80 in a 70 - Pointless question

[LotsOfLaughs]

Super Sonic said:

I'm assuming this is your first nip and you didn't get one for the trailer thing.

No I didnt get one for the trailer, this time its just a dual carrigeway down a steep hill in the dark, cameras are high up, didnt see them.

[MrBen986]

Super Sonic said:

If you get a sac there's no fine, but there's a £100 fee.
You do not have to inform your insurance.

Not true - some insurers do expect to be told about SACs. Check your own insurers position on this.

[NFT]

LotsOfLaughs said:

NFT said:

With it being defective, ensure you also reply after the 14 days period, adding date you received it to be after the 14 days, just to build the wall up with a hint of potential rebuttal on both grounds.

Also, is it defective because it must have been like that when posted?

This would be as opposed to ink washed by Postie dropping in puddle before delivering it????

No, its definetely defective in the manner of a printer running low on ink, or the page being forced out of the machine too quickly. Not been dropped in a puddle or eaten by snails.

Ok, was more directed at legal guys here,

Could 172/NIP be considered served even if unreadable condition on arrival? (I.E if perfect when sent, damaged en route)

Edited by NFT on Thursday 9th November 15:40

[LotsOfLaughs]

Gary C said:

Just send it back now and say you cant read it. They will either send another or won't

Worth a punt.

Ohh no, I can definatelly read it. Theres no case for saying its un-readable. Its just that its technically defective.

[Gary C]

LotsOfLaughs said:

Gary C said:

Just send it back now and say you cant read it. They will either send another or won't

Worth a punt.

Ohh no, I can definatelly read it. Theres no case for saying its un-readable. Its just that its technically defective.

Eh ?

Its a written document who's purpose is to provide information. If its perfectly readable then its not defective. If the ink is running out or the letters are elongated your only leg to say its defective is if all or part is unreadable in some way.

Think its time to suck it up and take it.

[BertBert]

MrBen986 said:

Not true - some insurers do expect to be told about SACs. Check your own insurers position on this.

I think we can safely say there are none left. Admiral was the last one and they stopped ages ago.

As to it being defective, as the last poster has said, of course it's not.

[SS2.]

LotsOfLaughs said:

Gary C said:

Just send it back now and say you cant read it. They will either send another or won't

Worth a punt.

Ohh no, I can definatelly read it. Theres no case for saying its un-readable. Its just that its technically defective.

What is 'technically defective' ?

Either it's valid or it isn't and, from what you've described, it's the former.

[LotsOfLaughs]

SS2. said:

What is 'technically defective' ?

Either it's valid or it isn't and, from what you've described, it's the former.

Has nobody ever printed anything on a printer with no ink before?
Its clearly not as it should be if the printer had ample ink in it. But the words are still readable, if a bit faint.
Right, the reason why Im asking if it might count as defective is if a cheque or a cereal box was printed the same way, it would be defective and it wouldnt work, and it would go in the bin, even if you can still read it.
It doesnt matter, Ill just post it tomorrow.

[agtlaw]

LotsOfLaughs said:

Just had an NIP for 80 in a 70 an a particularly sneaky bit of the A55, average speed camera zone.
Looks like the printer wasnt having the best day when printing my NIP, Im presuming not, but just in case, can this be grounds for ignoring the letter? Its still easily legible but still certainly defective.

Also something that Im sure has been covered before - I noticed it says that you MUST tell them who was driving. Does this mean we dont have the right to remain silent?

Thanks

No.

Correct; see O'Halloran and Francis (2007)

[NFT]

agtlaw said:

LotsOfLaughs said:

Just had an NIP for 80 in a 70 an a particularly sneaky bit of the A55, average speed camera zone.
Looks like the printer wasnt having the best day when printing my NIP, Im presuming not, but just in case, can this be grounds for ignoring the letter? Its still easily legible but still certainly defective.

Also something that Im sure has been covered before - I noticed it says that you MUST tell them who was driving. Does this mean we dont have the right to remain silent?

Thanks

No.

Correct; see O'Halloran and Francis (2007)

Hi agtlaw,

Any known history or thoughts on a 172/NIP arriving as a waterlogged pulpy mush, unable to be unfolded to read it etc..?

[Gary C]

LotsOfLaughs said:

SS2. said:

What is 'technically defective' ?

Either it's valid or it isn't and, from what you've described, it's the former.

Has nobody ever printed anything on a printer with no ink before?
Its clearly not as it should be if the printer had ample ink in it. But the words are still readable, if a bit faint.
Right, the reason why Im asking if it might count as defective is if a cheque or a cereal box was printed the same way, it would be defective and it wouldnt work, and it would go in the bin, even if you can still read it.
It doesnt matter, Ill just post it tomorrow.

I know what you mean, but Im not sure it would count as defective in this case.

[agtlaw]

Gary C said:

I know what you mean, but Im not sure it would count as defective in this case.

Not sure? OP said the notice is “easily legible.” Ludicrous defence.

[Gary C]

agtlaw said:

Gary C said:

I know what you mean, but Im not sure it would count as defective in this case.

Not sure? OP said the notice is “easily legible.” Ludicrous defence.

Hey !

It was a turn of phrase

Ok, I am absolutely certain it doesn't count as defective in this case

Better ?

[ingenieur]

I think the big problem here is that you can still read it. If it was defective to the point where it was illegible you would have an opening.

It is easy to get caught by those A55 average speed cameras, it happened to me.

I believe in always fighting these things but with your license unlikely to be endorsed and nothing else to really argue about you might as well just take this one on the chin and learn how to count 3 average speed cameras with the last one being at the bottom of the hill before the bridge. Set the cruise at about 75mph and wait until you've counted the third camera before 'relaxing'.

[cashmax]

Even if it wasn't readable, what would you do then? (assuming the sender was legible)

[NFT]

This really opens up an new topic for me, I know what to do if arrives late and postie is witness etc.. but what if arrives so waterlogged trying to open just peels bits off.

You could get summons for not replying to 172 months later, it could now be dry and potentially able to be unfolded into pages but in a right old state with blank, stuck, blotchy patches whilst others a bit readable to confirm its reasonably the NIP.

I'm guessing you'd need postie or RoyalMail damaged note to rebut presumption it was served?

[zarjaz1991]

Right to silence? Effectively abolished for these type of offences a long time ago.

Today the law amounts to:
“You must confess to this offence. If you do not do so, we will prosecute you for failing to confess”.

The ship on this sailed a long time ago but nobody should be under any illusions about the fact that the law was changed to make these convictions a near-automatic process.

[LotsOfLaughs]

ingenieur said:

I think the big problem here is that you can still read it. If it was defective to the point where it was illegible you would have an opening.

It is easy to get caught by those A55 average speed cameras, it happened to me.

I believe in always fighting these things but with your license unlikely to be endorsed and nothing else to really argue about you might as well just take this one on the chin and learn how to count 3 average speed cameras with the last one being at the bottom of the hill before the bridge. Set the cruise at about 75mph and wait until you've counted the third camera before 'relaxing'.

This is exactly why I was caught. I was trying to be a bit of a smartarse and do 77 because "10%+2" is when the fines start. Combine that with a tad of speedo inaccuracy that I was also trying to be clever about, and then its easy to get bitten.
Frankly its borderline a national disgrace. "Welcome to Wales - Croeso I Gymru" above the road when you come into Wales, and whats the next thing you see? 50mph signs and average speed cameras. Then it opens up to 70, with more cameras, then it drops back down to 50 near Llandudno, again with more cameras, then back to 70, thankfully no cameras. Then if you go over the bridge its a 50 (fair enough, its only 1 lane each way). But if you dont, and you use the A487 to head south, there are dozens of spots frequented by the camera vans. And if you leave that road and head into any of the towns, its 20mph. Its literally an absolute joke.
"I knew a guy once" who did 140mph on the A487, that road is as smooth as silk, its relatively flat and straight, even at those speeds (Im told) and the visibility is great. The real problems with driving here are actually caused by everything being so far away, and people not wanting to use the busses etc (because theyre crap) so the elderly who really shouldnt be driving keep driving, the drunk and the high get behind the wheel, because theres no other way home. And then there are the weekend warriors in they Porsches/hot hatches etc, and the bikers especially, and they all mix together to make a soup of misrepresentative crash statistics which result in lower speed limits and more speed cameras, neither of which make a blind bit of difference.
Sorry for the rant...

[LotsOfLaughs]

NFT said:

This really opens up an new topic for me, I know what to do if arrives late and postie is witness etc.. but what if arrives so waterlogged trying to open just peels bits off.

You could get summons for not replying to 172 months later, it could now be dry and potentially able to be unfolded into pages but in a right old state with blank, stuck, blotchy patches whilst others a bit readable to confirm its reasonably the NIP.

I'm guessing you'd need postie or RoyalMail damaged note to rebut presumption it was served?

I suppose if it was "discovered" as a way around it, everyone would soak their NIPs and get away with it...
I guess its fair enough. The 14 day statute of limitations is the governments side of the deal, if they break that side of the deal then you get away with breaking their deal of sticking to the limit.
The letter getting soggy wasnt part of the deal.

[richhead]

LotsOfLaughs said:

This is exactly why I was caught. I was trying to be a bit of a smartarse and do 77 because "10%+2" is when the fines start. Combine that with a tad of speedo inaccuracy that I was also trying to be clever about, and then its easy to get bitten.
Frankly its borderline a national disgrace. "Welcome to Wales - Croeso I Gymru" above the road when you come into Wales, and whats the next thing you see? 50mph signs and average speed cameras. Then it opens up to 70, with more cameras, then it drops back down to 50 near Llandudno, again with more cameras, then back to 70, thankfully no cameras. Then if you go over the bridge its a 50 (fair enough, its only 1 lane each way). But if you dont, and you use the A487 to head south, there are dozens of spots frequented by the camera vans. And if you leave that road and head into any of the towns, its 20mph. Its literally an absolute joke.
"I knew a guy once" who did 140mph on the A487, that road is as smooth as silk, its relatively flat and straight, even at those speeds (Im told) and the visibility is great. The real problems with driving here are actually caused by everything being so far away, and people not wanting to use the busses etc (because theyre crap) so the elderly who really shouldnt be driving keep driving, the drunk and the high get behind the wheel, because theres no other way home. And then there are the weekend warriors in they Porsches/hot hatches etc, and the bikers especially, and they all mix together to make a soup of misrepresentative crash statistics which result in lower speed limits and more speed cameras, neither of which make a blind bit of difference.
Sorry for the rant...

Sorry but you are not coming across at all well there, you admit using 77 as your"limit" as thats where the problems start, if you are doing 70 then there will never be a problem, the limit is there for everyone, not just driving gods like you, we all know the limit, so stick to it, if you dont like it get it changed, i also think alot of limits are to low, but understsnd why, have you seen the drivers on the roads today?
And arguing about a badly printed form isnt going to work,
Its like saying i only robbed that guys house a little bit, so im ok right.
Laws are laws, break them and suffer
Dont like them then seek to change them.