S.172 NIP - Incorrect time
Discussion
herewego said:
I think the point is that if she nominates the OP then they can correct the offence time before sending a new S172 to the OP but if she only sends a covering letter then they won't have the opportunity.
The issue is that they can't correct a fatal error or omission on a NIP outside of the initial 14 days.Whenever there is a suggestion that a NIP may contain errors or omissions (which may preclude any person from being convicted of the offence specified on the notice), then it makes absolute sense not to give the police / SCP an early 'heads up' and allow them sufficient time to amend the notice and [re]serve within those 14 days.
This is why the advice in such cases is to return the s.172 form and / or letter such that it would be delivered between 15 and 28 days from the date it was served.
SS2. said:
herewego said:
I think the point is that if she nominates the OP then they can correct the offence time before sending a new S172 to the OP but if she only sends a covering letter then they won't have the opportunity.
The issue is that they can't correct a fatal error or omission on a NIP outside of the initial 14 days.Whenever there is a suggestion that a NIP may contain errors or omissions (which may preclude any person from being convicted of the offence specified on the notice), then it makes absolute sense not to give the police / SCP an early 'heads up' and allow them sufficient time to amend the notice and [re]serve within those 14 days.
This is why the advice in such cases is to return the s.172 form and / or letter such that it would be delivered between 15 and 28 days from the date it was served.
herewego said:
Okay but if she nominates the OP wouldn't that give them the opportunity to amend it?
No, because the requirement is to serve just one 'NIP' - that being the very first one which, subject to certain statutory exemptions (none of which appear to apply here), must be served within 14 days of the alleged offence.This means that not only is there zero requirement to serve a NIP on any subsequently nominated driver, any fatally flawed notice must be amended, re-issued and served within 14 days of the original alleged offence.
SS2. said:
herewego said:
Okay but if she nominates the OP wouldn't that give them the opportunity to amend it?
No, because the requirement is to serve just one 'NIP' - that being the very first one which, subject to certain statutory exemptions (none of which appear to apply here), must be served within 14 days of the alleged offence.This means that not only is there zero requirement to serve a NIP on any subsequently nominated driver, any fatally flawed notice must be amended, re-issued and served within 14 days of the original alleged offence.
agtlaw said:
Don't give them the opportunity to issue another notice (with correct details) within 14 days of the offence date. Once 14 days have passed then the ship has sailed.
Thanks for clarifying. When my wife responds (outside of the 14 days), should she provide my details (as the person responsible for the car during the day of the alleged offence) or simply advise that no one was driving the car at the time of the alleged offence as it was sat in a car park. Thanks again for your help with this
Update. My wife sent off the NIP along with a polite letter (as advised) confirming that her car was not in the location stated at the time of the alleged offence. The response she received today is below:
I assume best advice is to simply do as requested and return the photographs of the car. It's a strange one as my wife made no mention of the car being impersonated in her correspondence (and surely other people who received a NIP from the same camera must have questioned the incorrect time - hence the safety camera partnership will be well aware that the issue is not a case of her vehicle being impersonated)?
Anyway, any sound advice appreciated
I assume best advice is to simply do as requested and return the photographs of the car. It's a strange one as my wife made no mention of the car being impersonated in her correspondence (and surely other people who received a NIP from the same camera must have questioned the incorrect time - hence the safety camera partnership will be well aware that the issue is not a case of her vehicle being impersonated)?
Anyway, any sound advice appreciated
Edited by rowey200 on Wednesday 30th November 20:02
"Unfortunately, without this information, the matter will not be resolved satisfactorily."
Satisfactorily for whom..?
IANAL, but it seems to me that there is now a difference between what you are being requested to do and what you are legally obliged to do. Maybe you would like to invite them to come round and photograph your car themselves. Or recommend a local photographer with whom they have some form of contract.
Satisfactorily for whom..?
IANAL, but it seems to me that there is now a difference between what you are being requested to do and what you are legally obliged to do. Maybe you would like to invite them to come round and photograph your car themselves. Or recommend a local photographer with whom they have some form of contract.
simoid said:
Looks to me like you should make it clear that you're not alleging anything - they obviously think you are. They're the ones doing the alleging and you have an alibi. Can you prove your car was elsewhere?
We can prove that we checked into our hotel 42 mins before the alleged offence and that we parked the car in the hotel car park immediately prior to this (the car did not move from this time until the next day). Edited by simoid on Wednesday 30th November 20:22
rowey200 said:
We can prove that we checked into our hotel 42 mins before the alleged offence and that we parked the car in the hotel car park immediately prior to this (the car did not move from this time until the next day).
How far away is the hotel from the alleged speeding offence? Less than 42 mins?I'm just trying to think like a Decision Maker. I think you might need more than that. They'll see it as "he can prove he was 10 miles(?) away 42 minutes before. Throw the book at him."
Got any pics from hotel or receipts from the bar? Or CCTV at the actual alleged time?
IANAL.
cptsideways said:
Is the time correct on the CCTV, have you asked?
We don't have any CCTV (Premier Inn have advised us that they only issue it to the Police is assist with criminal investigations). They have however supplied our check-in details / time etc. We have also cross referenced this against phone calls made just prior to our arrival, so we are 100% certain that Premier Inns check in time was correct (ie: not an hour out). rowey200 said:
We don't have any CCTV (Premier Inn have advised us that they only issue it to the Police is assist with criminal investigations). They have however supplied our check-in details / time etc. We have also cross referenced this against phone calls made just prior to our arrival, so we are 100% certain that Premier Inns check in time was correct (ie: not an hour out).
Lovely, an' all.Premier Inns keep you locked up and prevent you leaving once you've checked in? Remind me never to stay in one.
Chongwong said:
simoid said:
Is that the guy's name? "Decision maker"? 
I read it as 'A shapely decision maker' XD Are you sure this letter isn't a mate on the wind up?simoid said:
Didn't work for me, at one of the most security & CCTV heavy places in the UK.Cameras weren't working I was told
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff