the car. Few drivers are prosecuted for a couple of miles an hour over the lower limits or 7-8 miles over 70. How many Hood owners can honestly say they have kept to the limits all year.

I'm grateful that the cops excercise some discretion and if there is slightly more discretion for a colleague so what. We're all human and most of us are honest within reason. If you insist in absolute honesty then first check your home and garage. Every tool in there yours. No relays or fuses pocketed in a scrappy and not paid for, borrowed some time ago and never going to be returned, bought realy cheap from a mate that you think must have been knocked off but you don't know for sure and didn't ask so it's 'OK'. No need to go on, you get the drift.

We all apply grey standards with supporting justification because an absolute black and white world would need us all to be divine to survive and would be a terrible place to live. Be grateful that if your other half should burst a tyre on the motorway and run up the bank or into the central reservation the motorway cops will be there.

 

Nigel

 

Now speed cameras and safety partnerships are the spawn of the devil and................................................................................ ..........................