Legitmate NIP delaying tactics?
Discussion
Guybrush said:
thisistedious said:
oldsoak said:
Now you want us to come up with some pie in the sky delaying tactics to avoid both sets of 3 points being on your licence together...when what you should be doing is ensuring you don't get caught out AGAIN...
Hi oldsoak! I'm afraid you appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I could give the slightest s
t about such mealy mouthed, statist, apparatchik twaddle. It's inevitable, really, given that it's become impossible to post any question about speeding offences without a herd of bureacracy-fetishising eunuchs bleating in redundant fashion about not breaking the limit in the first place.Put another way, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Or yet another way, sod off!
fluffnik said:
Flintstone said:
So let me get this straight.
Someone is seeking to wriggle out of the consequences of their own lawbreaking and we're fine with that?
Hell yeah!Someone is seeking to wriggle out of the consequences of their own lawbreaking and we're fine with that?
It's your civic duty to overturn bad law.
I think PH has really lost the plot in the last few years. Half the time its response to threads like this sounds more like BRAKE.
Used to be the case that people could ask in this forum as to the most effective way to minimise the consequences of being done for speeding or avoid them altogether, and get plenty of sensible advice. The only vituperation came from those who were fed up of essentially the same questions being asked over and over again, and there wasn't really too much of that.
These days it seems that the majority response to such questions has changed to sanctimonious idiots attacking the questioner and telling him he deserves everything he gets, as if he'd actually done something wrong. He hasn't. He's allowed his speed to exceed an arbitrary number on a stick, in so doing causing precisely zero harm of any description to anyone. Therefore, any artificially-imposed consequences are entirely undeserved and there is nothing wrong with seeking to minimise or avoid them. Yes, it may be illegal to exceed the limit, but that's not the same as wrong. The set of all things that are illegal intersects with the set of all things that are wrong, it is not a wholly-contained subset of it.
grumpy geezer said:
If you commit an offence and the award of points will put you in the ban territory, 12 or more; you will be dealt with at court and a conditional offer cannot and will not be awarded.
The police will always check to see if putting the points on will lead to a ban, the court puts the points on.
The clue was in the words I wrote earlier and you have reflected. So what's your problem?
I think the problem is you have misunderstood the intention of the OP:The police will always check to see if putting the points on will lead to a ban, the court puts the points on.
The clue was in the words I wrote earlier and you have reflected. So what's your problem?
grumpy geezer said:
Your points count from the date of offence so delay is futile and risky.
Yes, the points will count from the date of the offence, but they won't be added to the license until guilt has been proven/admitted, which could be weeks after the date of the offence. If between the date that the NIP is served and the date the points are added other points are due to be removed from the license, the OP can avoid a potentially job-threatening situation whereby there are for a period of time 9 points on the license, assuming a further offence is committed and taken to its conclusion during this time.Imagine the following scenarios:
Preamble: Assume this is day 1. You have 3 points on your license. Being a good citizen and employee, you have informed your employer of this fact as you are a taxi driver. These points are due to be removed from your license on day 20.
Scenario A:
On day 2, you receive a NIP for an SP30 through the post. You send it back the same day, along with your license, admitting guilt with a cheque for £60. On day 6 you receive your license back, endorsed with the 3 points from the SP30. You now have 6 points on your license, and inform your employer of this. They are not happy, but you are still allowed to drive your taxi. On day 7, you receive another NIP for SP30. You send it back the same day, along with your license, admitting guilt with a cheque for £60. On day 11, you receive your license back, endorsed with the 3 points from the SP30. You now have 9 points on your license, and inform your employer of this. They sack you because 6 points is the maximum allowed. On day 20, you send your license back to the DVLA to have your original 3 points removed. On day 24, you receive your license back which now only has 6 points and allows you to drive your taxi again. Tough. You were sacked on day 11.
Scenario B:
On day 2, you receive a NIP for an SP30 through the post. On day 7, you receive another NIP for SP30. You umm and ahh, and eventually send them both back on day 20 -- well within the 28-day period required by the NIPs -- along with your license, admitting guilt with a cheque for £120. On day 24 you receive your license back, endorsed with the 6 points from the SP30s, but with the previous 3 points removed. You now have 6 points on your license. You inform your employer of this. They are not happy, but you are still allowed to drive your taxi. At no point would you have had 9 points on your license, unless you want to be facetious and say that the DVLA clerk added the 6 points before taking off the 3.
Same offences committed, with NIPs recieved on the same days. Same admission of guilt. Different timescales involved in admitting guilt. Different outcome. OP is trying to avoid the possibility of Scenario A.
Edited by The Flying Ox on Saturday 5th March 21:44
grumpy geezer said:
If you commit an offence and the award of points will put you in the ban territory, 12 or more; you will be dealt with at court and a conditional offer cannot and will not be awarded.
The police will always check to see if putting the points on will lead to a ban, the court puts the points on.
The clue was in the words I wrote earlier and you have reflected. So what's your problem?
Also, this has nothing to do with the OPs situation. Why do you think it is relevant?The police will always check to see if putting the points on will lead to a ban, the court puts the points on.
The clue was in the words I wrote earlier and you have reflected. So what's your problem?
[quote=The Flying Ox]
Same offences committed, with NIPs recieved on the same days. Same admission of guilt. Different timescales involved in admitting guilt. Different outcome. OP is trying to avoid the possibility of Scenario A.
Not quite true.
It depends on how much of an arse your employer wants to be. If you are convicted, the points are applied retrospectively to the date of the offence, thus you STILL had 6/9 points on your license until the lapse of the 3yr period for your existing 3 points. It is irrelevant that they physically don't appear on the license until the old points don't count for totting up. You can't have them removed until the end of the third year so they will be there in black and white for people to see and any license check (our fleet company run this every 6 months will also flag the same)
However, for insurance purposes 'pending convictions' can't be circumvented which is where you may have a problem due to non disclosure if you had an accident.
Same offences committed, with NIPs recieved on the same days. Same admission of guilt. Different timescales involved in admitting guilt. Different outcome. OP is trying to avoid the possibility of Scenario A.
Not quite true.
It depends on how much of an arse your employer wants to be. If you are convicted, the points are applied retrospectively to the date of the offence, thus you STILL had 6/9 points on your license until the lapse of the 3yr period for your existing 3 points. It is irrelevant that they physically don't appear on the license until the old points don't count for totting up. You can't have them removed until the end of the third year so they will be there in black and white for people to see and any license check (our fleet company run this every 6 months will also flag the same)
However, for insurance purposes 'pending convictions' can't be circumvented which is where you may have a problem due to non disclosure if you had an accident.
Edited by shep1001 on Sunday 6th March 01:11
"However, for insurance purposes 'pending convictions' can't be circumvented which is where you may have a problem due to non disclosure if you had an accident."
But what is a 'pending conviction'?
Take me as an example - (although as insurance isn't compulsory in New Zealand this is not necessarily quite the same).
The last three times I have been stopped for speeding over the last five years the police (who do the prosecuting here) have dropped the case the day before the hearing - and a motoring related summons for "theft of a wheel clamp" was also dismissed. None of these were 'pending convictions' - as there was never a conviction, so quite legitimately there is no need to inform an insurance company.
When you think about it a conviction is only pending at the end of court case before sentencing. And there is always an appeal.
The OPs first post was a legitimate question, some of the replies appear to have been written by trolls who may have missed out on English lessons at school.
But what is a 'pending conviction'?
Take me as an example - (although as insurance isn't compulsory in New Zealand this is not necessarily quite the same).
The last three times I have been stopped for speeding over the last five years the police (who do the prosecuting here) have dropped the case the day before the hearing - and a motoring related summons for "theft of a wheel clamp" was also dismissed. None of these were 'pending convictions' - as there was never a conviction, so quite legitimately there is no need to inform an insurance company.
When you think about it a conviction is only pending at the end of court case before sentencing. And there is always an appeal.
The OPs first post was a legitimate question, some of the replies appear to have been written by trolls who may have missed out on English lessons at school.
Pigeon said:
Quite.
I think PH has really lost the plot in the last few years. Half the time its response to threads like this sounds more like BRAKE.
Used to be the case that people could ask in this forum as to the most effective way to minimise the consequences of being done for speeding or avoid them altogether, and get plenty of sensible advice. The only vituperation came from those who were fed up of essentially the same questions being asked over and over again, and there wasn't really too much of that.
These days it seems that the majority response to such questions has changed to sanctimonious idiots attacking the questioner and telling him he deserves everything he gets, as if he'd actually done something wrong. He hasn't. He's allowed his speed to exceed an arbitrary number on a stick, in so doing causing precisely zero harm of any description to anyone. Therefore, any artificially-imposed consequences are entirely undeserved and there is nothing wrong with seeking to minimise or avoid them. Yes, it may be illegal to exceed the limit, but that's not the same as wrong. The set of all things that are illegal intersects with the set of all things that are wrong, it is not a wholly-contained subset of it.
Agreed...PH has gone down hill severly in recent years. It is still place where you can find like minded enthusiasts etc. It used to also be a place of empathy and good advice in the instance of brushes with traffic laws, and where most members could be counted on for solidarity against a common enemy (i.e. the overbearing antispeed/environment lobbies), and virtually no aggravation within the threads. These days, there are far too many holier than thou hypocrites on here. I think PH has really lost the plot in the last few years. Half the time its response to threads like this sounds more like BRAKE.
Used to be the case that people could ask in this forum as to the most effective way to minimise the consequences of being done for speeding or avoid them altogether, and get plenty of sensible advice. The only vituperation came from those who were fed up of essentially the same questions being asked over and over again, and there wasn't really too much of that.
These days it seems that the majority response to such questions has changed to sanctimonious idiots attacking the questioner and telling him he deserves everything he gets, as if he'd actually done something wrong. He hasn't. He's allowed his speed to exceed an arbitrary number on a stick, in so doing causing precisely zero harm of any description to anyone. Therefore, any artificially-imposed consequences are entirely undeserved and there is nothing wrong with seeking to minimise or avoid them. Yes, it may be illegal to exceed the limit, but that's not the same as wrong. The set of all things that are illegal intersects with the set of all things that are wrong, it is not a wholly-contained subset of it.
Edited to say, if any genuine PH'ers know of a good alternative forum like PH used to be prior to Haymarket, please PM me
Edited by jezzaaa on Sunday 6th March 06:13
caziques said:
"However, for insurance purposes 'pending convictions' can't be circumvented which is where you may have a problem due to non disclosure if you had an accident."
But what is a 'pending conviction'?
Take me as an example - (although as insurance isn't compulsory in New Zealand this is not necessarily quite the same).
The last three times I have been stopped for speeding over the last five years the police (who do the prosecuting here) have dropped the case the day before the hearing - and a motoring related summons for "theft of a wheel clamp" was also dismissed. None of these were 'pending convictions' - as there was never a conviction, so quite legitimately there is no need to inform an insurance company.
When you think about it a conviction is only pending at the end of court case before sentencing. And there is always an appeal.
The OPs first post was a legitimate question, some of the replies appear to have been written by trolls who may have missed out on English lessons at school.
I disagree, a pending conviction is something you are accused of not that you have been convicted of, thus as the OP states, he is not denying the offence only trying to slow the process down. His conviction is pending, awaiting the offer of a FPN, court date or speed awareness course. If the charge gets drops he is not convicted therefore has no charge to answer and no longer has a pending conviction.But what is a 'pending conviction'?
Take me as an example - (although as insurance isn't compulsory in New Zealand this is not necessarily quite the same).
The last three times I have been stopped for speeding over the last five years the police (who do the prosecuting here) have dropped the case the day before the hearing - and a motoring related summons for "theft of a wheel clamp" was also dismissed. None of these were 'pending convictions' - as there was never a conviction, so quite legitimately there is no need to inform an insurance company.
When you think about it a conviction is only pending at the end of court case before sentencing. And there is always an appeal.
The OPs first post was a legitimate question, some of the replies appear to have been written by trolls who may have missed out on English lessons at school.
I guess at a push you could argue until you admit you were the driver by completing the NIP, thus allowing the court to make an offer as above, no conviction is pending. The facts still remain however, the date of the offence is when the points are applied from and for insurance purposes too.
As a NIP has to be served on the registered keeper within 14 days to identify the driver: you know what’s coming. Insurance companies are not stupid, nor will your employer be, they will join the dots together. Other than asking for a photo to help identify the driver (waste of time if you are the only person allocated/insured to drive said vehicle) they will tell you to poke it if you start spouting b
ks about calibration certificates and the like. If you try to take the piss with smoke and mirrors, no matter if its within the law its a risky game. My advise would be to fess up now (or when/if your NIP arrives) If you worked for me and you tried this, I would give you a right good reaming. If you told me about it, I can't change the law and may havle limited flexability with company protocol but it would alter my view on how I dealt with the situation massively.
Pigeon said:
fluffnik said:
Flintstone said:
So let me get this straight.
Someone is seeking to wriggle out of the consequences of their own lawbreaking and we're fine with that?
Hell yeah!Someone is seeking to wriggle out of the consequences of their own lawbreaking and we're fine with that?
It's your civic duty to overturn bad law.
Whether we like it or not we'll always have speed limits. Why? Because the great unwashed are not the driving gods that we are, we who can always drive to the conditions and not some arbitrary number on a lollipop by the side of the road. If we don't like it then we should campaign to have the law changed rather than come on here moaning when we get caught. How many of those on this thread siding with the OP have done anything to get the laws changed?
That'll be very few then.
This being the case if we choose to drive faster than those limits sometimes (and 'we' do, regularly) then we need to accept that we weren't as good as we thought we were and got caught. We knew what would happen if we got points but we went ahead anyway playing into the hands of those evil speed killjoys. If it were me I'm not so sure I'd publicise my multiple failure on the internet (getting caught, fined, points and ballsing up my car loan) but hey, who am I to judge?
Pigeon said:
I think PH has really lost the plot in the last few years. Half the time its response to threads like this sounds more like BRAKE.
It disappoints me that anyone can fail to see that the speed enforcement racket is The Enemy and should be harried at every opportunity.We should make sure our electeds know where we don't mind cuts falling...
First of all i have to agree that for a website called piston heads many forum members seem to love to stay at 29 and condem those who dont. I arent basing that in this thread, just generally. Mainly based on the fact that the first thread i ever read was someone complaining he felt guilty because he got too much of a thrill out of braking too late, further elaborating that he would never speed, ever, but just the risk of braking too late ...
Getting back to the point, i would have to agree that not recieving the NIP would have to be your best bet. That way you can appeal the second letter, and regardless of how successful that appeal may be you have still wasted a few weeks.
Lastly i have to disagree with "taking points like a man" largely based on the fact three of my car windows were smashed. I knew who had done it. I over heard the police admitting the guy had more than likely done it (based on the circumstantial evidence). But with no hard evidence to go on the man wasnt even questioned. I'd avoid points based on the idea that i can be pulled over for going round a corner "too quickly", yet someone can vandalise my property without even a knock on the door.
Getting back to the point, i would have to agree that not recieving the NIP would have to be your best bet. That way you can appeal the second letter, and regardless of how successful that appeal may be you have still wasted a few weeks.
Lastly i have to disagree with "taking points like a man" largely based on the fact three of my car windows were smashed. I knew who had done it. I over heard the police admitting the guy had more than likely done it (based on the circumstantial evidence). But with no hard evidence to go on the man wasnt even questioned. I'd avoid points based on the idea that i can be pulled over for going round a corner "too quickly", yet someone can vandalise my property without even a knock on the door.
shep1001 said:
Insurance will always ask for 'pending' convictions too so either way you have to disclose.
No. You're wrong. They don't.shep1001 said:
I disagree, a pending conviction is something you are accused of not that you have been convicted of, thus as the OP states, he is not denying the offence only trying to slow the process down. His conviction is pending, awaiting the offer of a FPN, court date or speed awareness course. If the charge gets drops he is not convicted therefore has no charge to answer and no longer has a pending conviction.
You may disagree but you're still wrong. See below.caziques said:
When you think about it a conviction is only pending at the end of court case before sentencing.
Spot on.At such an early stage in the process to refer to 'pending conviction' is not only an illogical construct but, as Winston Churchill put it in 1906, a terminological inexactitude. I prefer to call it b
ks. The question insurers ask is whether there are any 'prosecutions pending'. For them to ask one which it is impossible to answer would be, not merely daft, but quite improper.
The clue is in the title of the document - NoIP. Even the state has not yet gone so far as to decide it should be a NoIC (Notice of Intended Conviction. (A cynic might say it's just a matter of time!)
caziques said:
The OPs first post was a legitimate question, some of the replies appear to have been written by trolls who may have missed out on English lessons at school.
Don't know about trolling but poor English, muddled thinking, and illogical reasoning are prevalent features. It is characteristic of PH that topics frequently get diverted away from the original question. The end result is a 'thread within a thread' with pages of irrelevant debate frequently strewn with opinions (often highly polarised and contentious) instead of facts. The question posed by an OP gets subverted, sometimes completely lost, in the ocean of superfluous verbiage.I sometimes wonder whether the perpetrators are training as prospective candidates for election as a Member of Parliament where such attributes will be a major asset.
BDZ said:
You could do everything you've suggested but asking for calibration docs etc would only follow a not guilty plea, which means a trial. Courts will accept reasonable grounds to adjourn trials BUT they won't delay things simply so you can avoid prosecution. If they think you are dragging things out for the sake of it they'll nail your hat on.
I very much enjoyed dragging one out to 12 court appearances and still only stumped up the 60.00 initial fine.Must have cost the b
ds a fortune and was worth every penny. Like some have said, if we all did this the whole scam would collapse like the pile of st it really is. Drag it out as long as possible, go not guilty, put in a defence statement covering reasons for your not guilty plea and asking for disclosure of everything pertinent to your plea and statement. They will mess it up every time, like for example providing a speedo calibration for a VASCAR detection etc. They will also accuse you of "fishing" rather than legitimately attempting to get full disclosure. Simple answer to that is that full disclosure is trivial if they have the documentation, so why do they not just supply it? Enjoy yourself, even if you lose it's great fun.fatjon said:
I very much enjoyed dragging one out to 12 court appearances and still only stumped up the 60.00 initial fine.
Must have cost the bds a fortune and was worth every penny. Like some have said, if we all did this the whole scam would collapse like the pile of st it really is. Drag it out as long as possible, go not guilty, put in a defence statement covering reasons for your not guilty plea and asking for disclosure of everything pertinent to your plea and statement. They will mess it up every time, like for example providing a speedo calibration for a VASCAR detection etc. They will also accuse you of "fishing" rather than legitimately attempting to get full disclosure. Simple answer to that is that full disclosure is trivial if they have the documentation, so why do they not just supply it? Enjoy yourself, even if you lose it's great fun.
It may be fun for some but it comes with its risks.Must have cost the b
ds a fortune and was worth every penny. Like some have said, if we all did this the whole scam would collapse like the pile of st it really is. Drag it out as long as possible, go not guilty, put in a defence statement covering reasons for your not guilty plea and asking for disclosure of everything pertinent to your plea and statement. They will mess it up every time, like for example providing a speedo calibration for a VASCAR detection etc. They will also accuse you of "fishing" rather than legitimately attempting to get full disclosure. Simple answer to that is that full disclosure is trivial if they have the documentation, so why do they not just supply it? Enjoy yourself, even if you lose it's great fun.Now couple face £15,000 bill for speeding dispute
fatjon said:
I very much enjoyed dragging one out to 12 court appearances and still only stumped up the 60.00 initial fine.
Must have cost the bds a fortune and was worth every penny. Like some have said, if we all did this the whole scam would collapse like the pile of st it really is. Drag it out as long as possible, go not guilty, put in a defence statement covering reasons for your not guilty plea and asking for disclosure of everything pertinent to your plea and statement. They will mess it up every time, like for example providing a speedo calibration for a VASCAR detection etc. They will also accuse you of "fishing" rather than legitimately attempting to get full disclosure. Simple answer to that is that full disclosure is trivial if they have the documentation, so why do they not just supply it? Enjoy yourself, even if you lose it's great fun.
Interesting view.Must have cost the b
ds a fortune and was worth every penny. Like some have said, if we all did this the whole scam would collapse like the pile of st it really is. Drag it out as long as possible, go not guilty, put in a defence statement covering reasons for your not guilty plea and asking for disclosure of everything pertinent to your plea and statement. They will mess it up every time, like for example providing a speedo calibration for a VASCAR detection etc. They will also accuse you of "fishing" rather than legitimately attempting to get full disclosure. Simple answer to that is that full disclosure is trivial if they have the documentation, so why do they not just supply it? Enjoy yourself, even if you lose it's great fun.I agree that if every NIP issued from a Scamera was contested the system would very quickly be overwhelmed and have no choice but to develop and adapt. This may not be a good thing for the general public though unfortunate enough to get caught. It would most likely lead to a more streemlined system which would, I believe, be further away from fair and justified than we already are. Is it better the devil we know?
As for great fun... not quite sure I could agree with that. Can't imagine anything more problematic than having to deal with the Camera 'Safety' Partnerships and the hassle the courts create.
mybrainhurts said:
Exige77 said:
oldsoak said:
I don't see you have a problem to worry about...
You have three points currently...yes?
More than 6 (you tell us) would be detrimental to your wallet and work prospects..yes?
You stand to gain another 3 points from your latest adventure into the realms of the illegal...Yes?
Well when I went to school (not often and a long while ago) 3+3=6...not more than 6 or less than 6 but 6.
Now you want us to come up with some pie in the sky delaying tactics to avoid both sets of 3 points being on your licence together...when what you should be doing is ensuring you don't get caught out AGAIN...at least until 3 of the points are time barred. Just take the points and move on...life is complicated enough without adding more confusion to it.
Really helpful post You have three points currently...yes?
More than 6 (you tell us) would be detrimental to your wallet and work prospects..yes?
You stand to gain another 3 points from your latest adventure into the realms of the illegal...Yes?
Well when I went to school (not often and a long while ago) 3+3=6...not more than 6 or less than 6 but 6.
Now you want us to come up with some pie in the sky delaying tactics to avoid both sets of 3 points being on your licence together...when what you should be doing is ensuring you don't get caught out AGAIN...at least until 3 of the points are time barred. Just take the points and move on...life is complicated enough without adding more confusion to it.
Ex77
Most confusing...no?
& FWIW,
I wasn't preaching about the evil of speeding I was merely pointing out that the OP (if indeed he receives the 3 points he THINKS he may be getting) he would only have 6 points on his licence. As he told us that any more than 6 would spell trouble for him, he really should be concentrating on getting his head out of his ass and trying his best to avoid getting any more points. Unless of course he already has 6 points and this latest capture will tip him over his self confessed 6 point limit?
Whatever, with that chip on his shoulder and the sort of attitude that only a Mother could love, I've no doubt he will get many more than 6 points before he retires from driving...if he gets that far.
I'm with oldsoak on this one. I've only skimmed through the posts (OK I got bored after the first page) but I really don't see what the problem is - the OP will have a problem with 8 points or more. He is expecting 3 more points (by his own admission).
Why is the OP so hung up on these delaying tactics? He just needs to keep his speed in check for 6 months to avoid problems at work.
Why is the OP so hung up on these delaying tactics? He just needs to keep his speed in check for 6 months to avoid problems at work.
oldcynic said:
I'm with oldsoak on this one. I've only skimmed through the posts (OK I got bored after the first page) but I really don't see what the problem is - the OP will have a problem with 8 points or more. He is expecting 3 more points (by his own admission).
Why is the OP so hung up on these delaying tactics? He just needs to keep his speed in check for 6 months to avoid problems at work.
He has 3 points now. If he can delay the inevitable until these points come off(whatever the term is) then even though the new three points will be added and "backdated" he will still only have 3 points.Why is the OP so hung up on these delaying tactics? He just needs to keep his speed in check for 6 months to avoid problems at work.
NIP never came. Address with DVLA is correct so assume it ain't gonna. Was always marginal, anyway, but with people getting NIPped for 36 in a 30, it doesn't take much these days.
To those of you who tried to help, I salute you. To the jobsworths and apparatchiks who sadly expedite not only their own motoring demise but also doom the rest of us to suffer witless road policing - you know who you are - I fart in your general direction.
Balance is restored to the universe.
To those of you who tried to help, I salute you. To the jobsworths and apparatchiks who sadly expedite not only their own motoring demise but also doom the rest of us to suffer witless road policing - you know who you are - I fart in your general direction.
Balance is restored to the universe.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff