For those who like a larf...
Discussion
...at those less fortunate than themselves.
I managed to pick up 3 NIP's in 8 minutes in Wales last Saturday.
A449 twice at the same time, different locations, once on the A40 a few miles down the road. All NSL DC. All 87-89 mph.
Have written to Chief Constable suggesting this is all one offence.
RAC legal advisors says if at least one is not dropped going to court is the only option.
As for whether legally I have commited one offence of three there is precedent both ways.
I'll have to wait and see!
As for the inevitable question of my observation skills, well I saw two vans but didn't understand their significance. As for the third one I just don't know. Quite scary that I could have missed a camera or camera van but it looks as though I did.
I managed to pick up 3 NIP's in 8 minutes in Wales last Saturday.
A449 twice at the same time, different locations, once on the A40 a few miles down the road. All NSL DC. All 87-89 mph.
Have written to Chief Constable suggesting this is all one offence.
RAC legal advisors says if at least one is not dropped going to court is the only option.
As for whether legally I have commited one offence of three there is precedent both ways.
I'll have to wait and see!
As for the inevitable question of my observation skills, well I saw two vans but didn't understand their significance. As for the third one I just don't know. Quite scary that I could have missed a camera or camera van but it looks as though I did.
JMGS4 said: DON'T SIGN THEM!!!!!!!!!
Took legal advice. Unsigned forms are not valid in court.
Not signing only works the police don't spot them as being unsigned.
If the police see it's unsigned they return them for signing - contrary to the lies in the paoers you *ARE* compelled to sign.
For other reasons two of the three are returned unsigned, however.
Took legal advice. Unsigned forms are not valid in court.
Correct.
If the police see it's unsigned they return them for signing...
Yes they will, but you still don't have to. In fact, you don't even have to return the NIP again as you've fulfilled your legal obligations.
...contrary to the lies in the paoers you *ARE* compelled to sign.
Utter crap - I'd suggest getting a new brief. S172(7) of the RTA 1988 states NOWHERE that you have to sign the form.
Correct.
If the police see it's unsigned they return them for signing...
Yes they will, but you still don't have to. In fact, you don't even have to return the NIP again as you've fulfilled your legal obligations.
...contrary to the lies in the paoers you *ARE* compelled to sign.
Utter crap - I'd suggest getting a new brief. S172(7) of the RTA 1988 states NOWHERE that you have to sign the form.
FastShow said: Took legal advice. Unsigned forms are not valid in court.
Correct.
If the police see it's unsigned they return them for signing...
Yes they will, but you still don't have to. In fact, you don't even have to return the NIP again as you've fulfilled your legal obligations.
...contrary to the lies in the paoers you *ARE* compelled to sign.
Utter crap - I'd suggest getting a new brief. S172(7) of the RTA 1988 states NOWHERE that you have to sign the form.
You have to fill it out *properly*. That includes signing.
Trust me nobody has looked into this more thoroughly than me.
Why not call the RAC legal advice help line. You talk to a brief there and then and they *never* ask for membership details.
Will take under 30 seconds to sort it out in your head.
Thanks to all the repliers offering advice!
toad_oftoadhall said:
Trust me nobody has looked into this more thoroughly than me.
I'll guarantee you I've done more research on this than you; I've been researching it solidly with a group of other guys for the past 4 months or so. I've got mails from the Magistrates' Association, copies of threatening letters from approximately 9 different constabularies and, most importantly, absolutely no fine or court appearance for a speeding offence from months ago.
The loophole is watertight (at present), the RAC legal advice team are wrong. I'd put money on it.
plotloss said: Could it perhaps be that the Police are suggesting that for the good of motorists everywhere the RAC Legal Line should give false information
But that would suggest we live in a nanny/big brother state where, to take a wild and clearly hypothetical situation as example, you couldn't rely upon the Prime Minister to be truthful about the threats from Iraq in the run up to the war, or even that all these safety cameras had been put up just to collect revenue.
You're such a cynic, Matt!
If the RAC legal advice dept. is anything like their insurance counterpart then I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
From what I have read on these forums, if I get a NIP then I'll just send it back unsigned and see that as the end of it.
Good luck trying to get the three incidents down to one, from what I have seen this can be a hard task
From what I have read on these forums, if I get a NIP then I'll just send it back unsigned and see that as the end of it.
Good luck trying to get the three incidents down to one, from what I have seen this can be a hard task
I have experience of the RAC Legal Advice dept, relating to an insurance claim incident, and they are IMHO fcuking muppets out to ensure they only have to do the minimum amount of work, which in my case was to tell me my grievance was not covered by my policy....even though no factual information had been provided to them, i hadn't even referred my claim to them, and an engineers report on the car relating to the claim had not been completed.
They based their 'legal' opinion on some uninformed gossip they had recieved from my insurer. (My RAC cover came with the Insurance)
IMHO the RAC Legal Advice Dept. is nothing more than a call-centre staffed by legally-clueless telephonists with scrpt sheets.All IMHO and experience
They based their 'legal' opinion on some uninformed gossip they had recieved from my insurer. (My RAC cover came with the Insurance)
IMHO the RAC Legal Advice Dept. is nothing more than a call-centre staffed by legally-clueless telephonists with scrpt sheets.All IMHO and experience
toad_oftoadhall said:
Why not call the RAC legal advice help line. You talk to a brief there and then and they *never* ask for membership details.
Unless the RAC legal service has changed you do not speak to a brief, by that I assume you mean barrister, nor do you speak to a solicitor, you speak to a customer services representative who has been trained to answer simple motoring related legal questions. What is clear is that some one at the RAC thinks the loop hole does not work.
We have to accept that they maybe right. I am of the opinion that they are probably not but so far there is no test case and until we have one then the issue is unresolved.
I would warn people using the not signing route that it is not guaranteed to succeed. So to balance the view on here lets briefly look at how you can lose. It pretty simple really they persecute you under s172 for failing to furnish and the court decides that providing an unsigned certificate does not fulfil the requirements of s 172. You appeal and a court of authority rejects your appeal so case over, you lose.
Before everyone shouts but I did provide the details and no where in s 172 does it say you have to sign. Well that is correct but nor in s 172 does it say you do not have to sign. So the court will have to decide whether an unsigned form fulfils the requirements of s 172. The decision of the court will be based on established rules when interpreting laws, such as The Golden Rule, and the Literal Rule.
I think there are good arguments that an unsigned form fulfils the s 172 requirements but the prosecution will argue that it does not and their arguments may prevail.
For example the prosecution could argue that signing the form is an integral part of providing driver details and if it is not signed then how do not know whether the named party, the registered owner of the vehicle, has provided the details. If it is not signed the information could have been provided by an unknown third party. Therefore, implicitly the act must require that the form be signed. I am sure they will think of other arguments so the position is far from 100% certain.
tonybav said:
For example the prosecution could argue that signing the form is an integral part of providing driver details and if it is not signed then how do not know whether the named party, the registered owner of the vehicle, has provided the details.
But S172 doesn't mention who needs to provide the details, just what needs to be provided.
There are a huge number of areas of law that specificallly mention the requirement to sign, including parts of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, so it seems slightly strange that S172 of the RTA 1988 seems to omit it.
Besides, we then start entering territory that could be challenged again by the European Court of Human Rights as there's a world of difference between being forced to provide details of a driver at the time of an offence and being forced to provide a signed witness statement.
Can open. Worms everywhere.
>> Edited by FastShow on Thursday 29th May 13:54
> Unless the RAC legal service has changed you do not speak to a brief, by that I assume you mean barrister, nor do you speak to a solicitor, you speak to a customer services representative who has been trained to answer simple motoring related legal questions.
- Oh dear. I didn't question their ability to offer advice. I could have been sold a pup.
Is there a barrister/lawyer here who can say for sure?
- Oh dear. I didn't question their ability to offer advice. I could have been sold a pup.
Is there a barrister/lawyer here who can say for sure?
MR2Mike said: I thought the whole unsigned NIP thing kicked off due to a driver that had forgotten to sign, it wasn't picked up by the police and it was dismissed in court? If this was the case (and I'm probably wrong), why wouldn't this set a precedent?
If you are lucky and the police don't check the document is inadmissable. If they check you've fialed to complete the form as required and have achieved nothing - the rozzers can do you for failing to return the form completed. (Although in the real world they send you a standard letter telling you to do so first.)
However others on this site say otherwise so maybe my legal advice was wrong?
I was under the impression that NIPS were sent to the registered holder of the vehicle.
This means they are not necessarily the owner of the vehicle, nor the driver at the time of the offence, nor a passenger at the time of the offence, nor even in the country at the time of the offence, or alive for that matter.
As a result an individual may provide the details of the 'driver' whilst not being that person, ie a third person.
I would suggest, whilst having no legal knowledge or backing for this, that you cannot force someone to sign one's name to anything under duress or threats and for it to remain a valid document.
This means they are not necessarily the owner of the vehicle, nor the driver at the time of the offence, nor a passenger at the time of the offence, nor even in the country at the time of the offence, or alive for that matter.
As a result an individual may provide the details of the 'driver' whilst not being that person, ie a third person.
I would suggest, whilst having no legal knowledge or backing for this, that you cannot force someone to sign one's name to anything under duress or threats and for it to remain a valid document.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff