so all in all then... NIP
Discussion
bin reading a few stories of people doing well, all in all would it be fair to say that the best way of dealing with an NIP would be to comply with all the information but without signing it?
eg filling in PART 1 (was the driver at the time of the BLAH BLAH BLAH if not fil in part 2 or 3)
complete part 1 totally, apart from actually signing it, and sending it back?
then seeing what the next letter that the plod send indicates?
or what other options are there?
ta in advance...
eg filling in PART 1 (was the driver at the time of the BLAH BLAH BLAH if not fil in part 2 or 3)
complete part 1 totally, apart from actually signing it, and sending it back?
then seeing what the next letter that the plod send indicates?
or what other options are there?
ta in advance...
There are too many threads on this to mention! Do a search under Speeding&Plod...
A few results:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=51875&f=10&h=0
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&t=47245&h=0
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=61178&f=10&h=0
A few results:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=51875&f=10&h=0
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&t=47245&h=0
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=61178&f=10&h=0
Nobody here can tell you to lie - that would constitute a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (or so I've been told by others here)
But without clear identification evidence, I can't see how the registered keeper can be prosecuted.
It's the registered keeper who has to lead the scamera people towards a UK licence holder willing to accept responsibility.
Being helpful is all that's required by law - but if they keep the photographic evidence secret, then they themselves are guilty of obstructing justice.
If the photos are made available, but are unclear, then....tough luck for the scamera balance sheet!
But without clear identification evidence, I can't see how the registered keeper can be prosecuted.
It's the registered keeper who has to lead the scamera people towards a UK licence holder willing to accept responsibility.
Being helpful is all that's required by law - but if they keep the photographic evidence secret, then they themselves are guilty of obstructing justice.
If the photos are made available, but are unclear, then....tough luck for the scamera balance sheet!
in terms of this case - the registered keeper actually received the NIP first (as they obviously would do)
and named the person in question, who has now been forwarded the NIP.
Firstly, does this change the situation? (as proof of who was driving can still not be shown - its just somebodies word) and
Secondly, I had already read a couple of the links that you posted so cheers - I am confused as to how the defendant does n't have to stand in the witness box?
Eg surely if it went to court they would just put the person in the witness box and say "were you driving" lol... I assume I'm missing something but what? Thanks again in advance.
and named the person in question, who has now been forwarded the NIP.
Firstly, does this change the situation? (as proof of who was driving can still not be shown - its just somebodies word) and
Secondly, I had already read a couple of the links that you posted so cheers - I am confused as to how the defendant does n't have to stand in the witness box?
Eg surely if it went to court they would just put the person in the witness box and say "were you driving" lol... I assume I'm missing something but what? Thanks again in advance.
millasur said:
who has now been forwarded the NIP.
I presume that you don't mean that. I presume that you have now got your own from the police / scameraship. If you do actually mean that the keeper has given it to you, give him it back and tell him to return it properly. On second thoughts, just throw it in the bin and he will be summonsed for s172.
millasur said:
Firstly, does this change the situation? (as proof of who was driving can still not be shown - its just somebodies word)
No it doesn't change the situation, but not for the reason you state. It's because the keeper wasn't there (at the scene of the alleged incident).
millasur said:
I am confused as to how the defendant does n't have to stand in the witness box?
No accused has to go into the witness box (despite what some scameraships are saying).
millasur said:
Eg surely if it went to court they would just put the person in the witness box and say "were you driving" lol...
As above.
cheers for the info, another one was sent yes...
if the accused HAS to go into the witness box, how does anyone win these cases? surely they just put the person into the box and say were you driving, and the person loses?
basically said nip was just going to be filled in and sent back unsigned - is this wise? or should said nip be sent back unsigned with a letter asking for photographic evidence? All these questions are coming as I personally young and trying to dig for info, i cannot simply ring a solicitor and get them on it - too expensive!
>> Edited by millasur on Tuesday 14th October 10:36
if the accused HAS to go into the witness box, how does anyone win these cases? surely they just put the person into the box and say were you driving, and the person loses?
basically said nip was just going to be filled in and sent back unsigned - is this wise? or should said nip be sent back unsigned with a letter asking for photographic evidence? All these questions are coming as I personally young and trying to dig for info, i cannot simply ring a solicitor and get them on it - too expensive!
>> Edited by millasur on Tuesday 14th October 10:36
millasur said:
if the accused HAS to go into the witness box, how does anyone win these cases? surely they just put the person into the box and say were you driving, and the person loses?
As JA says below no accused in any criminal case has to go into the witness box, to do so whould be a breach of your right to silence.
If there is no evidence then you will not be convicted of the speeding but as I have said in other treads you may get prosecuted under 172(3) RTA 1988 for failure to identify the driver which carries 3 penality points on conviction. Then again you may not.
hey, cheers for the reply i just posted a fao to you about the NIPS maili you used to send out 
>s JA says below no accused in any criminal case has to go into the witness box, to do so whould be a breach of your right to silence
aha, thanks for clearing that up.
I think filling information but sending back unsigned is in order, and see what they say?
I license will be saved if the NIP is dropped, the fine or potential fine is a nonconsideration.
>s JA says below no accused in any criminal case has to go into the witness box, to do so whould be a breach of your right to silence
aha, thanks for clearing that up.
I think filling information but sending back unsigned is in order, and see what they say?
I license will be saved if the NIP is dropped, the fine or potential fine is a nonconsideration.
tonybav said:
...but as I have said in other treads you may get prosecuted under 172(3) RTA 1988 for failure to identify the driver.
However, I have not been able to find reference to any cases on the web where a successful (i.e. 'guilty') verdict was obtained, purely on the basis of the form being unsigned (although, as tonybav has said, many summonses have been issued.
millasur said:
...and see what they say?
Ignore what they say, you will get lies, intimidation & bullshit.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 14th October 11:24
jeffreyarcher said:
...but as I have said in other treads you may get prosecuted under 172(3) RTA 1988 for failure to identify the driver.
However, I have not been able to find reference to any cases on the web where a successful (i.e. 'guilty') verdict was obtained, purely on the basis of the form being unsigned (although, as tonybav has said, many summonses have been issued.
I agree JA I have not seen a report on here, heard of any cases, nor seen any Law Reports, on 172(1) RTA 1988 and unsigned NIP’s. I have been told that the CPS are reluctant to pursue cases in case they lose but have no evidence that this is true . All I have ever said about unsigned NIP’s is that there is no case law from a court of authority and there are good arguments as to why an unsigned NIP maybe not fulfil the requirements of 172(1) RTA 1988 which would allow a prosecution under 172(3) RTA 1988.
thanks very much again to both of you.
what if said NIP was filled out and left unsigned as per before, but a letter was included explaining that it's not known who was driving (as it was a long time ago blah blah) and ask for evidence to help identify the driver?
or is that irrelevent because if they say "we're taking the person to court" they have to show what they have as a case anyway - and their only evidence will be a) the registered keeper saying it was the other driver and b) the photo from a gatso showing the back of the car...?
correct?
what if said NIP was filled out and left unsigned as per before, but a letter was included explaining that it's not known who was driving (as it was a long time ago blah blah) and ask for evidence to help identify the driver?
or is that irrelevent because if they say "we're taking the person to court" they have to show what they have as a case anyway - and their only evidence will be a) the registered keeper saying it was the other driver and b) the photo from a gatso showing the back of the car...?
correct?
there are others but they aint legal 
one defence i did use before the unsigned loop hole was.
by sending a very compluicated/confusing letter.
saying i did not know who was driving.
but s172 leaves the registered keeper no choice but to confess.
so there for I heby make a faulse confestion I was the drive.
and hind that in a very long letter up total crap and ramberlings.
the muppets then sent a fix fine too me and i bined that knowing full well that the cps, would spot what I had done and drop.
or which they did
so no points or fine for me
one defence i did use before the unsigned loop hole was.
by sending a very compluicated/confusing letter.
saying i did not know who was driving.
but s172 leaves the registered keeper no choice but to confess.
so there for I heby make a faulse confestion I was the drive.
and hind that in a very long letter up total crap and ramberlings.
the muppets then sent a fix fine too me and i bined that knowing full well that the cps, would spot what I had done and drop.
or which they did
so no points or fine for me
millasur said:
what if said NIP was filled out and left unsigned as per before, but a letter was included explaining that it's not known who was driving (as it was a long time ago blah blah) and ask for evidence to help identify the driver?
FFS, what is it about the simple phrase, "do not enter into further correspondence", that people seem to be unable to understand?
yes take jeffs advice and do nothing else.
he knows what hes talking about.
what i was talking about is a way i got of before the loophole was found.
you cant just say you dont know who was driving.
your get done still.
how i got of was because the muppets at the was too dumb to relise I haddent complied with the nip at all.
but they were not smart enouthg too relise i had not
and thor I had and then sent a FIXed fine.
but when i dident pay. If they sent it too the cps.
they would sush it and relise that they had been had.
>> Edited by outlaw on Tuesday 14th October 14:08
>> Edited by outlaw on Tuesday 14th October 14:10
he knows what hes talking about.
what i was talking about is a way i got of before the loophole was found.
you cant just say you dont know who was driving.
your get done still.
how i got of was because the muppets at the was too dumb to relise I haddent complied with the nip at all.
but they were not smart enouthg too relise i had not
and thor I had and then sent a FIXed fine.
but when i dident pay. If they sent it too the cps.
they would sush it and relise that they had been had.
>> Edited by outlaw on Tuesday 14th October 14:08
>> Edited by outlaw on Tuesday 14th October 14:10
if you can get a few peeps and all to go to court and claim. you all shared driving and cant remember
who was driving at the time. and couldent figer it out from the pic and It dont show the driver clearly
that based on the opic being shit they ushally are
and give evidence in the wicness box.
your get away with it most likely
one more thing if you and a bunch of m8, get too geather and cook it up as a defence.
It can work wonders even if it aint true.
but if anyone cracks and screws up your all end up doing bird.
how ever if you dont It often works a treat.
so does the No my m8 was driving oh no I wasent he was. Defence
as they cant prove wich one of you it was but cant do bother for the same thing.
but aging if you
it up.
your both doing bird for some time
and you all better be 200% shaw there aint a pic or a video. or another wicness.
but wicness can be nobbled
but if you do it right perjury does have it a place
for saving your arss some times.
if you just say guy came to test drive car he was driving I cant remember his name or address," Ithink his name was bob"
your get done anyway
>> Edited by outlaw on Tuesday 14th October 14:29
who was driving at the time. and couldent figer it out from the pic and It dont show the driver clearly
that based on the opic being shit they ushally are
and give evidence in the wicness box.
your get away with it most likely
one more thing if you and a bunch of m8, get too geather and cook it up as a defence.
It can work wonders even if it aint true.
but if anyone cracks and screws up your all end up doing bird.
how ever if you dont It often works a treat.
so does the No my m8 was driving oh no I wasent he was. Defence
as they cant prove wich one of you it was but cant do bother for the same thing.
but aging if you
it up. your both doing bird for some time
and you all better be 200% shaw there aint a pic or a video. or another wicness.
but wicness can be nobbled
but if you do it right perjury does have it a place
for saving your arss some times.
if you just say guy came to test drive car he was driving I cant remember his name or address," Ithink his name was bob"
your get done anyway
>> Edited by outlaw on Tuesday 14th October 14:29
toad_oftoadhall said:
you cant just say you dont know who was driving. your get done still.
Unless you can claim you have taken all reasonable steps to find out!
Maybe the plod can elaborate on this. It looks lik e aglaring loophole to me yet nobody seems to use it. What's the flaw?
It's not a loophole, it's a defence (sub-section (4)). However, success with it is uncertain, at best.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 14th October 14:30
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff