Time frames for NIPs?

[Busterhighmen]

Is this even a NIP?

Can I get out of this or am I bang to rights?

[GPSHead]

Gloating from Breadvan72 in 5...4...

[TooMany2cvs]

Are you the registered keeper, and is the address it's been sent to the one on the V5C?

[wc98]

GPSHead said:

Gloating from Breadvan72 in 5...4...

just to make his day, the same lot at the same place got me a couple of weeks ago. no complaints ,was paying attention to some goon that decided to speed match me once i got alongside, so added 10 mph to create a bit of distance, at precisely the wrong time.

[Red Devil]

TooMany2cvs said:

Are you the registered keeper, and is the address it's been sent to the one on the V5C?

^^This^^

In any event, I wouldn't even think of trying to ignore it. It's not a NoIP but a S.172 request to identify the driver: only the latter can be prosecuted for an alleged speeding offence. @ the OP, deal with it otherwise you risk a nailed-on 6pts + a fine. If you were the driver then further action will follow. 80mph on the A74(M) will almost certainly be a CoFP - 3pts + £100 fine. Nothing to get excited about unless you you are in line for a totting-up ban.

Unfortunately you don't have the option of a Speed Awareness Course as they are not offered in Scotland - http://www.dgsafetycameras.co.uk/index.aspx?articl...

The location, Holms O/B (overbridge) is at Beattock - https://goo.gl/maps/g2Kbg - one of the known spots for excess speed, which is why the scamerati do so much business there - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotla... and http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-cen...

Even I, a southern fairy living hundreds of miles way, know about that location so anyone who gets caught there is a bit of a plonker tbh.

[Busterhighmen]

Thought so. Was hoping because they took so long I might have got away with it.

oh well

[Busterhighmen]

TooMany2cvs said:

Are you the registered keeper, and is the address it's been sent to the one on the V5C?

No and no. Was a hired van

[TooMany2cvs]

Busterhighmen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Are you the registered keeper, and is the address it's been sent to the one on the V5C?

No and no. Was a hired van

There y'go, then.

The only 14 day requirement is on being sent to the registered keeper.
After that, they have 28 days to get it back. Then it gets processed and sent to the next link, 28 days, rinse, repeat.

If the hire firm lease it...

[Red Devil]

Busterhighmen said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Are you the registered keeper, and is the address it's been sent to the one on the V5C?

No and no. Was a hired van

Ah, having looked again at the letter that explains the 6 week gap between its date and that of the alleged offence.

In which case it's a little odd that you have received a S.172 as I would have expected the hire company to have coughed your name as the driver. I'm not sure of the process in such cases as I have never been in that position, but I would have expected things to have moved to the next stage (CoFP). Unless there was more than one named driver on the hire agreement of course. Maybe the SCP are being doubly careful to make sure you're on the hook or the system in Scotland requires it.

[LoonR1]

GPSHead said:

Gloating from Breadvan72 in 5...4...

You're a bit of a fool really. He doesn't gloat, he simply doesn't start wailing and bleating about it as if some major injustice has happened.

[TooMany2cvs]

Red Devil said:

In which case it's a little odd that you have received a S.172 as I would have expected the hire company to have coughed your name as the driver.

You're the person they believe was in charge of the van. Doesn't mean you're the person who was driving at that time...

[Red Devil]

TooMany2cvs said:

Red Devil said:

In which case it's a little odd that you have received a S.172 as I would have expected the hire company to have coughed your name as the driver.

You're the person they believe was in charge of the van. Doesn't mean you're the person who was driving at that time...

Fair point. It is a possibility that, even if the OP was the only driver stipulated on the hire contract, he foolishly allowed someone else to get behind the wheel so, by issuing a further S.172, the SCP are closing that one off. If he has been so daft, that puts him in an even more awkward position.

[4rephill]

LoonR1 said:

GPSHead said:

Gloating from Breadvan72 in 5...4...

You're a bit of a fool really. He doesn't gloat, he simply doesn't start wailing and bleating about it as if some major injustice has happened.

The saddest part is, Breadvan72 is one of the few people on here who, rather than offering "I heard from a bloke in the pub" advice, actually offers genuine, sensible, real world advice based on the Law, and still we get knobs posting comments to try to bait him/ridicule him, knowing that chances are, he'll walk away from Pistonheads and people will lose out on receiving sensible advice that could be of vital help to them!

[anonymous-user]

Sorry, too busy setting off a speed camera in me new shed to post on here. Smoochies!

PS: on motoring stuff, listen to agtlaw - he is the guru. I only come in here to wind up the "speeding is a human right" brigade.

[SS2.]

Is the envelope in the picture the one that came with the letter ?

If so, to whom is the s.172 request addressed ?

Edited by SS2. on Saturday 18th July 17:22

[SS2.]

Red Devil said:

I'm not sure of the process in such cases as I have never been in that position, but I would have expected things to have moved to the next stage (CoFP).

It can't progress to fixed penalty until the identity of the driver has been determined.

[Busterhighmen]

Thanks for all comments.

No excuse but was my second time on that road (the first being on the way up to Glasgow) so wasn't aware it was a hotspot. And I'm pretty sure at the time I was either a) following a police car or b) overtaking a 1970s classic Mercedes what basically made me look over and Notice the camera too late.

Oh well will send off and pay up