Received an NIP for a car I don't own?
Discussion
Purity14 said:
750turbo said:
Purity14 said:
mmmunch said:
I'm sure the photographic evidence of the driver would confirm that it wasn't me as I'm white and male, not female and Indian and therefore couldn't be driving.
This smells of racism, and transphobia to me.She identifies as a Black Male, and to onlookers, would appear as such.
To imply that she is an "Indian Woman" based on her name is just ignorant.
mmmunch said:
I could be lying....
Unfortunately I'm not as I was in London at the time, getting pissed and eating dinner in Chopshop with my wife.
I'm sure the photographic evidence of the driver would confirm that it wasn't me as I'm white and male, not female and Indian and therefore couldn't be driving.
Unfortunately there is one of my old websites that does have my name and address on so that could of been it.
Breadvan- thank you for your confirmation.
Your gender and skin colour proves nothing. Why do you assume that the driver was an Indian female? Mrs Patel is probably the RK.Unfortunately I'm not as I was in London at the time, getting pissed and eating dinner in Chopshop with my wife.
I'm sure the photographic evidence of the driver would confirm that it wasn't me as I'm white and male, not female and Indian and therefore couldn't be driving.
Unfortunately there is one of my old websites that does have my name and address on so that could of been it.
Breadvan- thank you for your confirmation.
You must respond* to the S.172 request within 28 days. You will need to avail yourself of sub-section (2)(a) to make this go away.
Btw, you can't nominate Mrs Patel on your NIP as you have no evidence whatsoever that she was the driver.
Furthermore any photograph may well not be enough to conclusively show that it was not you driving her car.
Merely saying you don't know her is insufficient. For all the police know you could be lying through your teeth.
Hopefully you have the bill for your meal and a debit/credit card chit which will prove you weren't at the specified location at the time in question.
* In writing with copies of your supporting evidence and obtain proof of posting. As you're going away it is essential to deal with this asap.
Red Devil said:
Your gender and skin colour proves nothing. Why do you assume that the driver was an Indian female? Mrs Patel is probably the RK.
You must respond* to the S.172 request within 28 days. You will need to avail yourself of sub-section (2)(a) to make this go away.
Btw, you can't nominate Mrs Patel on your NIP as you have no evidence whatsoever that she was the driver.
Furthermore any photograph may well not be enough to conclusively show that it was not you driving her car.
Merely saying you don't know her is insufficient. For all the police know you could be lying through your teeth.
Hopefully you have the bill for your meal and a debit/credit card chit which will prove you weren't at the specified location at the time in question.
* In writing with copies of your supporting evidence and obtain proof of posting. As you're going away it is essential to deal with this asap.
Thanks , is being posted recorded/SD tomorrow morning.You must respond* to the S.172 request within 28 days. You will need to avail yourself of sub-section (2)(a) to make this go away.
Btw, you can't nominate Mrs Patel on your NIP as you have no evidence whatsoever that she was the driver.
Furthermore any photograph may well not be enough to conclusively show that it was not you driving her car.
Merely saying you don't know her is insufficient. For all the police know you could be lying through your teeth.
Hopefully you have the bill for your meal and a debit/credit card chit which will prove you weren't at the specified location at the time in question.
* In writing with copies of your supporting evidence and obtain proof of posting. As you're going away it is essential to deal with this asap.
Surely if it did go to,court and I attended and the photographic evidence would clearly show it wasn't me driving the car?
Red Devil said:
Furthermore any photograph may well not be enough to conclusively show that it was not you driving her car.
Merely saying you don't know her is insufficient. For all the police know you could be lying through your teeth.
Hopefully you have the bill for your meal and a debit/credit card chit which will prove you weren't at the specified location at the time in question.
* In writing with copies of your supporting evidence and obtain proof of posting. As you're going away it is essential to deal with this asap.
Very predictable. I think you are confused about the burden of proof.Merely saying you don't know her is insufficient. For all the police know you could be lying through your teeth.
Hopefully you have the bill for your meal and a debit/credit card chit which will prove you weren't at the specified location at the time in question.
* In writing with copies of your supporting evidence and obtain proof of posting. As you're going away it is essential to deal with this asap.
All the OP has to do is fill in the form and say not me, I know nothing.
Bert
What an amusing thread. Just returned to Pistonheads after a week away and glad to see that members are still "sharing the love". OP, I'm sure you'll get some sense re the NIP. It may take a while given the speed the wheels of the public sector move at. I had to go to court to get a duff NIP binned.
helix402 said:
What an amusing thread. Just returned to Pistonheads after a week away and glad to see that members are still "sharing the love". OP, I'm sure you'll get some sense re the NIP. It may take a while given the speed the wheels of the public sector move at. I had to go to court to get a duff NIP binned.
I just had a week away too, have I missed this chit - have I fcnk Red Devil said:
Why do you assume that the driver was an Indian female? Mrs Patel is probably the RK.
When this happened to me, coincidentally the person nominating me had a very common Asian surname too.How the scam worked was that the actual driver must have had contact with the 'middle man'. I guess the points were 'bought'. However, they didn't take the points, they nominate them to a stolen licence.
What's the downside to 'Mrs Patel'?
By the time the driver finds out he's been scammed, it's months down the line. What's he going to do, tell the police 'Mrs Patel' has scammed him for £300 to take the points?
'Mrs Patel' might not exist, and if she does might be the identity of a 90 year old grandma who's never driven in 20 years.
BertBert said:
Red Devil said:
Furthermore any photograph may well not be enough to conclusively show that it was not you driving her car.
Merely saying you don't know her is insufficient. For all the police know you could be lying through your teeth.
Hopefully you have the bill for your meal and a debit/credit card chit which will prove you weren't at the specified location at the time in question.
* In writing with copies of your supporting evidence and obtain proof of posting. As you're going away it is essential to deal with this asap.
Very predictable. I think you are confused about the burden of proof.Merely saying you don't know her is insufficient. For all the police know you could be lying through your teeth.
Hopefully you have the bill for your meal and a debit/credit card chit which will prove you weren't at the specified location at the time in question.
* In writing with copies of your supporting evidence and obtain proof of posting. As you're going away it is essential to deal with this asap.
All the OP has to do is fill in the form and say not me, I know nothing.
Bert
I accept that proof of his presence elsewhere is no guarantee per se that he cannot possess any 'information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver' - per (2)(b) - but the strategy at this stage is to plant as much doubt in the mind of the decision maker as possible, so that hopefully they will leave him in peace.
I have a fundamental dislike of any legislation which requires you to prove a negative. It is an unwelcome feature which seems to be becoming more prevalent as time marches on.
Red Devil said:
I have a fundamental dislike of any legislation which requires you to prove a negative. It is an unwelcome feature which seems to be becoming more prevalent as time marches on.
Reading through some of the posts above.....does that mean you can just nominate "anybody" and get away with it? What would happen if Mrs Patel had given a fake name and address? would the Police just have given up?
Assuming OP confirms the OldBill that he wasn't the driver - I assume OldBill go back to Mrs Patel who says "Oh sorry, it must have been JustinP1 or LoonR1 or <insert name of random PH'er>" and thereby send OldBill on another wild goose chase?
Assuming OP confirms the OldBill that he wasn't the driver - I assume OldBill go back to Mrs Patel who says "Oh sorry, it must have been JustinP1 or LoonR1 or <insert name of random PH'er>" and thereby send OldBill on another wild goose chase?
Countdown said:
Reading through some of the posts above.....does that mean you can just nominate "anybody" and get away with it? What would happen if Mrs Patel had given a fake name and address? would the Police just have given up?
Assuming OP confirms the OldBill that he wasn't the driver - I assume OldBill go back to Mrs Patel who says "Oh sorry, it must have been JustinP1 or LoonR1 or <insert name of random PH'er>" and thereby send OldBill on another wild goose chase?
Exactly this..dealt with one years ago (Met cops wife incidentally) who nominated three others as driving her car when it was captured speeding on three different occasions in three force areas. All three nominees were abroad, one was in France and replied to the force sending the paperwork out stating she hadnt been driving though did know the car owner who'd nominated her and could prove she was in France at the time. Didnt hear anything and wrote to the issuing force complain as she didnt want an arrest warrant hanging over her head when she came back to the uk. The matter was investigated and some PNC work revealed the enquiries made by the two other ticket offices. We didnt locate the two other nominees - obviously false - and she was charged with perverting the course of justice. Finished up with nine weeks prison sentence for her troubles. Worth pursuing by the OPAssuming OP confirms the OldBill that he wasn't the driver - I assume OldBill go back to Mrs Patel who says "Oh sorry, it must have been JustinP1 or LoonR1 or <insert name of random PH'er>" and thereby send OldBill on another wild goose chase?
Edited by Bigends on Saturday 1st August 20:33
hi all,
Some interesting comments today- thanks all for your input.
Sent of the NIP today (recorded post) with a covering letter saying I was elsewhere at the time of the offence and had independent witnesses along with some proof.
I invited them to compare the photographic evidence of the offence to the scanned copy of my DL.
It does appear that you can indeed nominate anyone for a camera offence _ I guess in the hope that it could be x,y or z and that you hope that plod might just give up once it's gone round a couple of random people.
It has made me slightly more cynical though with people in general......
I'll update the thread when I hear back!
Some interesting comments today- thanks all for your input.
Sent of the NIP today (recorded post) with a covering letter saying I was elsewhere at the time of the offence and had independent witnesses along with some proof.
I invited them to compare the photographic evidence of the offence to the scanned copy of my DL.
It does appear that you can indeed nominate anyone for a camera offence _ I guess in the hope that it could be x,y or z and that you hope that plod might just give up once it's gone round a couple of random people.
It has made me slightly more cynical though with people in general......
I'll update the thread when I hear back!
I'm with battered.
Cheers
I have a fundamental dislike of any legislation which requires you to prove a negative. It is an unwelcome feature which seems to be becoming more prevalent as time marches on.
Come off it. Nobody is asking him to "prove a negative". The owner of the car has received a NIP and identified the OP. She could equally well have come up with me or with my grandmother, either out of the phone book, and my grandmother doesn't drive. She's also dead, but that's by the by. It just happens to be the OP who both drives and is alive, AFAIK. The authorities have, reasonably enough, written to him saying "Mrs Patel says although it's her car, you were driving, is that right?" Answer no, I've never driven this car, never met Mrs P, and in any case I was elsewhere at the time. Case ends. If you get called to court, so be it. There is still no need to "prove a negative". The need is to "prove a positive" and that's for the Police or CPS. I can be accused of anything, be it the theft of Shergar, death of Princess Di or the assassination of Kennedy, I don't have to prove anything. The fact that I wasn't born when JFK was killed isn't something I have to prove in order to demonstrate my innocence. It doesn't work that way. So calm down. The OP isn't going to be arrested at the ports in 2 weeks' time, nor are armed police going to come and shoot him a la JCdeM. He's going to write back and say "no, not me" and that's the end of it. If the authorities think he's lying, they'll come after him. If they think Mrs P is lying, they'll be after her.
Cheers
battered said:
Red Devil said:
I have a fundamental dislike of any legislation which requires you to prove a negative. It is an unwelcome feature which seems to be becoming more prevalent as time marches on.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff