S.172 NIP - Incorrect time

[drf765]

rowey200 said:

simoid said:

Looks to me like you should make it clear that you're not alleging anything - they obviously think you are. They're the ones doing the alleging and you have an alibi. Can you prove your car was elsewhere?

Edited by simoid on Wednesday 30th November 20:22

We can prove that we checked into our hotel 42 mins before the alleged offence and that we parked the car in the hotel car park immediately prior to this (the car did not move from this time until the next day).

You can show that the time you checked into the hotel is indicated to be 42 minutes before the time on the offence record. What you can't prove is that you "checked into our hotel 42 mins before the alleged offence" because there is no requirement that the police camera has its time synchronised with the point-of-sale system or any other system at the hotel.
What this will show is that you and your car and your partner were in the area of the offence close to the time and on the day the offence took place. I can't see how that would assist you in avoiding the consequences of the offence record and prosecution of it; quite the opposite in fact.

[Helicopter123]

rowey200 said:

Update. My wife sent off the NIP along with a polite letter (as advised) confirming that her car was not in the location stated at the time of the alleged offence. The response she received today is below:



I assume best advice is to simply do as requested and return the photographs of the car. It's a strange one as my wife made no mention of the car being impersonated in her correspondence (and surely other people who received a NIP from the same camera must have questioned the incorrect time - hence the safety camera partnership will be well aware that the issue is not a case of her vehicle being impersonated)?

Anyway, any sound advice appreciated

Edited by rowey200 on Wednesday 30th November 20:02

They will attempt to match the images they have from the offence with your vehicle. If they match, you are stuffed. There must be a danger that you are seen as playing "silly buggers" here?

[drf765]

Helicopter123 said:

rowey200 said:

Update. My wife sent off the NIP along with a polite letter (as advised) confirming that her car was not in the location stated at the time of the alleged offence. The response she received today is below:



I assume best advice is to simply do as requested and return the photographs of the car. It's a strange one as my wife made no mention of the car being impersonated in her correspondence (and surely other people who received a NIP from the same camera must have questioned the incorrect time - hence the safety camera partnership will be well aware that the issue is not a case of her vehicle being impersonated)?

Anyway, any sound advice appreciated

Edited by rowey200 on Wednesday 30th November 20:02

They will attempt to match the images they have from the offence with your vehicle. If they match, you are stuffed. There must be a danger that you are seen as playing "silly buggers" here?

There's no danger!

[rowey200]

Edited by simoid on Wednesday 30th November 20:22

[/quote]

What you can't prove is that you "checked into our hotel 42 mins before the alleged offence" because there is no requirement that the police camera has its time synchronised with the point-of-sale system or any other system at the hotel.

[/quote]

Indeed, but surely there is a requirement for the safety camera partnership to be operating to the 'correct' time (unless they state otherwise) for the country they are operating in. If they do not then people will have trouble completing a NIP (as my wife has done) as the vehicle in question would be in a different location than alleged (at the time of the offence).

In our case no one was driving the car at the time of the alleged offence - it might of course come down to proving this fact, and I take on board the comments (I'm hopeful that other motorists will also query the time discrepancy). The evidence has been questioned so we must now continue on that path - will keep you posted.

[Bill]

Send photos of the car and when they confirm its the right one ask if they're sure because it was definitely parked in xyz car park when they reckon the offence took place.

I don't think you'll get out of it, but don't see why you shouldn't make them work for it.

ETa you don't know they have the time wrong, even if you suspect it, the car could be cloned...

[herewego]

As the 14 days is up I think the way forward is not to send any photos but advise that you are not alleging cloning only proposing that the time on the NIP is wrong as the car could not have been there at that time then suggest that the ending of BST may be involved.

[KevinCamaroSS]

herewego said:

As the 14 days is up I think the way forward is not to send any photos but advise that you are not alleging cloning only proposing that the time on the NIP is wrong as the car could not have been there at that time then suggest that the ending of BST may be involved.

I would make no suggestions, merely keep to the fact that the car was provably parked somewhere else at the time of the alleged offence.

[drf765]

rowey200 said:

drf765 said:

What you can't prove is that you "checked into our hotel 42 mins before the alleged offence" because there is no requirement that the police camera has its time synchronised with the point-of-sale system or any other system at the hotel.

Indeed, but surely there is a requirement for the safety camera partnership to be operating to the 'correct' time (unless they state otherwise) for the country they are operating in. If they do not then people will have trouble completing a NIP (as my wife has done) as the vehicle in question would be in a different location than alleged (at the time of the offence).

In our case no one was driving the car at the time of the alleged offence - it might of course come down to proving this fact, and I take on board the comments (I'm hopeful that other motorists will also query the time discrepancy). The evidence has been questioned so we must now continue on that path - will keep you posted.

The keeper needs to name the driver at the time of the incident. The time provided by the police is to aid the keeper in doing that. It would be better to have the enforcement camera time precise and exactly the correct time. What you seem to have done is to assume the other time is precisely right and the camera time is not. You have then appeared to try to turn that to your advantage rather than do what is reasonable and conclude that one or both of the times are wrong and then say "well our vehicle was there that day, the clock is a bit out but XXX was driving when we went past there...".

The police only need to name the day of the offence not the precise time.

If you are intending to defend a potential charge or charges on a wrong time on the camera basis you are going to be dissapointed I fear.

Edited by drf765 on Thursday 1st December 16:05

[JNW1]

drf765 said:

The police only need to name the day of the offence not the precise time.

But I thought a suggestion being made on the first page of the thread was to not respond within 14 days as that could give the police time to reissue another NIP with the correct details? The inference of that (to me at least!) is that a NIP containing the wrong details (such as the time of the offence) isn't valid and would be thrown out if contested; however, are you saying that's not the case and the fact the time's wrong on this NIP is irrelevant?

[agtlaw]

drf765 said:

The police only need to name the day of the offence not the precise time.

Wrong; see s. 1(1)(c) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences 27th edition at 2.220

[JNW1]

agtlaw said:

drf765 said:

The police only need to name the day of the offence not the precise time.

Wrong; see s. 1(1)(c) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences 27th edition at 2.220

Ah, so you're saying if the NIP is issued with a time of (say) 15.00 - and you can prove the car wasn't being driven at that time - you're in the clear even if the offence was genuinely committed at (say) 14.00 that day?

[spookly]

The time of the offence is arguably an important part of the information supplied. It allows you to identify when or if you were involved in an offence.
Just because you might have driven past several times that day does not mean it was you driving at the time of the offence.

[cmaguire]

agtlaw said:

Wrong; see s. 1(1)(c) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences 27th edition at 2.220

Steady on, you'll knock him off his soapbox and he might hurt himself (it's a very big soapbox)

[simoid]

KevinCamaroSS said:

I would make no suggestions, merely keep to the fact that the car was provably parked somewhere else at the time of the alleged offence.

If this is the case.

[TooMany2cvs]

simoid said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

I would make no suggestions, merely keep to the fact that the car was provably parked somewhere else at the time of the alleged offence.

If this is the case.

Which, from what we've been told here, it definitely isn't.

[simoid]

probably should be enough in court though

[KevinCamaroSS]

TooMany2cvs said:

simoid said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

I would make no suggestions, merely keep to the fact that the car was provably parked somewhere else at the time of the alleged offence.

If this is the case.

Which, from what we've been told here, it definitely isn't.

Video from the hotel with the time stamp is more than sufficient to raise significant doubt and thus make a guilty verdict extremely unlikely. Also GPS logging from the drivers phone (if available) would also refute the location at the time.

[TooMany2cvs]

KevinCamaroSS said:

TooMany2cvs said:

simoid said:

KevinCamaroSS said:

I would make no suggestions, merely keep to the fact that the car was provably parked somewhere else at the time of the alleged offence.

If this is the case.

Which, from what we've been told here, it definitely isn't.

Video from the hotel with the time stamp is more than sufficient to raise significant doubt...

If it exists. And if the hotel part with it.

But...

rowey200 said:

cptsideways said:

Is the time correct on the CCTV, have you asked?

We don't have any CCTV (Premier Inn have advised us that they only issue it to the Police is assist with criminal investigations). They have however supplied our check-in details / time etc. We have also cross referenced this against phone calls made just prior to our arrival, so we are 100% certain that Premier Inns check in time was correct (ie: not an hour out).

So all we have is the check-in time and "But I made those calls just before checking in, honest..."

[Joeguard1990]

Maybe I'm being dumb here, but now that the 14 days is up, why not just reply back saying that you seeked advise from a lawyer knowing the time stamp was wrong on the 1st NIP and inform them that you know for a fact that the given time stamp was wrong..?

[EU_Foreigner]

How far was the hotel from the incident location? If the distance is too great from the check in time, that would be all you needed. Unless it is of course 100 yards from the hotel and after check in you could have reached it easily.

Unless there is CCTV of the car in the car park at a time where it would be impossible to get to the incident location, I can't see the defense?