N.I.P Advice - Was not anywhere near location

[BertBert]

wow, the utter PH madness that's on this thread.

Write a simple letter back with the NIP telling what you have found out and it's sorted. No panic, no witness statements, no plans B needed!

I despair sometimes of PH.

Bert

[anonymous-user]

Not sure of the best way of communicating with them, but the content of the communication is a straightforward statement of fact

As a matter of fact, the car in the photograph is not yours and is not displaying the registration mark mentioned on the NIP

- You didn't recognise the location mentioned on the NIP

- So you checked the photographic evidence

- The photograph does not show your car, it shows a different model of car (Mondeo / Focus)

- Proper examination of the low quality image shows that one digit of the number plate has been read in error (Y/V)

[Tomo1971]

Whatever advice from above you take (hopefully not the pub banter that so many believe in, but thats your choice) ensure that the letter you send is sent 'signed for/recorded' or whatever its called these days.

You DO have a legal obligation to respond to the letter but as I think you have alluded to, covering letter to explain the full facts is needed. If you take some advice and just give them some information in your possession (it wasn't me guvnor go stick it on someone else) there is a risk that the letters from them will continue as unfortunately, others try this tactic on when they are guilty as charged - the people who deal with these are well versed with people trying to get away with it and a letter offering vague information may just be read in the wrong context.

[agtlaw]

You have 28 days to reply. Personally, I would wait at least 14 days before using signed for post to reply. If they are wasting my time because they didn't check properly then I would ensure that they lost revenue from the other driver. There is no "slip rule."

[bitchstewie]

BertBert said:

wow, the utter PH madness that's on this thread.

Write a simple letter back with the NIP telling what you have found out and it's sorted. No panic, no witness statements, no plans B needed!

I despair sometimes of PH.

Bert

Oh come on that would be far too simple

I asked similar when I had an NIP for a place I hadn't been, in a car I'd sold a few weeks previously and some of the replies received were beyond bell-endery.

[tapereel]

zarjaz1991 said:

I feel I need to go further than that and actually point out what the error is. My feeling is that I need to do everything I can to assist the authorities so that they stop this pending prosecution.. If I don't there's a very real risk I'll end up taking the hit for this.

I don't believe there's any danger in stating to them "the vehicle in the photo is not my vehicle" and then mentioning that the registration mark on it is slightly different to mine and thus is must have been misread.

I'm loathe to just give them minimal information and hope that they figure it out for themselves....can anyone suggest a good reason why I shouldn't give as much information as I can? I'm not interested in "sticking one up the police" here, I just need to ensure I don't end up with points on my license and thus a hearing at work to decide if I should be dismissed!

I can't see why you are getting worked up with this one; you can see the error, I'm sure when you point it out so will Lancs police. As said above...."Simples".

[bitchstewie]

zarjaz1991 said:

I feel I need to go further than that and actually point out what the error is. My feeling is that I need to do everything I can to assist the authorities so that they stop this pending prosecution.. If I don't there's a very real risk I'll end up taking the hit for this.

I don't believe there's any danger in stating to them "the vehicle in the photo is not my vehicle" and then mentioning that the registration mark on it is slightly different to mine and thus is must have been misread.

I'm loathe to just give them minimal information and hope that they figure it out for themselves....can anyone suggest a good reason why I shouldn't give as much information as I can? I'm not interested in "sticking one up the police" here, I just need to ensure I don't end up with points on my license and thus a hearing at work to decide if I should be dismissed!

Just phone them up and talk to them on Monday.

I had an NIP for a car I'd sold a few weeks previously and it was as simple as emailing in the DVLA confirmation and the p/x receipt from the dealer showing that that the car wasn't mine at the time of the offence.

Since it's pretty clear what's happened here, you'll have no problem.

[rsv gone!]

agtlaw said:

You have 28 days to reply. Personally, I would wait at least 14 days before using signed for post to reply. If they are wasting my time because they didn't check properly then I would ensure that they lost revenue from the other driver.

I like this approach.

[LoonR1]

zarjaz1991 said:

supermono said:

Actually why help them at all telling them the correct number?

Because it's my licence that's at risk (in terms of having points added to it) if this isn't sorted out pronto.

Additionally, I am at this point obliged to declare it as a "pending prosecution" to my employers, and quite probably my insurers as well.

It should be remembered, this isn't a mere typo on a NIP - this is very obviously the wrong vehicle. The wrong person is going to be summonsed to court if I get this wrong, and despite that, if for any reason the authorities deem that I didn't supply sufficient information, I could still get six points for failing to supply. I am now "in the system", a system which is designed to quickly and efficiently endorse my licence and extract money from me. If I do not act promptly and decisively, that system will run its course even though clear evidence exists that I am not guilty of any offence.

You do not have to declare anything nog to your insurers at all, even if you were coincidentally up for renewal currently, it still wouldn't matter.

[stuart313]

If it was me I would fill in the NIP as if I was driving it at the time, I would then ignore everything and go to court, there I would ask for all their evidence and come back on trial date and say "sorry, wrong car. Costs please".

[LoonR1]

stuart313 said:

If it was me I would fill in the NIP as if I was driving it at the time, I would then ignore everything and go to court, there I would ask for all their evidence and come back on trial date and say "sorry, wrong car. Costs please".

Of course you would

[bitchstewie]

stuart313 said:

If it was me I would fill in the NIP as if I was driving it at the time, I would then ignore everything and go to court, there I would ask for all their evidence and come back on trial date and say "sorry, wrong car. Costs please".

OP do this, definitely do this. Report back how it goes for you.

[ging84]

agtlaw said:

You have 28 days to reply. Personally, I would wait at least 14 days before using signed for post to reply. If they are wasting my time because they didn't check properly then I would ensure that they lost revenue from the other driver. There is no "slip rule."

If the OP was to not reply, could he really get a conviction for failure to identify the driver under these circumstances ?

[Terminator X]

charltjr said:

Yeah, do that, stick it to "the man", that'll teach them a lesson they'll never forget.

Wouldn't they simply be doing their job?

TX.

[agtlaw]

See Grant (2001). No reply = guilty. Although it may be arguable that the request wasn't valid.

[silverfoxcc]

zarjaz

Have sent you a pm

[tapereel]

agtlaw said:

See Grant (2001). No reply = guilty. Although it may be arguable that the request wasn't valid.

I suppose you could argue that but it would make no difference as 172, 2(b) clearly applies and the OP has information, shared here, that can be supplied to satisfy the request made.

The case you mention makes your comment about the validity of the notice somewhat odd.

[agtlaw]

Somewhat academic as the OP should respond not before 14 days but within 28 days. If he didn't and was prosecuted for failure to respond, then his argument might be that the request wasn't validly made - he is neither the registered keeper of the car in the picture, or a person nominated by the registered keeper. Should he be criminalised for a mistake made by the ticket office? It's an argument, although perhaps not the strongest argument. Best to avoid a trial he may lose by responding.

[anonymous-user]

zarjaz1991 said:

garyhun said:

This happened to me a few years back.

I just wrote back saying it could not be me as I was miles away and could prove it.

Never heard back.

All very easy to sort..

I feel I need to go further than that and actually point out what the error is. My feeling is that I need to do everything I can to assist the authorities so that they stop this pending prosecution.. If I don't there's a very real risk I'll end up taking the hit for this.

I don't believe there's any danger in stating to them "the vehicle in the photo is not my vehicle" and then mentioning that the registration mark on it is slightly different to mine and thus is must have been misread.

I'm loathe to just give them minimal information and hope that they figure it out for themselves....can anyone suggest a good reason why I shouldn't give as much information as I can? I'm not interested in "sticking one up the police" here, I just need to ensure I don't end up with points on my license and thus a hearing at work to decide if I should be dismissed!

I do not understand this. Why do you feel you have to go further? It's such a simple thing to solve, yet you seem determined to make it complicated.

[Red Devil]

^^This^^

I don't know why the OP is getting his undergarments in a twist. All that is needed is to write back saying the picture clearly shows the offending vehicle is a Ford Focus **** JWV whereas his is a Ford Mondeo **** JWY.

RTA 1988 S.172 said:

(2)Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a)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

(4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

If this goes any further, which is highly unlikely, sub-pararaph (4) gives him a cast-iron defence to a S.172 charge. He is not the RK of the vehicle in the picture, therefore he can't possibly be expected to furnish any driver information in respect of it.

If I have clocked the VRM correctly, as well as speeding that car hasn't been taxed for the last year and a half!