More NIP stuff.....Sorry!!!
Discussion
Hi guys!
Sorry to be a pain in the ass. I know this topic's been done to death in here. I've read most of the posts regarding NIPs.
I suppose I just want a little confirmation!
Anyway I got a letter back from Derbyshire Police:
"Dear Mr.XXXXXXXXX"
The form enclosed does not bear the signature of the driver admitting their responsibility. Would you complete one of the Parts 1 to 4 as appropriate.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Mr.XXXX"
Any ideas on how to proceed? Bear in mind this started on 21st May. I have sent the form back twice already. The previous time they sent me photos.
Is it too early to jump in with a "I have been advised that under...blah blah I have no legal obligation to sign the form and have completed the sections in accordance with..."?
Sorry to be a pain in the ass. I know this topic's been done to death in here. I've read most of the posts regarding NIPs.
I suppose I just want a little confirmation!
Anyway I got a letter back from Derbyshire Police:
"Dear Mr.XXXXXXXXX"
The form enclosed does not bear the signature of the driver admitting their responsibility. Would you complete one of the Parts 1 to 4 as appropriate.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Mr.XXXX"
Any ideas on how to proceed? Bear in mind this started on 21st May. I have sent the form back twice already. The previous time they sent me photos.
Is it too early to jump in with a "I have been advised that under...blah blah I have no legal obligation to sign the form and have completed the sections in accordance with..."?
Golf_Fan said:
Now I am confused!
Who is the letter from? Who did it go to?
It was the "husband" bit that confused me the most. And the fact that some of the evidence seems to go against the driver?
The circumstances of the case are irrelevent, it's the sentence quoted at the bottom.
Golf_Fan said:
The form enclosed does not bear the signature of the driver admitting their responsibility. Would you complete one of the Parts 1 to 4 as appropriate.
From the partnerships letter,
Scamera Partnership said:
crucially however there is no statutory requirement to actually sign the document.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 2nd September 23:32
the only way you can win is not go to court .keep out of court .Ask the scamera /police for the evidence they intend to use against you be shown to you at your home address not later than seven days prior to any court hearing and inform them that failure to comply will result in you possible sueing them for non disclosure of evidence ,you need if they proceed to inform the court of the facts plead not guilty to the charges tell them that you believe that you have not been given the partnership`s evidence which they intend to use against you and untill they do you cannot defend yourself in a court of law .I did all of this but made the mistake of going to the hearing the court ruled in my favour except they did me for the offence and 3 points I am still mulling over if I should appeal as my human rights were infringed the case should have been dismissed on the grounds of non disclosure .ps the other people done at the same time as me were all at identical speeds ie 46.0869 mph in a 40 stinks doesnt it?. if they have a picture of the front of the car admit and take it on the chin and vote them out the next time any party that stands against this madness ps when you find them tell me so i can also vote this time last time I said on my vote none of the above was i wrong?. good luck
The letter is interesting as well in that it quotes the Broomfield case, which is totally irrelevant in whether or not you have to sign. The case was relating to somebody who telephoned in the information rather than completing the form. The ruling was that you have to provide the information in writing and did not mention signing at all.
jeffreyarcher!
Sorry for being such a simpleton! I just re-read your post and it makes complete sense now!
I can't believe they would admit something like that in writing!?!
Presumably (like I did) most people would skim-read the letter and only pick up it's negative and threatening tone...without actually noting the get out clause.
Cheers for your help. I reckon I'll just reply shortly and sweetly stating "I have no legal obligation to sign the form." For now anyway.......
>> Edited by Golf_Fan on Thursday 4th September 01:34
Sorry for being such a simpleton! I just re-read your post and it makes complete sense now!
I can't believe they would admit something like that in writing!?!
Presumably (like I did) most people would skim-read the letter and only pick up it's negative and threatening tone...without actually noting the get out clause.
Cheers for your help. I reckon I'll just reply shortly and sweetly stating "I have no legal obligation to sign the form." For now anyway.......
>> Edited by Golf_Fan on Thursday 4th September 01:34
falling that if found guilty .when ask how you going to pay.
tell em to kiss your arss you would rather do the days.
if enoutgh pepole did the same they would soon give it up.
ps if you do than and you manage to get the case up on a the write day you be home for tea.
you wont get a fine out of me ill tell you that for nothing.
tell em to kiss your arss you would rather do the days.
if enoutgh pepole did the same they would soon give it up.
ps if you do than and you manage to get the case up on a the write day you be home for tea.
you wont get a fine out of me ill tell you that for nothing.
Golf_Fan said:
I reckon I'll just reply shortly and sweetly stating "I have no legal obligation to sign the form." For now anyway.......
No! Following the Yorke & Maudesley High Court ruling, you may be prejudicing your case by indulging in correspondence. Either do nothing, or if you feel that you must respond, do as I said. Anyone could have drawn a highlighter across a letter downloaded from the web.
Also, I see you are in Derbyshire. I became aware today that they sent two 'heavies' round to a non signer; they (the 'heavies') filled in a form, threatened him with Lord knows what, and demanded that he sign. Unfortunately he did. If that happens to you; do not invite them in or say anything, other than, "I have nothing to say" or, "Unless you plan to arrest me, good day, gentlemen". Do not say, for example, you have provided the information or that you have filled in the form. That is the evidence they need to confirm that the ubnigned form was signed by you.
jeffreyarcher said:
I reckon I'll just reply shortly and sweetly stating "I have no legal obligation to sign the form." For now anyway.......
No! Following the Yorke & Maudesley High Court ruling, you may be prejudicing your case by indulging in correspondence. Either do nothing, or if you feel that you must respond, do as I said. Anyone could have drawn a highlighter across a letter downloaded from the web.
Also, I see you are in Derbyshire. I became aware today that they sent two 'heavies' round to a non signer; they (the 'heavies') filled in a form, threatened him with Lord knows what, and demanded that he sign. Unfortunately he did. If that happens to you; do not invite them in or say anything, other than, "I have nothing to say" or, "Unless you plan to arrest me, good day, gentlemen". Do not say, for example, you have provided the information or that you have filled in the form. That is the evidence they need to confirm that the ubnigned form was signed by you.
if they did that then it was signed under duress and is inadmisable.
pluss he want to be making a formal complaint fast
if they turnrd up at my door they would be told to leave or they would beromeved by force.
A friend of mine has been flashed in his company car and has received a NIP. Someone suggested to him to ask for the photo as any one of the directors of the company could've been driving the car at the time (which is techincally true). Then if the photo is not clear, claim that they cannot determine who was driving.
Would that stand up? What do you think would happen then? The offence was 46 in a 30 I think....
Would that stand up? What do you think would happen then? The offence was 46 in a 30 I think....
Neil - I used to help run one of the country's larger fleets.
Although we did endeavour to always identify drivers, with 1900 vehicles on the fleet and always hiring rental cars it wasn't always possible.
On a small number of occasions we pleaded that we could not identify the driver, provided documentation as to countless others we had identified...
And got away with it!
Although we did endeavour to always identify drivers, with 1900 vehicles on the fleet and always hiring rental cars it wasn't always possible.
On a small number of occasions we pleaded that we could not identify the driver, provided documentation as to countless others we had identified...
And got away with it!
Basically they have 4 or 5 directors I think, each with their own car but they are all insured to drive any of the cars. Not quite 1900 but the principle is the same I guess? They also have no formal way of identifying who was driving (within the company) and presumably the BiB can't say "well Mr X normally drives the car so it must have been him..."?
I would suggest best plan would be to write to each director and ask if they were driving as you are required to display that you have made a reasonable effort to identify the driver.
If each director writes back in the negative then you don't know who was driving but it helps to cover your @ss
If each director writes back in the negative then you don't know who was driving but it helps to cover your @ss
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff