Speeding NIP validity

[GaryU]

Page 2 of the NIP I received demanded that I MUST provide my driving license number and DOB.
The police constable on page 1 required, under section 172 of the RTA, only that I provide name and address.
I left them blank and returned the form signed with a covering letter.

I now have a letter admitting that the license number and DOB are required to check if I am eligible for
a speed awareness course. Under section 8 of the human right act they have no right to ask for personal details
unless by act of parliament. (hence section 172)

So I think the NIP is illegal or invalid.

This is the Cambs area. Any idea of the wording in other area's

Any thoughts please.

[SV8Predator]

GaryU said:

Any idea of the wording in other area's

Any thoughts please.

You've (for some bizarre reason) put an apostrophe in areas.

Does this mean your post is invalid?

[Red 4]

GaryU said:

Under section 8 of the human right act they have no right to ask for personal details
unless by act of parliament. (hence section 172)

So I think the NIP is illegal or invalid.

Is this is a wind-up ?

If not, good luck with that one.

[TooMany2cvs]

GaryU said:

So I think the NIP is illegal or invalid.

<clears throat>
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Now, re-read that second clause, and see if you can think about how that might apply here.

OTOH, if you deny being GaryU, and refer to yourself as Gary of the family U, and claim it's all a contract you didn't sign... then you MIGHT be in with a chance.

[emmaT2014]

GaryU said:

Page 2 of the NIP I received demanded that I MUST provide my driving license number and DOB.
The police constable on page 1 required, under section 172 of the RTA, only that I provide name and address.
I left them blank and returned the form signed with a covering letter.

I now have a letter admitting that the license number and DOB are required to check if I am eligible for
a speed awareness course. Under section 8 of the human right act they have no right to ask for personal details
unless by act of parliament. (hence section 172)

So I think the NIP is illegal or invalid.

This is the Cambs area. Any idea of the wording in other area's

Any thoughts please.

Yes, here's (apostrophe in the right place) a thought! Use an online directory and seek a solicitor; you now need one.

[Cooperman]

The request for licence no. & DOB are to check whether you qualify for an SAC. Don't supply those details and you'll just get a COoFP for £100 & 3 points or a trip to the Mags Court as a very minimum. You may well be prosecuted for failing to give details confirming your right to drive the vehicle as well (failure to produce).
So it's your choice really. Bit silly to even consider this as a serious question.

[aw51 121565]

OP, you'll look good with a stripy tan ; in the good old U S of A, the police are rather more short tempered than the Boys in Blue - there are videos on YouTube of people similarly minded to your good self spouting their beliefs then being tazered in the courthouse ...

Your call, but personally I'd keep my head down .

Just saying, like .

[anonymous-user]

GaryU said:

...,Under section 8 of the human right act they have no right to ask for personal details
unless by act of parliament. (hence section 172)


...

You have been misinformed. Section 8 of the HRA deals with remedies and says nothing about provision of information.

Whichever pub lawyer has been advising you was probably thinking of article 8 ECHR, but that does not prevent a request for your personal details.

[anonymous-user]

Red 4 said:

GaryU said:

Under section 8 of the human right act they have no right to ask for personal details
unless by act of parliament. (hence section 172)

So I think the NIP is illegal or invalid.

Is this is a wind-up ?

...

Probably not, alas. The OP has probably been reading some of the nonsense on various woo websites.

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

GaryU said:

Page 2 of the NIP I received demanded that I MUST provide my driving license number and DOB.

If that's exactly what it said, then you could write back and tell them that you don't have a driving license. Nobody in this country does.

[jbsportstech]

GaryU said:

Page 2 of the NIP I received demanded that I MUST provide my driving license number and DOB.
The police constable on page 1 required, under section 172 of the RTA, only that I provide name and address.
I left them blank and returned the form signed with a covering letter.

I now have a letter admitting that the license number and DOB are required to check if I am eligible for
a speed awareness course. Under section 8 of the human right act they have no right to ask for personal details
unless by act of parliament. (hence section 172)

So I think the NIP is illegal or invalid.

This is the Cambs area. Any idea of the wording in other area's

Any thoughts please.

Just incase your wandering this idea that asking you to provide your details on a NIP was in some way infringing your right not to incriminate yourself was a myth about 10 years ago and some people were using it and some police/safety camera units were unsure were to go. It was taken to court and president set sometime ago you can not use that excuse.

It is an offence to not provide details of the driver which is worse punishment than a fixed penalty 3 point £100 fine a speed awareness course. You are best off complying and taking the course as day in court will cost you minimum £100 fine £65 victim surcharge and 3-6 points.

If you don't believe us engage a solicitor, this offence carries a punishment of 6 penalty points and a fine of up to £1,000.

[anonymous-user]

I don't think that the OP is trying the self incrimination line. He apparently thinks that the Government isn't allowed to ask him for personal data. As the text of article 8 ECHR quoted above indicates, the OP is mistaken about this. He has at least done the sensible thing by asking here for advice, but whether he will heed the advice given is another thing.

[mph1977]

Breadvan72 said:

I don't think that the OP is trying the self incrimination line. He apparently thinks that the Government isn't allowed to ask him for personal data. As the text of article 8 ECHR quoted above indicates, the OP is mistaken about this. He has at least done the sensible thing by asking here for advice, but whether he will heed the advice given is another thing.

I think Gary of the Family U was hoping that because the NIP had a bit he didn't like he thought it was an Invalid Contract. I hope he can understand ( rather that UnderStand or Stand Under ) the advice he has been given and should he continue with his semantic-pragmatic disordered thinking on completing the NIP in line with what is being asked won't complain if he recieves a summons or FPN rather than being able to 'get away with' an SAC...

Edited by mph1977 on Monday 6th October 00:44

[anonymous-user]

Is the OP a FOTL'er? The opening post doesn't suggest that he is, but simply that he has picked up some misinformation somewhere about privacy rights.

[GaryU]

I was trying to raise a legal issue.

Is a NIP that demands more information than the police can legally request be legal.

For all those pedants out there. (All forums seem to have them).
I tried to get the grammar correct this this time.

Pedant def.
A person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

[Aretnap]

S172 of the RTA doesn't say anything about names and addresses. It says that the person keeping the vehicle has to provide "such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give..." i would suggest that the driver's date of birth and driving licence number are information about the identity of the driver, and that the police can therefore require them under s172 if they want to.

Even if that's not the case, if the police ask for more information than they're entitled to, it means that you don't have to provide the extra information if you don't want to. It doesn't mean that you don't have to provide the information that they are entitled to demand, still less that you can't be prosecuted for the offence you're accused of at all.

[TooMany2cvs]

GaryU said:

...a NIP that demands more information than the police can legally request...

Once again, slowly...

It doesn't.

[emmaT2014]

GaryU said:

I was trying to raise a legal issue.

Is a NIP that demands more information than the police can legally request be legal.

For all those pedants out there. (All forums seem to have them).
I tried to get the grammar correct this this time.

Pedant def.
A person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

Oh well, at least you tried.

Just give the police what they have asked for because it is legal.

[anonymous-user]

OP, on the information you have provided here, you have no grounds for disputing the validity of the section 172 notice.

[agtlaw]

Breadvan72 said:

OP, on the information you have provided here, you have no grounds for disputing the validity of the section 172 notice.

I agree.