S.172 NIP - Incorrect time

[rowey200]

Long story short, my wife has received a Notice of Intended Prosecution. The NIP alleges that her car was travelling at 35mph in a 30mph zone at 15:00 on 5/11/16. This information is incorrect as her car was parked in a hotel car park at the time, and had been since 14:20 on the day of the alleged offence when I parked it there (this can be confirmed by the hotel's CCTV).

It can be assumed that the Safety Camera Unit have not adjusted their equipment to reflect the clocks going back the week before. How should my wife respond to the NIP? She is requested to tick one of three options (see below), all of which do not apply as the car was not on a public road at the time of the alleged offence (it should also be noted that I was the only person to drive her car on the day). I'm thinking she returns the NIP with a polite explanatory letter, advising of the above. It's then for the camera unit to make the next move - thoughts? Any advice gratefully received

Edited by rowey200 on Tuesday 6th December 18:11

[rowey200]

Helicopter123 said:

This.

It is then up to you how you wish to respond.

Are you denying the offence?

.....at the time it was alleged, yes.

[rowey200]

agtlaw said:

None of those options.

Do not do anything until at least 14 days from the date of the offence.

Keeper must respond. Cover letter. Car not in the place mentioned at the time alleged.

Thanks Andrew

Without sounding like a pedant, it seems reasonable to me that the information the safety camera unit supply (their evidence of the alleged offence) should be correct. In this case it's not (which I can evidence), so I will follow your advice. Could you explain the significance of waiting 14 days?

[rowey200]

agtlaw said:

Don't give them the opportunity to issue another notice (with correct details) within 14 days of the offence date. Once 14 days have passed then the ship has sailed.

Thanks for clarifying. When my wife responds (outside of the 14 days), should she provide my details (as the person responsible for the car during the day of the alleged offence) or simply advise that no one was driving the car at the time of the alleged offence as it was sat in a car park.

Thanks again for your help with this

[rowey200]

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

[rowey200]

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).

[rowey200]

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).

[rowey200]

simoid said:

https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yoursel...

Cheers

[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.