A Different sort of NIP question..
Discussion
Hi Chaps...
some advice needed for "a friend" please..
Said gentleman and his wife were travelling a long way to visit a very sick relative, and took turns driving the car (as one should on a long journey).. suffice to say, when a NIP arrived on the doorstep from this excursion, neither person knew which one had been driving. Due to the number of times swapped, and the heightened emotion of visiting a sick relative, they really could not remember who was behind the wheel at the time.
Said NIP was sent back with a covering letter and explanation of this by the registerd keeper, politely saying that if the Ticket office could provide a photograph to aid in the identification of the driver, then they would be happy to provide more information.
A letter has arrived today saying:
"Notice of Intended Prosecution
I thank you for yor recent letter and note that you are having some difficulty in furnishing me with the identity of the driver when it exceeded the speed limit on DD/MM/YY.
i am concerned about your inability at this time to comply with the vehicle keepers responsibility to identify the driver in the investigation of this offence.
The photographic evidence is held in the Central Ticket office and should you wish to view this evidence you may do so by telephoning XXXX XXXXX between 1000 and 1400 hrs Monday to Friday to make an appointment. When attending the apopintment you will need to bring a proof of identity with you such as a driving licenece. I regret that I am unable to release any photographic evidence to you.
I propose to despatch a further Notice of Intended Prosecution to you and I must remind you that you should complete the notice identifying the driver of the vehicle and if you fail to do so I reserve the right to commence proceedings against the keeper of the vehicle under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Yours..
"
The Ticket office in question for the apointment to be made at, is about 200 miles away. !!
So, why are they "unable to release any photographic evidence".. there's no way that people should have to drive 400 miles, involving time off work, and inevetabley an overnight stay, for the sake of fitting themselves up, surely..
Can the Ticket office rely on non provision of the photograph..? How can they prosecute without providing evidence..?
Any thoughts/help much appreciated chaps.. my "friend" is not sure what to write back in response..
Cheers,
Matt.
>>> Edited by M@H on Monday 19th January 14:04
some advice needed for "a friend" please..
Said gentleman and his wife were travelling a long way to visit a very sick relative, and took turns driving the car (as one should on a long journey).. suffice to say, when a NIP arrived on the doorstep from this excursion, neither person knew which one had been driving. Due to the number of times swapped, and the heightened emotion of visiting a sick relative, they really could not remember who was behind the wheel at the time.
Said NIP was sent back with a covering letter and explanation of this by the registerd keeper, politely saying that if the Ticket office could provide a photograph to aid in the identification of the driver, then they would be happy to provide more information.
A letter has arrived today saying:
"Notice of Intended Prosecution
I thank you for yor recent letter and note that you are having some difficulty in furnishing me with the identity of the driver when it exceeded the speed limit on DD/MM/YY.
i am concerned about your inability at this time to comply with the vehicle keepers responsibility to identify the driver in the investigation of this offence.
The photographic evidence is held in the Central Ticket office and should you wish to view this evidence you may do so by telephoning XXXX XXXXX between 1000 and 1400 hrs Monday to Friday to make an appointment. When attending the apopintment you will need to bring a proof of identity with you such as a driving licenece. I regret that I am unable to release any photographic evidence to you.
I propose to despatch a further Notice of Intended Prosecution to you and I must remind you that you should complete the notice identifying the driver of the vehicle and if you fail to do so I reserve the right to commence proceedings against the keeper of the vehicle under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Yours..
"
The Ticket office in question for the apointment to be made at, is about 200 miles away. !!
So, why are they "unable to release any photographic evidence".. there's no way that people should have to drive 400 miles, involving time off work, and inevetabley an overnight stay, for the sake of fitting themselves up, surely..
Can the Ticket office rely on non provision of the photograph..? How can they prosecute without providing evidence..?
Any thoughts/help much appreciated chaps.. my "friend" is not sure what to write back in response..
Cheers,
Matt.
>>> Edited by M@H on Monday 19th January 14:04
M@H said:
Hi Chaps...
some advice needed for "a friend" please..
Said gentleman and his wife were travelling a long way to visit a very sick relative, and took turns driving the car (as one should on a long journey).. suffice to say, when a NIP arrived on the doorstep from this excursion, neither person knew which one had been driving. Due to the number of times swapped, and the heightened emotion of visiting a sick relative, they really could not remember who was behind the wheel at the time.
Said NIP was sent back with a covering letter and explanation of this by the registerd keeper, politely saying that if the Ticket office could provide a photograph to aid in the identification of the driver, then they would be happy to provide more information.
A letter has arrived today saying:
"Notice of Intended Prosecution
I thank you for yor recent letter and note that you are having some difficulty in furnishing me with the identity of the driver when it exceeded the speed limit on DD/MM/YY.
i am concerned about your inability at this time to comply with the vehicle keepers responsibility to identify the driver in the investigation of this offence.
The photographic evidence is held in the Central Ticket office and should you wish to view this evidence you may do so by telephoning XXXX XXXXX between 1000 and 1400 hrs Monday to Friday to make an appointment. When attending the apopintment you will need to bring a proof of identity with you such as a driving licenece. I regret that I am unable to release any photographic evidence to you.
I propose to despatch a further Notice of Intended Prosecution to you and I must remind you that you should complete the notice identifying the driver of the vehicle and if you fail to do so I reserve the right to commence proceedings against the keeper of the vehicle under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Yours..
"
The Ticket office in question for the apointment to be made at, is about 200 miles away. !!
So, why are they "unable to release any photographic evidence".. there's no way that people should have to drive 400 miles, involving time off work, and inevetabley an overnight stay, for the sake of fitting themselves up, surely..
Can the Ticket office rely on non provision of the photograph..? How can they prosecute without providing evidence..?
Any thoughts/help much appreciated chaps.. my "friend" is not sure what to write back in response..
Cheers,
Matt.
>>> Edited by M@H on Monday 19th January 14:04
Have a peep here www.pepipoo.com/ under fightback forums. You may find something of value.
Be sure to look at the section on the PACE letter and voluntary confessions.
Firstly the concept of the Conditional Offer is not to hold a paper trial but allow those that admit the offence an avenue to get the matter over and dealt with within 28 days.
Secondly, under the Conditional offer, there is nothing by Statute that photographs etc be released at that stage. In can come later under Disclosure of Evidence prior to a Court Case. However some Forces do either send a copy of arrange for a viewing. Those that do, as I have said before,should be applauded.
I can see problems of continuity if the tape was sent to the pair.
Maybe I am sceptical, but I find it hard to believe the driver cannot be identified. Were they changing over every 5 miles? If it doesn't ring true with me what chance before a Bench?
At the moment it looks as if they are going to sheet Reg Keeper for failing to name and shame. Speeding is out as they have to have a driver. It will be up to the Court to decide whether the Reg Keeper did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was. Matters not who the driver was for this, the offence is there and has been committed if no one is named.
So the options seem to be either, as there is no innocent bystander as there was presumably only two in the vehicle, one of them must have been the driver; the one that will be least effected by points could (notice could) hold a hand up or it could be tried that both be named on the form and let the Process Unit have the headache of trying to work out who they are going to go for speeding should they chose to do so. They may of course ignore and stick to the failing to name and shame.
I feel sure that it is on the cards that matters like these will be resolved in the future by Reg. Keepers being made resposible for all matters. It happens for parking infringement. Like it or not.
DVD
Secondly, under the Conditional offer, there is nothing by Statute that photographs etc be released at that stage. In can come later under Disclosure of Evidence prior to a Court Case. However some Forces do either send a copy of arrange for a viewing. Those that do, as I have said before,should be applauded.
I can see problems of continuity if the tape was sent to the pair.
Maybe I am sceptical, but I find it hard to believe the driver cannot be identified. Were they changing over every 5 miles? If it doesn't ring true with me what chance before a Bench?
At the moment it looks as if they are going to sheet Reg Keeper for failing to name and shame. Speeding is out as they have to have a driver. It will be up to the Court to decide whether the Reg Keeper did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was. Matters not who the driver was for this, the offence is there and has been committed if no one is named.
So the options seem to be either, as there is no innocent bystander as there was presumably only two in the vehicle, one of them must have been the driver; the one that will be least effected by points could (notice could) hold a hand up or it could be tried that both be named on the form and let the Process Unit have the headache of trying to work out who they are going to go for speeding should they chose to do so. They may of course ignore and stick to the failing to name and shame.
I feel sure that it is on the cards that matters like these will be resolved in the future by Reg. Keepers being made resposible for all matters. It happens for parking infringement. Like it or not.
DVD
Good answer DvD..
Having done a bit of reading myself too, I will reccomend to the pair of them (who due to the emotional weekend of visiting someone dying in hospital and having some time elapsed over the christmas period really are not certain who was driving), that they write a very polite letter back and list the two possible drivers details.
There has been no dispute as to the offence, merely that the couple are unsure as to whom is to accept the conditional offer.
Cheers,
Matt.
Having done a bit of reading myself too, I will reccomend to the pair of them (who due to the emotional weekend of visiting someone dying in hospital and having some time elapsed over the christmas period really are not certain who was driving), that they write a very polite letter back and list the two possible drivers details.
There has been no dispute as to the offence, merely that the couple are unsure as to whom is to accept the conditional offer.
Cheers,
Matt.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Maybe I am sceptical, but I find it hard to believe the driver cannot be identified. Were they changing over every 5 miles? If it doesn't ring true with me what chance before a Bench?
At the moment it looks as if they are going to sheet Reg Keeper for failing to name and shame. Speeding is out as they have to have a driver. It will be up to the Court to decide whether the Reg Keeper did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was. Matters not who the driver was for this, the offence is there and has been committed if no one is named.
So the options seem to be either, as there is no innocent bystander as there was presumably only two in the vehicle, one of them must have been the driver; the one that will be least effected by points could (notice could) hold a hand up or it could be tried that both be named on the form and let the Process Unit have the headache of trying to work out who they are going to go for speeding should they chose to do so. They may of course ignore and stick to the failing to name and shame.
I feel sure that it is on the cards that matters like these will be resolved in the future by Reg. Keepers being made resposible for all matters. It happens for parking infringement. Like it or not.
DVD
My inclination is to disagree. I can imagine that when driving long distances, and changeing drivers it is possible not to know where one changed, and who was driving at a certain time. This would particularly be the case if one was using a non-motorway route.
For example I used to drive every 3 months or so to Grimsby and I used to stop at a particular Little Chef for breakfast. I know the Little Chef if I go past it, but I would be unable to point out its exact location on a map. Therefore if I did the journey with another driver and swapped drivers at that point and the car was flashed by a camera within a couple of miles of that stop, I wouldn't know who was driving without a fair amount of investigation.
I would fail to see why I should do that investigation and therefore advise the Camera office that it was one of two people, and they could then sort it out. After all they are the ones being paid to sort it out!
The law allows a defense of I don't know because ..... so if one genuinuely doesn't know one might as well use it!
If they had been stopped by a police officer there would have been no question as to who was right and wrong!
An aquaintance of mine had almost exactly the same scenario, after a bit of to and froing the case was dropped, as I suspect the cps didn't really want the time and expense ot taking such a trivial offence to court. My advice for what it is worth, stick to your guns and with a bit of luck they will drop it in yours as well.
kevinday said:
Didn't some relatively famous couple just get away with exactly this............?
The Hamiltons rings a bell.
Found it: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,588-947013,00.html
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff