NIP - Not driving. What do I put on the form
Discussion
GreatGranny said:
OP, its not difficult.
You know who it was so put her down as the driver.
DO NOT put you brother because you KNOW he wasn't the driver.
Its not hard.
All he knows is that he left the vehicle with his brother. He doesn't know his brother was not the driver only that he says he wasn't. Why not just tell what he knows and leave it at that?You know who it was so put her down as the driver.
DO NOT put you brother because you KNOW he wasn't the driver.
Its not hard.
rewc said:
All he knows is that he left the vehicle with his brother. He doesn't know his brother was not the driver only that he says he wasn't. Why not just tell what he knows and leave it at that?
Exactly.And how does the fuel receipt prove you were in Inverness? (just asking the same question a Court would).
supermono said:
oldcynic said:
Why waste everyone's time naming your brother.
It depends in your viewpoint. If you want to encourage private speed tax collecting companies then you should send them what they need ASAP so they can raise the invoice quickly and efficiently.If you think they're parasites who perform no public good whatsoever you may want to make everything as time consuming and difficult as you can possibly (and legally) make it.
I happen to think the latter, as do the vast majority of people.
Sounds like the "Everyone agrees with me fallacy"
Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 29th April 12:10
rewc said:
All he knows is that he left the vehicle with his brother. He doesn't know his brother was not the driver only that he says he wasn't. Why not just tell what he knows and leave it at that?
As has already been said, that would change it from a speeding offence to driving without insurance! If he didn't give express permission for his brothers fiancée to drive the car she would not be insured.
Devil2575 said:
supermono said:
oldcynic said:
Why waste everyone's time naming your brother.
It depends in your viewpoint. If you want to encourage private speed tax collecting companies then you should send them what they need ASAP so they can raise the invoice quickly and efficiently.If you think they're parasites who perform no public good whatsoever you may want to make everything as time consuming and difficult as you can possibly (and legally) make it.
I happen to think the latter, as do the vast majority of people.
Sounds like the "Everyone agrees with me fallacy"
Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 29th April 12:10
Devil2575 said:
supermono said:
oldcynic said:
Why waste everyone's time naming your brother.
It depends in your viewpoint. If you want to encourage private speed tax collecting companies then you should send them what they need ASAP so they can raise the invoice quickly and efficiently.If you think they're parasites who perform no public good whatsoever you may want to make everything as time consuming and difficult as you can possibly (and legally) make it.
I happen to think the latter, as do the vast majority of people.
Sounds like the "Everyone agrees with me fallacy"
mybrainhurts said:
Devil2575 said:
supermono said:
oldcynic said:
Why waste everyone's time naming your brother.
It depends in your viewpoint. If you want to encourage private speed tax collecting companies then you should send them what they need ASAP so they can raise the invoice quickly and efficiently.If you think they're parasites who perform no public good whatsoever you may want to make everything as time consuming and difficult as you can possibly (and legally) make it.
I happen to think the latter, as do the vast majority of people.
Sounds like the "Everyone agrees with me fallacy"
I think that the vast majority of people in the world wouldn't agree with you most of the time two given the twaddle you post on here
LordGrover said:
Regardless of OP's employer's policy, if she has her own motor insurance policy she'd typically be covered to drive any car third party with the owner's permission, no?
"Typically" might be a bit strong. And I very much doubt a French policy DOC clause would cover a UK-registered vehicle being driven in the UK by somebody who didn't have permission to drive it.If the car's uninsured for her to drive, due to lack of explicit permission (does the OP have authority on behalf of his employer to grant permission?), then it's also being TWOCd, surely?
Assuming the OP does in fact have the authority to give permission on behalf of the policyholder for others to drive then the key question is to whom was it given - just his brother, or his brother's fiancée as well?
If the brother had permission but the fiancée did not, it's going to get messy. The OP is going to have to think very carefully about how he responds.
If the lady did have permission and the French address is given then this will be a red flag to TPTB and the OP can expect it to be looked into very closely. As his employer is the policyholder any investigation is likely to include them as well to determine whether any other offence besides the excess speed has occurred.
In his position I would have this number on speed dial.
If the car's uninsured for her to drive, due to lack of explicit permission (does the OP have authority on behalf of his employer to grant permission?), then it's also being TWOCd, surely?AFAIK French policies cover the car not the driver. Therefore the equivalent of UK DOC cover would not be needed so I don't think that idea will fly. Two different systems which don't mix. Once you cross borders you're not playing on the same field.
If the brother had permission but the fiancée did not, it's going to get messy. The OP is going to have to think very carefully about how he responds.
If the lady did have permission and the French address is given then this will be a red flag to TPTB and the OP can expect it to be looked into very closely. As his employer is the policyholder any investigation is likely to include them as well to determine whether any other offence besides the excess speed has occurred.
In his position I would have this number on speed dial.
TooMany2cvs said:
LordGrover said:
Regardless of OP's employer's policy, if she has her own motor insurance policy she'd typically be covered to drive any car third party with the owner's permission, no?
"Typically" might be a bit strong. And I very much doubt a French policy DOC clause would cover a UK-registered vehicle being driven in the UK by somebody who didn't have permission to drive it.If the car's uninsured for her to drive, due to lack of explicit permission (does the OP have authority on behalf of his employer to grant permission?), then it's also being TWOCd, surely?
MrTickle said:
rewc said:
All he knows is that he left the vehicle with his brother. He doesn't know his brother was not the driver only that he says he wasn't. Why not just tell what he knows and leave it at that?
As has already been said, that would change it from a speeding offence to driving without insurance! If he didn't give express permission for his brothers fiancée to drive the car she would not be insured.
Does the NIP allow you to put probabilities alongside a list of names?
Edited by speedking31 on Wednesday 29th April 13:46
FurtiveFreddy said:
And how does the fuel receipt prove you were in Inverness? (just asking the same question a Court would).
The fuel receipt itself wouldn't, however, I would hope the garage has a recording technology which would have my face heaven forbid I am not believed and need to prove my whereabouts.In reference to if she had permission, whilst I left the car with my brother, I have on the past let told my family any of them, partners, kids etc. can drive it so insurance would not be a problem.
I have filled it back and set it back today, within 2 days of receiving it myself so that it doesn't look like I'm doing anything wrong. I filled in her name with a French address. I put in the post a copy of her driving license she kindly emailed over to me so hopefully they can see it all looks legit.
I'll let everyone know what comes of it.
speedking31 said:
oesn't matter if she wasn't driving. Maybe the brother took the car for a spin, got flashed, and then blamed the fiancée. No lack of insurance and no TWOCing.
Does the NIP allow you to put probabilities alongside a list of names?
You can put whatever you like on there. If you have a list of possible drivers that were likely to drive then you could list them.Does the NIP allow you to put probabilities alongside a list of names?
Edited by speedking31 on Wednesday 29th April 13:46
Devil2575 said:
supermono said:
oldcynic said:
Why waste everyone's time naming your brother.
It depends in your viewpoint. If you want to encourage private speed tax collecting companies then you should send them what they need ASAP so they can raise the invoice quickly and efficiently.If you think they're parasites who perform no public good whatsoever you may want to make everything as time consuming and difficult as you can possibly (and legally) make it.
I happen to think the latter, as do the vast majority of people.
Sounds like the "Everyone agrees with me fallacy"
I agree with him and I'm one of the vast majority I reckon. They are just parasitical tax collectors and if everyone played the game and made it uneconomical it would stop.
Edited by Devil2575 on Wednesday 29th April 12:10
TVR1 said:
stuart313 said:
You don't name the driver you name the keeper.
No.The NIP is sent to the registered keeper who then nominates who he thinks was the driver (if not him) and so on....
Section 172 said:
the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police,
Doesn't mention the registered keeper, just the person keeping it. For the OP, I think I would rather have not found out that my brother's non UK resident fiancee was driving, but it's probably best to put down her details. I might attach a letter to the form explaining the situation in more detail, just to be sure.
Devil2575 said:
mybrainhurts said:
Devil2575 said:
supermono said:
oldcynic said:
Why waste everyone's time naming your brother.
It depends in your viewpoint. If you want to encourage private speed tax collecting companies then you should send them what they need ASAP so they can raise the invoice quickly and efficiently.If you think they're parasites who perform no public good whatsoever you may want to make everything as time consuming and difficult as you can possibly (and legally) make it.
I happen to think the latter, as do the vast majority of people.
Sounds like the "Everyone agrees with me fallacy"
I think that the vast majority of people in the world wouldn't agree with you most of the time two given the twaddle you post on here
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff