NIP help

[Frenchtvr]

I recently borrowed my friends car on a visit to the UK and I got caught by a camera, completly guilty no problem.

She has completed the form giving my name and address in France where I live.

They have now written to her asking her how and when I travelled to the UK and for insurance details, whilst I am happy to provide her with these details, should they not be contacting me?

Are these kinds of questions normally asked or is it because she has given an address outside of the UK.

Is she legally required to provide these details or just a matter of good will.

[puggit]

As far as I can work out from previous threads - she has fulfilled her duty in naming you and giving your details.

She does not need to provide any further information then that requested on the NIP.

[blueyes]

They're trying it on. She's done all she had to. Tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine!

[Dwight VanDriver]

Mon Ami it eezz because they cannot get at you (yet) that because of the many porkies that 'ave been told in the past to escape Madam Guillotine they are applying zee screws on the owner, Porqui:

All will be aware that in UK there is power for a constable to require a driver of a motor vehicle to produce evidence that the use of the vehicle is covered by Insurance. Also, if non in force then proceedings can be taken against the driver for using without and the owner for offence of using, causing or permitting the use without.

So where do they authorities get the power to ask for Insurance cover as outlined above.

Playing Devils' Advocate one has to go to the production section of Section 165 Road Traffic Act, 1988 which states at (1) (c) ... a person (driver/owner not specified) whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence (any) in relation TO THE USE of a motor vehicle on a road,

MUST,

on being so required by a Constable give name and that of the owner of the vehicle AND PRODUCE Certificate of Insurance. Person who fails to comply commits an offence. No offence if document is produced within 7 days at Police Station. There is no stipulation as to how this requirement has to be made i.e. verbally or in writing so could be both.

In addition to the fact that there is evidence from the camera that use of a vehicle on a road and an offence being committed, Authorities are asking to negate a further possible offence by owner of cause/permit/use without Insurance. Until such time as this is done then can it be said there must be reasonable cause that the offence has been committed. Bearing in mind the vagueries of Insuring for other drivers, this must also add to reasonable cause.

Taking this arguement a step further, if the owner 's Insurance does not cover any other driver, then he can be taken to Court for the offence. Ah you say but the actual driver may have Insurance covering his use and to get the owner off the charge will have to come forward to prove this point at which time the full force of the law can be applied for his misdemeanour. Bit of a catch 22 situation ?.

Whilst I am aware it seems to be a common occurrence that the request for Insurance is made when a foreign driver is named as being involved, I have no knowledge of proceedings ever having been taken for failing to produce under these circumstances or of no Insurance if the owner's certificate does not cover any other Driver. On straight forward pulls where the driver does not produce Insurance, informations have been laid for failing to produce and alternatively No Insurance. So there is alwaysa first time?

Serving BiB comments please.

DVD

[jeffreyarcher]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Playing Devils' Advocate one has to go to the production section of Section 165 Road Traffic Act, 1988 which states at (1) (c) ... a person (driver/owner not specified) whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence (any) in relation TO THE USE of a motor vehicle on a road, MUST, on being so required by a Constable give name and that of the owner of the vehicle AND PRODUCE Certificate of Insurance. Person who fails to comply commits an offence. No offence if document is produced within 7 days at Police Station. There is no stipulation as to how this requirement has to be made i.e. verbally or in writing so could be both. In addition to the fact that there is evidence from the camera that use of a vehicle on a road and an offence being committed, Authorities are asking to negate a further possible offence by owner of cause/permit/use without Insurance. Until such time as this is done then can it be said there must be reasonable cause that the offence has been committed. Bearing in mind the vagueries of Insuring for other drivers, this must also add to reasonable cause.

Not serving BiB, but I'll poke my nose in anyway.
Is there reasonable cause to link the owner / keeper to a speeding offence? Keeper perhaps (inter alia Elliot v Loake), but surely not the owner. Particularly in the instant case where the keeper has denied being the driver and provided driver details which have not been investigated.
However, I would agree probable cause on the 'permitting', so it's academic.
However, since this bit of law is so Draconianly unreasonable, would it stick where there actually was insurance, as in the instant case.
Producing the driver's certificate of insurance is not under the control of the owner. If an owner wrote to the driver's insurance company requesting a copy (which is not a certificate anyway), they would tell him to sod off. He is not the policy holder. Even if a lending owner retained the certificate whilst the vehicle was lent, he would have to return it to the driver at the end of the lend.
So, it simply is not possible to comply with this law if the driver is now unreachable or uncooperative.
165.-(4) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) above by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence to a constable if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that—
(c) it was not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced,

Dwight VanDriver said:

Taking this arguement a step further, if the owner 's Insurance does not cover any other driver, then he can be taken to Court for the offence. Ah you say but the actual driver may have Insurance covering his use and to get the owner off the charge will have to come forward to prove this point at which time the full force of the law can be applied for his misdemeanour. Bit of a catch 22 situation ?.

1) It would be highly likely that the six months for the speeding would be up before the permitting case was heard and the driver had to make an appearance.
2) Would the CPS really insist on the presence of the driver at the court hearing when he saw the contents of the driver's S9 statement? Not much point in putting his costs bill up by the foreign travel element.

Dwight VanDriver said:

Whilst I am aware it seems to be a common occurrence that the request for Insurance is made when a foreign driver is named as being involved, I have no knowledge of proceedings ever having been taken for failing to produce under these circumstances or of no Insurance if the owner's certificate does not cover any other Driver. On straight forward pulls where the driver does not produce Insurance, informations have been laid for failing to produce and alternatively No Insurance. So there is alwaysa first time?

The position with straight forward pulls is much clearer.
Where the driver has failed to produce, or been found guilty, the vehicle was self-evidently being driven uninsured.
However, in the case of an absent foreign driver, there is no evidence that the vehicle was driven uninsured.

>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 1st June 22:16

[jeffreyarcher]

Frenchtvr said:

I recently borrowed my friends car on a visit to the UK and I got caught by a camera, completly guilty no problem. She has completed the form giving my name and address in France where I live. They have now written to her asking her how and when I travelled to the UK and for insurance details, whilst I am happy to provide her with these details, should they not be contacting me? Are these kinds of questions normally asked or is it because she has given an address outside of the UK. Is she legally required to provide these details or just a matter of good will.

This must be Essex?
Basically, as others have said, it's a try on (10th post in thread).

However, since there's no point in generating unneccessary grief for your friend, she may wish to write back, recorded delivery,

Dear Scammer,

Ref: XXXXXXXXXX

I am in receipt of your letter of xx/xx/xx.

I am perplexed that you chose to harrass me about information which I cannot possibly know, and for which you have no statutory authority to require, rather than do what you are supposed to do and contact the driver whose details I gave you on the S172 notice.

I can only reiterate that the details are genuine.

Notwithstanding the above, if, once you have contacted him, should his response be unsatisfactory, I will endeavour to help.

As far as the insurance is concerned, he provided his own, the details of which are:

Policy No. xxxxxxxxx
Mega French Insurance SA,
Rue de Quelque Choses,
Cedex 99999
Paris.

Yours,

>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 1st June 23:18

[Dwight VanDriver]

Interesting points J.A.

You will see that in relation to showing use of a vehicle on a road with Insurance, 165 (1) deals with three incidents (a) - the driver, (b) - driver at time of accident and then what appears a "catch all" -" a person who PC has reasonable cause to have committed an offence in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road." So open that Person could then be RK/owner?

As stated not first post I have seen where RK names Foreign Driver and letter sent back querying Insurance for the vehicle.
So why and where is the power to request this information? 165 (1) (c)?

In relation to certain documentation it appears law states that Guilty until one proves innocent, e.g. Driving Licence, Insurance and Test certificate. Your taken not to have until the contrary is proved by production. So if Insurance covering use of vehicle at time of camera flash cannot be produced covering use other than by RK/Owner then Insurance offence can be processed. After all, Powers that Be class speeders as law breakers and most likely to commit other traffic offences. So Monsieur would have to give evidence at Court as a witness for the Defence and produce such cover if RK/Owner had been unable to do so and charged with Insurance offence.

Funny is it not that despite the great distaste by all on the ever increasing numbers driving without Insurance, a driver without Insurance/ MOT, can get away with it on a camera speed offence - Conditional Offer or prosecution at Court in the high speed range for these documents are never checked. Not so in a roadside pull by BiB. Wouldn't take rocket science to resolve.

I no longer have access to Dept's to learn the philosophy behind these letters - serving BiB's do, hence the request for comments. I would like to know and if non disclosure is ever pursued.

As to 165 (4) not an automatic absolution but a matter to be proved before a Court to get off?

DVD

[WildCat]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Funny is it not that despite the great distaste by all on the ever increasing numbers driving without Insurance, a driver without Insurance/ MOT, can get away with it on a camera speed offence - Conditional Offer or prosecution at Court in the high speed range for these documents are never checked. Not so in a roadside pull by BiB. Wouldn't take rocket science to resolve. DVD

Which, mon petit chou, just about shows the deep flaws in this really daft way of enforcing speed alone as the one and only motoring crime.

Significant number here (and elsewhere) have said time and time again - get rid of scameras and spend the money on trafpol presence, proper education schemes etc, etc.

Figures speak volumes - huge increases overall in people getting convicted for trivial speed offences, less convicted for uninsured, untaxed, drunk, drugged, defective vehicle driving, and no significant change in those questionable statistics.

[kevinday]

A point to note as regards the insurance - Is France the same as many European countries in that it is the vehicle that is insured, and not the driver/car combination as in England? If this is the case then there may be a possible driving without insurance here?

[catchmeifucan]

just an observation but I have worked with several ex gendarmes overseas

and the conception appears to be that Frances' Bureaucratic system is notoriously slow to deal with minor offences ( traffic)that don't occur in their country .

In france for speeding you must be prosecuted within 48 hrs of commiting the offence , generaly a speeding ticket (patrol car ) would be issued on the spot.
( timed distance between 2 points, average speed )is a favourite on motorways.

For commiting a minor speeding offence NIP while in the Uk , then returning to France There are so many legal loopholes that the probability would be that the case is not worth pusuing .

However watch this space .........join the EU and it will all change !!