Nips returned?
Discussion
Ok, I have been keeping abreast of current issues. I sent my NIPS back without signing it and also wrote 'cant find licence' in the spaces for the D/L number. I have found it now but couldn't then. They returned the NIPS and it has a date recieved stamp on it, good.
Their kind letter told me I had to sign it to be able to recieve the special offer of a fine a 3 penalty points. Fuc* off me thinks. It also said that if I didn't sign I would be prosecuted for both the initial speeding offence as well as failing to identify the driver. So, you can guess what I did.
I wrote the suggested short letter confirming they sent the NIPS back to me and also declining their nice offer. I told them I had been advised by my legal advisor never to sign documents that didn't need my signature. I also said I would be happy to meet my legal obligations if they could prove to me I had to sign it.
I sent them the letter today, oh I kept the NIPS as it's my proof that I complied and they don't seem to want it. I will post an update later.
Their kind letter told me I had to sign it to be able to recieve the special offer of a fine a 3 penalty points. Fuc* off me thinks. It also said that if I didn't sign I would be prosecuted for both the initial speeding offence as well as failing to identify the driver. So, you can guess what I did.
I wrote the suggested short letter confirming they sent the NIPS back to me and also declining their nice offer. I told them I had been advised by my legal advisor never to sign documents that didn't need my signature. I also said I would be happy to meet my legal obligations if they could prove to me I had to sign it.
I sent them the letter today, oh I kept the NIPS as it's my proof that I complied and they don't seem to want it. I will post an update later.
grind you down!!!!!
Take a look at this Boosted!
Date: 04/15/03 06:34:44 PM
Name: jfm
Email:
Subject: a different legal analysis
This is from the Uk speedtrap site, interesting reading!
Not sure I agree the legal analysis above. If you go to court, your defence will be that you are putting the prosecution to proof as to identity of the driver. Assuming the photo does not show driver's face, the only ID evidence the CPS have is the NIP. You will then argue that the NIP is inadmissable because not signed. There is no more to say here, job done.
If, as suggested, they then prosecute you under the alternative of not doing the NIP correctly, you say you did complete the NIP. The law does not require you to sign it, only to fill in the other info on it. (By the way, there is no argument that it is somehow implied that you must sign it - see for example Section 8 Taxes Management Act 1970. This is the law that says you must file a tax reurn. This has a specific clause (2) saying you must sign it. Thus there is clearly established principle that the law must specifically require you to sign, else you dont have to). If the magistrate asks you if you did fill it in, and you reply "yes", he/she cannot then say "ah so you were speeding" because the NIP is simply inadmissable as evidence of speeding. In other words, even though you admit to naming yourself on the NIP and therefore the magistrate knows you were speeding, he is legally required to remove that thought from his mind in deciding whter you are guilty of speeding. So he MUST acquit you, becuase while there might be lots of evidence that your CAR was speeding there is zero admissable evidence as to the DRIVER
I have not done this in the case of a NIP, but I did recently successfully defended my speeding case by putting CPS to proof as to identity of car driver. I was acquitted and got my costs refunded.
This is from the Uk speedtrap site, interesting reading!
Date: 04/15/03 06:34:44 PM
Name: jfm
Email:
Subject: a different legal analysis
This is from the Uk speedtrap site, interesting reading!
Not sure I agree the legal analysis above. If you go to court, your defence will be that you are putting the prosecution to proof as to identity of the driver. Assuming the photo does not show driver's face, the only ID evidence the CPS have is the NIP. You will then argue that the NIP is inadmissable because not signed. There is no more to say here, job done.
If, as suggested, they then prosecute you under the alternative of not doing the NIP correctly, you say you did complete the NIP. The law does not require you to sign it, only to fill in the other info on it. (By the way, there is no argument that it is somehow implied that you must sign it - see for example Section 8 Taxes Management Act 1970. This is the law that says you must file a tax reurn. This has a specific clause (2) saying you must sign it. Thus there is clearly established principle that the law must specifically require you to sign, else you dont have to). If the magistrate asks you if you did fill it in, and you reply "yes", he/she cannot then say "ah so you were speeding" because the NIP is simply inadmissable as evidence of speeding. In other words, even though you admit to naming yourself on the NIP and therefore the magistrate knows you were speeding, he is legally required to remove that thought from his mind in deciding whter you are guilty of speeding. So he MUST acquit you, becuase while there might be lots of evidence that your CAR was speeding there is zero admissable evidence as to the DRIVER
I have not done this in the case of a NIP, but I did recently successfully defended my speeding case by putting CPS to proof as to identity of car driver. I was acquitted and got my costs refunded.
This is from the Uk speedtrap site, interesting reading!
I sent mine back unsigned for the 2nd time,, after they sent me a letter saying ht eloophole was close and stating the Broomfield case at me (the Broomfield case was to do with accepting verbal evidence over the phone - not signing the NIP!) - anyway they were trying it on, no doubt to try and stop the 1000's of unsigned NIPS now 
been 3 weeks now and havnt heard a thing - guess it will be a summons next. TBH I dont care if I end up getting 3 pts and a bigger fine for not providing details (although I doubt it) I just want to make it harded for them to raise their £60 tax.
If Id been nicked by a REAL traffic cop for doing some silly speed in a 30/40/50 limit I would have no qualms about owning up (but then I wouldnt do silly speeds!) but to be charged £60 + 3 pts for cruising on a clear day, open stretch of motorway, no accident blackspot, keep pace (going slower than some) with the other traffic at 80 odd mile an hour is just plain ridiculous and stinks of revenue raising....every motorist on the M4 that day will have been sent a NIP....for doing nothing other than going from A-B in their usual safe fashion .....
been 3 weeks now and havnt heard a thing - guess it will be a summons next. TBH I dont care if I end up getting 3 pts and a bigger fine for not providing details (although I doubt it) I just want to make it harded for them to raise their £60 tax.
If Id been nicked by a REAL traffic cop for doing some silly speed in a 30/40/50 limit I would have no qualms about owning up (but then I wouldnt do silly speeds!) but to be charged £60 + 3 pts for cruising on a clear day, open stretch of motorway, no accident blackspot, keep pace (going slower than some) with the other traffic at 80 odd mile an hour is just plain ridiculous and stinks of revenue raising....every motorist on the M4 that day will have been sent a NIP....for doing nothing other than going from A-B in their usual safe fashion .....
bogie said: I sent mine back unsigned for the 2nd time,, after they sent me a letter saying ht eloophole was close and stating the Broomfield case at me (the Broomfield case was to do with accepting verbal evidence over the phone - not signing the NIP!) - anyway they were trying it on, no doubt to try and stop the 1000's of unsigned NIPS now
been 3 weeks now and havnt heard a thing - guess it will be a summons next. TBH I dont care if I end up getting 3 pts and a bigger fine for not providing details (although I doubt it) I just want to make it harded for them to raise their £60 tax.
If Id been nicked by a REAL traffic cop for doing some silly speed in a 30/40/50 limit I would have no qualms about owning up (but then I wouldnt do silly speeds!) but to be charged £60 + 3 pts for cruising on a clear day, open stretch of motorway, no accident blackspot, keep pace (going slower than some) with the other traffic at 80 odd mile an hour is just plain ridiculous and stinks of revenue raising....every motorist on the M4 that day will have been sent a NIP....for doing nothing other than going from A-B in their usual safe fashion .....
Well, exactly. I was done by a revenue-generation van that was sitting on a bridge over a three-lane dual carriageway (A11 near Thetford) on a warm, sunny mid-morning with about three other cars in sight. Don't know exactly what speed they got me for but it's probably about 85mph. Perfectly safe, no danger to other road users since there weren't any. An ideal candidate for a pull-over by a traffic cop and a warning in the ear, if anything, rather than an automated NIP.
But then, I understand Norfolk Constabulary are short of a bob or two.
Its nice to see that I am not alone in this train of thought !!!
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=35439&f=10&h=0
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=35439&f=10&h=0
Yep - too right...Im an ABD member also, and think they do a great job...but Im going to make it as difficult as possible for the ScameraVan Partnerships to collect their tax off me
I want to campaign for a REAL copper on the road instead of every speed camera...now that would cut down on a lot of poor driving and accidents IMHO...but of course that costs money....rather than making profit
I want to campaign for a REAL copper on the road instead of every speed camera...now that would cut down on a lot of poor driving and accidents IMHO...but of course that costs money....rather than making profit
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff