Recieved an NIP. Now i'm confused.
Discussion
Boosted LS1 said:
Of course it's sneaky. They wouldn't set up a trap where everybody was bunched up together doing 10% under the limit would they.
I think you have misunderstood my point. IF the trap was in the s/c London Road they could easily have set it up within the 30 limit part rather than at the end of the very short 40 bit but targeting people still within the 30. Anybody doing 34 would still be caught.On the A414 the allegation of 34 being over the prescribed limit appears to make no sense whatsoever. However if he challenges it I suspect the OP will be scuppered by the Slip Rule.
Although a Notice cannot be amended, any error can be corrected by sending a replacement Notice within 14 days of the offence. Likewise, if the matter proceeds to Court, errors in the Notice can be corrected in the Court papers. The Slip Rule allows typographical or minor errors to be corrected in this fashion, it does not however allow the prosecution to bring a completely new case or allegation. if he contests it
ferrariF50lover said:
How f
king cool would a speed limit button be, by the way!?
Available as a £400 option on an S-Max http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32049350king cool would a speed limit button be, by the way!?
speedking31 said:
OP, which road did you drive along?
It was the A414 - dual carridgeway - 40MPH all the way through.I remember where he was, and it wasn't even directly on that junction, but further down where the BP garage is. I think they've just used that as location marker. I can certainly mention it in my cover letter. The road doesn't drop to a 30 by the way - 40 all the way
Red Devil said:
Although a Notice cannot be amended, any error can be corrected by sending a replacement Notice within 14 days of the offence. Likewise, if the matter proceeds to Court, errors in the Notice can be corrected in the Court papers. The Slip Rule allows typographical or minor errors to be corrected in this fashion, it does not however allow the prosecution to bring a completely new case or allegation. if he contests it[/i]
Quite a slip haha. When the mistake IS the offence, or not in my case.I can imagine small incedental errors (like exact time of offence or mispelling of a name) would fall under a slip rule. Mine would have to be a completely new prosecution - with a different alleged speed.
Labbetts said:
Red Devil said:
Although a Notice cannot be amended, any error can be corrected by sending a replacement Notice within 14 days of the offence. Likewise, if the matter proceeds to Court, errors in the Notice can be corrected in the Court papers. The Slip Rule allows typographical or minor errors to be corrected in this fashion, it does not however allow the prosecution to bring a completely new case or allegation. if he contests it[/i]
Quite a slip haha. When the mistake IS the offence, or not in my case.I can imagine small incedental errors (like exact time of offence or mispelling of a name) would fall under a slip rule. Mine would have to be a completely new prosecution - with a different alleged speed.
V8LM said:
Labbetts said:
Red Devil said:
Although a Notice cannot be amended, any error can be corrected by sending a replacement Notice within 14 days of the offence. Likewise, if the matter proceeds to Court, errors in the Notice can be corrected in the Court papers. The Slip Rule allows typographical or minor errors to be corrected in this fashion, it does not however allow the prosecution to bring a completely new case or allegation. if he contests it[/i]
Quite a slip haha. When the mistake IS the offence, or not in my case.I can imagine small incedental errors (like exact time of offence or mispelling of a name) would fall under a slip rule. Mine would have to be a completely new prosecution - with a different alleged speed.
Labbetts said:
V8LM said:
Labbetts said:
Red Devil said:
Although a Notice cannot be amended, any error can be corrected by sending a replacement Notice within 14 days of the offence. Likewise, if the matter proceeds to Court, errors in the Notice can be corrected in the Court papers. The Slip Rule allows typographical or minor errors to be corrected in this fashion, it does not however allow the prosecution to bring a completely new case or allegation. if he contests it[/i]
Quite a slip haha. When the mistake IS the offence, or not in my case.I can imagine small incedental errors (like exact time of offence or mispelling of a name) would fall under a slip rule. Mine would have to be a completely new prosecution - with a different alleged speed.
Labbetts said:
“SPEEDING-EXCEED 40mph - LOCAL ORDER-MANNED EQUIPMENT. Speed of Vehicle 34mph”
Labbetts said:
I can imagine small incedental errors (like exact time of offence or mispelling of a name) would fall under a slip rule. Mine would have to be a completely new prosecution - with a different alleged speed.
The NIP doesn't have to detail the specifics of the alleged offence, merely the section under which there is an intention to prosecute.That comes from case law dating back to just after the war.
Labbetts said:
If the speed was 44MPH, would that fall within the 10% grace. Or is that 10% thing just a myth?
Yes, it is a myth. I got done for 33 in a 30 zone by a fixed camera.I always understood the 10% thing to be traffic officers don't typically bother at 10% or less, because somebody doing more will always be along shortly.
Point taken, but here it does: specifically 34 mph. We don't know what his speed actually was so cannot guess whether he will be offered a SAC or a CoFP. My comment was based on it being the latter (if he was really caning it, it may go straight to summons). If he declines a CoFP and goes NG then AIUI the officer's witness statement will be what matters and the original error (assuming he really was over the posted limit) can be corrected. Hence my query about the Slip Rule applying in this case.
Red Devil said:
Point taken, but here it does: specifically 34 mph. We don't know what his speed actually was so cannot guess whether he will be offered a SAC or a CoFP. My comment was based on it being the latter (if he was really caning it, it may go straight to summons). If he declines a CoFP and goes NG then AIUI the officer's witness statement will be what matters and the original error (assuming he really was over the posted limit) can be corrected. Hence my query about the Slip Rule applying in this case.
What I am wondering is how he deals with this if he gets a response that still shows 34mph. How do you plead to something that is not an offence? If he pleads guilty to 34mph can they change the speed later?4x4Tyke said:
Yes, it is a myth. I got done for 33 in a 30 zone by a fixed camera.
Hmmmm, prove it!When I pick my daughter up, I always go via the average speed camera bit on the A14/M11 - on which my cruise is normally set around 75 mph GPS...
33 in a 30? My arse!
Edited by Jim1556 on Friday 15th January 21:24
Toltec said:
Red Devil said:
Point taken, but here it does: specifically 34 mph. We don't know what his speed actually was so cannot guess whether he will be offered a SAC or a CoFP. My comment was based on it being the latter (if he was really caning it, it may go straight to summons). If he declines a CoFP and goes NG then AIUI the officer's witness statement will be what matters and the original error (assuming he really was over the posted limit) can be corrected. Hence my query about the Slip Rule applying in this case.
What I am wondering is how he deals with this if he gets a response that still shows 34mph. How do you plead to something that is not an offence? If he pleads guilty to 34mph can they change the speed later?rsox87 said:
Available as a £400 option on an S-Max http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32049350
I wanted it on Google Maps, but thanks for this anyway. It does rather add to my point that if speeding was all that dangerous, it would be made impossible by easily implementable and cheap technology.just had a thought on this.
If I was to make an assumption that the initial NIP sent to the lease company (VW) was showing the correct speed, can they just re-issue me with a revised one - showing a higher speed? That's assuming it's a typo on mine.
Obviously it will be way outside the 14 days, but does that matter?
FYI - all paperwork has been returned already with a covering letter
If I was to make an assumption that the initial NIP sent to the lease company (VW) was showing the correct speed, can they just re-issue me with a revised one - showing a higher speed? That's assuming it's a typo on mine.
Obviously it will be way outside the 14 days, but does that matter?
FYI - all paperwork has been returned already with a covering letter
Labbetts said:
just had a thought on this.
If I was to make an assumption that the initial NIP sent to the lease company (VW) was showing the correct speed, can they just re-issue me with a revised one - showing a higher speed? That's assuming it's a typo on mine.
Obviously it will be way outside the 14 days, but does that matter?
FYI - all paperwork has been returned already with a covering letter
I would love to know from one of our legal bods if the 172 rules still apply if no offence committed.If I was to make an assumption that the initial NIP sent to the lease company (VW) was showing the correct speed, can they just re-issue me with a revised one - showing a higher speed? That's assuming it's a typo on mine.
Obviously it will be way outside the 14 days, but does that matter?
FYI - all paperwork has been returned already with a covering letter
If for instance this was a computer generated error that didn't get checked properly before posting so the OP was doing 34 in a 40, could you just reply that I don't need to say who was driving until I have been informed of an offence?
My own bottom has been twitching lately as I set off a camera just before the new year, and I'm not sure at which point exactly I can rleax.
Edited by NoNeed on Sunday 24th January 01:58
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff