Unsigned s172 response rec - next move advice??

[upcreeknopaddle?]

I rec the following letter from the Met Police Driving offences unit last week (dated22/10/03) after returning a non yorke compliant but unsigend form.

"Dear MR UPCREEKNOPADDLE

Case ref xxxxx

I refer to the incident involving XXXX on xx/xx/xx and the notice sent by this office requiring you to provide the name & address of the driver of the motor vehicle at that time.

The requirement to provide details of a driver addressed to you has been returned anonymously to this Unit.

Accordingly a further notice will shortly be sent to you under seperate cover for completion and signature. If you do not supply a signed response to this statutory requirement proceedings will be instituted against you for failure to respond.

yours sincerely

PC PLOD & HIS HENCHMEN"

My question is what now? do i summarily ignore everything that is conseuqeuntly sent to me on the basis a completed but unsigned form was sent by rec delivery to the plods until a summons arrives or they give up or do i get a solicitor to fill out the new one for me and return that anonymously again?

Thanks In advance to anyone kind enough to offer their opinions.......

thanks

[Boosted LS1]

Failure to respond, cobblers. Never heard of that one before. Nope, I'd say you've made your position clear so sit back and wait to see what happens.

[NugentS]

I am in exactly the same situation as you - with the met as well.

I have about 10 days to go on the 2nd NIP and am still considering what to do.

[KenP]

Quote<Accordingly a further notice will shortly be sent to you under seperate cover for completion and signature. If you do not supply a signed response to this statutory requirement proceedings will be instituted against you for failure to respond.>Unquote

A very clever bluff. The statutory requirement refered to concerns the requirement to provide the information . There is no proven statutory requirement to sign. Call their bluff by getting a friend to sign on your behalf. You have still provided the information and they have a signature which they cannot rely on before a court. Alternatively write back to them and ask them for the statute and section which requires the registered holder to sign the information provided.

[wanty1974]

I had a similar letter this morning from South Wales Scamera Partnership which I am having trouble understanding (thicko alert)

Scamera Partnership said:

Without a signature contained in the relevent secytion, the Section 172 driver information form constitutes no admission by the driver. The matter is therefore properly submitted to the Magistrates Court under Section 172 as no individual has accepted liability and the keeper's liability becomes determinable. The Prosecution would not be required to show that the driver had attempted to complete the form.

Love the last bit - now is it me or is this complete twaddle?

[jeffreyarcher]

wanty1974 said:

I had a similar letter this morning from South Wales Scamera Partnership which I am having trouble understanding (thicko alert) Scamera Partnership said: Without a signature contained in the relevent secytion, the Section 172 driver information form constitutes no admission by the driver. The matter is therefore properly submitted to the Magistrates Court under Section 172 as no individual has accepted liability and the keeper's liability becomes determinable. The Prosecution would not be required to show that the driver had attempted to complete the form. Love the last bit - now is it me or is this complete twaddle?

I think what they mean is:
Without a signature contained in the relevent secytion, the Section 172 driver information form constitutes no admission by the driver.
The matter will therefore be properly submitted to the Magistrates Court under Section 172 as no individual has accepted liability and the keeper's liability becomes determinable.
[Comment: there is no requirement for anyone to accept liability under S172]
The Prosecution would not be required to show that the driver had attempted to complete the form.
[Comment: I assume that they're referring to Maudesley here and for speeding.]
In total, yes it's complete tosh.
Why don't you write back to them saying that neither you, nor anyone that you have spoken to understands it. As it is a requirement of PACE (determined to be applicable by Judge Owen in the cases of Yorke & Maudesley -v- CC Cheshire, High Court, July 2003), that the accused understands his rights, could they please arrange to have someone visit you to explain it.

BTW, wanty, I believe S. Wales are sending out their NIPs by second class post. This is not a valid method of sevice for the speeding. Keep the envelopes! Hehe.

>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Wednesday 29th October 14:07

[206xsi]

jeffreyarcher said:

BTW, wanty, I believe S. Wales are sending out their NIPs by second class post. This is not a valid method of sevice for the speeding. Keep the envelopes! Hehe.

If you provide the envelope to prove you weren't serviced the NIP won't you provide the proof that you were serviced it?

[jeffreyarcher]

206xsi said:

If you provide the envelope to prove you weren't serviced the NIP won't you provide the proof that you were serviced it?

They don't have to prove that you received it, only that they posted it, so you have 'lost' nothing.
See: http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?p=2262#2262 .
BTW, they are currently sending out witness statements that they were sent by first class post, even although they were sent second class. I know of several, people in this position; unfortunately they threw the emvelopes out.

[wanty1974]

Damn... didn't keep the envelopes.....

[wanty1974]

...although I will write another 'outlaw-esque' letter to them.

[rs1952]

South Wales Scamera Partnership appear to have difficulty in recognising the difference between their arse and their elbow ....

I have received a summons for both a speeding allegation and a failure to supply, presumably because (perhaps, I can't remember .......) I might have forgotten to sign their form. I received no "reminder" about any failure to sign, however - just a summons.

In my case, I feel that this alone is enough to defend against a "failure to supply" charge, but I would welcome anybody else's opinion !!! (By the way, if the matter goes to court I will be defending myself - can't/ won't afford solicitors bills, hence posting questions like this on this forum!!)

In case there is anybody out there who can help with a bit of advice, the full story is here:

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=64148&f=10&h=0

[318ti]

case law states that

"If it can be properly inferred from the evidence that an unsigned form 172 was made by the defendant, it is admissible in evidence as a confession. "

also,

"A person required to give information has no right to ask for information about the alleged offence before complying with the requirements"

and YES you can be charged with failing to provide details of the driver.

[318ti]

The fine is up to level three on standard scale which is up to £1000.

in some circumstanced that i can't be bothered to mention you could be disqualified

oh and it's obligatory three points

[beano500]

So, does that equate to "damned if you do, damned if you don't"? In which case, brazen it out?

Or is that too simple an interpretation?

[318ti]

all i can say is is that's it's best to reply and save arguing till later. At least later on you might be able to sort it out but ignoring the nip is an easy way to get stuck on.

[318ti]

KenP said:

Quote<Accordingly a further notice will shortly be sent to you under seperate cover for completion and signature. If you do not supply a signed response to this statutory requirement proceedings will be instituted against you for failure to respond.>Unquote A very clever bluff. The statutory requirement refered to concerns the requirement to provide the information . There is no proven statutory requirement to sign. Call their bluff by getting a friend to sign on your behalf. You have still provided the information and they have a signature which they cannot rely on before a court. Alternatively write back to them and ask them for the statute and section which requires the registered holder to sign the information provided.

The section and act is - section 172(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

If you fail to notify then that's what you will be charged with. See my previous posts for details on punishments you can receive.

>> Edited by 318ti on Thursday 30th October 03:35

[wanty1974]

Does anybody have a link to a site that outlines the 'guidelines' which govern the placing of scameras so that Partnerships can keep the profits from them?

[5ltr-chim]

Quote > If you do not supply a signed response to this statutory requirement proceedings will be instituted against you for failure to respond. > Unquote

Is it just me or does this imply upon receipt of the second one sign but don't fill in anything else ?

[wanty1974]

wanty1974 said:

I had a similar letter this morning from South Wales Scamera Partnership which I am having trouble understanding (thicko alert) Scamera Partnership said: Without a signature contained in the relevent secytion, the Section 172 driver information form constitutes no admission by the driver. The matter is therefore properly submitted to the Magistrates Court under Section 172 as no individual has accepted liability and the keeper's liability becomes determinable. The Prosecution would not be required to show that the driver had attempted to complete the form.

Well now... had a response this morning from my request for a police officer to visit me to explain the above and my rights under the PACE regulations.

In a nutshell, they say-

scamera partnership said:

I am somewhat confused as to what you don't understand, but I am sure that any queries you might have will be answered at Court by the CPS or by the Police Officer attending

Is this basically a refusal to provide me with my rights under PACE? They also say that all their NIPs are sent first class post, and that this can be proved in court.

All the paperwork has gone to the CPS. The nice chap at Gwent Police is finding me out lots of statistics about the scamera that flashed my car and I look forward to my day in court.

BTW the missus has suggested that if I represent myself, she would be willing to stand and say she filled in the NIP, but I seem to remember spouses have the same immunity from being called as solicitors. Would she have to prove anything?