Recieved an NIP. Now i'm confused.
Discussion
I am not a legal bod but I am confident the answer is, yes, they do. You could try replying in that way but it would be unwise. A S.172 enquiry is completely separate from an allegation of speeding. Its purpose is solely to ascertain who the driver was as only that person can be offered a SAC, a CoFP, or summonsed for an alleged speeding offence. It follows that any decision to NFA or proceed cannot be made until after the information required by the S.172 has been provided. Failure to do so is subject to its own penalty points punishment.
Red Devil said:
I am not a legal bod but I am confident the answer is, yes, they do. You could try replying in that way but it would be unwise. A S.172 enquiry is completely separate from an allegation of speeding. Its purpose is solely to ascertain who the driver was as only that person can be offered a SAC, a CoFP, or summonsed for an alleged speeding offence. It follows that any decision to NFA or proceed cannot be made until after the information required by the S.172 has been provided. Failure to do so is subject to its own penalty points punishment.
Thank youLabbetts said:
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.
If a NIP was issued but specified an entirely different offence, then an amended notice specifying the correct offence would require to be served within the initial 14 days. Failure to do so would be a bar to prosecution.It's already been covered above, but the answer to your question is almost certainly no. This is because the NIP doesn't need to detail specifics of the alleged offence, merely the section under which it is intended to prosecute.
Despite this, and whilst I have no idea of the extent of their belligerence, it really wouldn't surprise me if the SCP chose to drop this once the discrepancy was brought to their attention.
The ball is now in their court - wait and see how they respond.
SS2. said:
If a NIP was issued but specified an entirely different offence, then an amended notice specifying the correct offence would require to be served within the initial 14 days. Failure to do so would be a bar to prosecution.
even if the initial one was correct?Anyone know if lease companies are legally oblidged to hold on to / share these documents?
Labbetts said:
even if the initial one was correct?
Only one NIP requires to be served - no other notices need be sent (at all).Labbetts said:
Anyone know if lease companies are legally oblidged to hold on to / share these documents?
No lawful requirement, but I suspect they may well keep copies. Have you tried phoning and asking ?NoNeed said:
I would love to know from one of our legal bods if the 172 rules still apply if no offence committed.
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?
To obtain a conviction for a section 172 offence the prosecution must prove: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?
1) The vehicle was at the time and place alleged but the prosecuting authority does not have to prove than an offence has taken place.
2) The defendant was served with a request for information by on behalf of a chief officer of police.
3) The defendant did not supply the information within the timeframe allowed.
4) If the request is to "the person keeping the vehicle" then the defendant must prove that he did not know who the driver was and he could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was.
5) If the request is to "any other person" then the prosecuting authority must prove that he has not given information in his power to give to identify the driver.
The defendant may also seek to prove that it "was not reasonably practicable to give [the information]" if, for example, he did not receive the notice.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff