RE: Loophole Still Open
Tuesday 1st April 2003
Loophole Still Open
Speeding prosecutions can still be evaded
Discussion
I'm not sure but I think what happens is that you HAVE to do the court thing and that's where the prosecutions case falls apart. i.e. unsigned form inadmissable as evidence so the judge has no alternative but to dismiss the case
Get someone elses opinion first though, I'm no expert
Good luck
Get someone elses opinion first though, I'm no expert
Good luck
My missus took great delight in telling me the letter had arrived and paraphrased it into one sentence. "If I don't sign they will take me to court!!"
Being the laid back and generally care free guy I am, I haven't actually cast a cursory eye over the said document yet. However, with regard to your last point I have also seen much of the stuff written on the ABD web site and others regarding letters to send in with the document, which I will do. I believe the letter is implying the same as if you don't fill in the form 172. However upon closer inspection of the 172 form nowhere does it actually say you have to sign the form, (unless its hidden in a microdot that forms the full stop in the last sentence and is only readable with an electron microscope).
I would be interested to hear from other parties who have had success with using the said letters, I know Outlaw has had a lot of success using this method.
Being the laid back and generally care free guy I am, I haven't actually cast a cursory eye over the said document yet. However, with regard to your last point I have also seen much of the stuff written on the ABD web site and others regarding letters to send in with the document, which I will do. I believe the letter is implying the same as if you don't fill in the form 172. However upon closer inspection of the 172 form nowhere does it actually say you have to sign the form, (unless its hidden in a microdot that forms the full stop in the last sentence and is only readable with an electron microscope).
I would be interested to hear from other parties who have had success with using the said letters, I know Outlaw has had a lot of success using this method.
FYI, here's a copy of the bullying letter Cambridgeshire Constabulary are sending out.
This letter is the third time they've responded to the unsigned NIP; the first two times they simply returned it with a compliment slip asking me to sign and the third time, I got the letter above.
Interestingly, the third response included a brand new NIP and they didn't return the old one (unlike the previous times). This leaves me with two options, so far as I can see; a) ignore the letter, await summons for failing to provide details, case is dismissed or; b) reply stating that the quoted case is irrelevant, fill in the NIP and don't sign again. I've not decided which way to go yet.
One final point is that we're now well outside of the 28 day response time allowed, so I may get summonsed for failing to provide details whatever.
Anyway, just thought I'd let you know.
This letter is the third time they've responded to the unsigned NIP; the first two times they simply returned it with a compliment slip asking me to sign and the third time, I got the letter above.
Interestingly, the third response included a brand new NIP and they didn't return the old one (unlike the previous times). This leaves me with two options, so far as I can see; a) ignore the letter, await summons for failing to provide details, case is dismissed or; b) reply stating that the quoted case is irrelevant, fill in the NIP and don't sign again. I've not decided which way to go yet.
One final point is that we're now well outside of the 28 day response time allowed, so I may get summonsed for failing to provide details whatever.
Anyway, just thought I'd let you know.
FastShow said: FYI, here's a copy of the bullying letter Cambridgeshire Constabulary are sending out.
This letter is the third time they've responded to the unsigned NIP; the first two times they simply returned it with a compliment slip asking me to sign and the third time, I got the letter above.
Interestingly, the third response included a brand new NIP and they didn't return the old one (unlike the previous times). This leaves me with two options, so far as I can see; a) ignore the letter, await summons for failing to provide details, case is dismissed or; b) reply stating that the quoted case is irrelevant, fill in the NIP and don't sign again. I've not decided which way to go yet.
One final point is that we're now well outside of the 28 day response time allowed, so I may get summonsed for failing to provide details whatever.
Anyway, just thought I'd let you know.
FILL IN THE SECOND ONE DONT SIGN IT
and you could try it on that the nip was sent past the 14 day window if it goes to court may be intresting
dont know if it will work.
when ever i played them up
the just give up never took me to court yet.
Must say its a great letter I would have been proud of it myself. It has just the right hint of treat and what it says is absolutely correct, but what it does not say is why you have to sign the document. Great stuff.
FastTrack fill in the new nip and return by recorded delivery but again do not sign it. So long as the first one was returned within 14 days you should be fine FastTrack, hope you sent it recorded delivery.
>> Edited by tonybav on Thursday 3rd April 16:26
FastTrack fill in the new nip and return by recorded delivery but again do not sign it. So long as the first one was returned within 14 days you should be fine FastTrack, hope you sent it recorded delivery.
>> Edited by tonybav on Thursday 3rd April 16:26
Yeah, the original was sent recorded, but only on the third time back, so technically outside of the 28 day limit, but that was only because they kept refusing to accept it for no lawful reason.
Anyway, I'll get this one sent back unsigned again - just thinking what I can put in the covering letter...
>> Edited by FastShow on Thursday 3rd April 16:49
Anyway, I'll get this one sent back unsigned again - just thinking what I can put in the covering letter...
>> Edited by FastShow on Thursday 3rd April 16:49
I just can't wait until mine arrives. I feel like I'm missing something.
Onto a slightly different note. When my wife asked for a new Driving Licence because of a change of address they bullied her into paying for the photocard to replace her existing paper licence. Nowhere in their letters did they say it was mandatory but they implied plenty that it had to be done. It made her quite ill as she doesn't like having her photograph taken, plus she had to find a proffessional person to sign it etc.
I wrote to them last week and told them I can't find my licence (true) and that I don't want a silly photocard item because I can't afford to pay for the photographs to be taken and can't afford to pay a proffessional person to identify me. I wonder what they will say? I will ask them if they will pay the costs for me
.
Onto a slightly different note. When my wife asked for a new Driving Licence because of a change of address they bullied her into paying for the photocard to replace her existing paper licence. Nowhere in their letters did they say it was mandatory but they implied plenty that it had to be done. It made her quite ill as she doesn't like having her photograph taken, plus she had to find a proffessional person to sign it etc.
I wrote to them last week and told them I can't find my licence (true) and that I don't want a silly photocard item because I can't afford to pay for the photographs to be taken and can't afford to pay a proffessional person to identify me. I wonder what they will say? I will ask them if they will pay the costs for me
.Interesting use of words.
They use "required to fill in and sign" before the quote of the case.
Of course *they* require you to sign the NIP, but the quoted case says nothing about signing the NIP.
It's so well worded I'd give it a 9.5 out of 10 for effort, although I would have actually done it the other way around (quote the case, then state that it's required to fill it in and sign it).
Fill it in (as you are required to do) and you have complied with the quoted act (i.e. you have given a "written reply" and you have "given such information that it is in their power to give which will lead to the identification of the driver". y just filling it in you have complied with the act, and there is didly squat they can say as there is now case law that says that you don't have to sign it (don't you just love case law
). Don't sign it and it's not admissable - and unless they change either the quoted act to say you have to sign it, or the overall admissable evidence you are fine.
If you want you could follow the advice and send a covering letter - either that or just send it back with a compliments slip as is. Eventually they will give up it would seem
J
>> Edited by joust on Friday 4th April 16:12
They use "required to fill in and sign" before the quote of the case.
Of course *they* require you to sign the NIP, but the quoted case says nothing about signing the NIP.
It's so well worded I'd give it a 9.5 out of 10 for effort, although I would have actually done it the other way around (quote the case, then state that it's required to fill it in and sign it).
Fill it in (as you are required to do) and you have complied with the quoted act (i.e. you have given a "written reply" and you have "given such information that it is in their power to give which will lead to the identification of the driver". y just filling it in you have complied with the act, and there is didly squat they can say as there is now case law that says that you don't have to sign it (don't you just love case law
). Don't sign it and it's not admissable - and unless they change either the quoted act to say you have to sign it, or the overall admissable evidence you are fine. If you want you could follow the advice and send a covering letter - either that or just send it back with a compliments slip as is. Eventually they will give up it would seem
J
>> Edited by joust on Friday 4th April 16:12
If anyone has any suggestions as to what should be written on the compliment slip that will be enclosed with the unsigned NIP, please let me know. I'd like to discourage them from sending the NIP back for a _FOURTH_ time!
Personally I'd like to start it: "Dear Fascist Bully Boys", but I understand that may not go down too well...
Personally I'd like to start it: "Dear Fascist Bully Boys", but I understand that may not go down too well...
Two things spring to mind.
1. If for some reason you go to court elect not to give evidence then you can't be cross examined. Instead, you can make a statement if you want.
2. If they return the unsigned NIP to you don't have to send it back. It's proof that you sent it to them in the first place. Send them a letter, making no admissions as outlined on the Safespeed.co.uk site, asking for the evidence against you etc etc.
1. If for some reason you go to court elect not to give evidence then you can't be cross examined. Instead, you can make a statement if you want.
2. If they return the unsigned NIP to you don't have to send it back. It's proof that you sent it to them in the first place. Send them a letter, making no admissions as outlined on the Safespeed.co.uk site, asking for the evidence against you etc etc.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff