NPI - Photo evidence shows two cars

[busa_rush]

I received a NIP for a car I share with a few people (Diesel estate, tow bar etc, DIY trips, trailer for garden waste etc)

Asked for a picture so the Scamera Partnership sent two pictures, the first shows the speed of the car but there's another car in the picture too, about 6 feet from the car I share. Is this allowable as evidence as it's really not clear which car is exceeding the ridiculous lower limit on the dual carriageway.

The second picture is either a close up zoom of the first, or a second frame from the video or whatever they use, but the driver appears to be wearing sun glasses and wearing a hat ! I don't posses a hat and nobody else who drives the car does either . . . certainly can't identify one of us from the picture.

I'm inclined to suggest they do me for the offence as I'm the registered keeper but I'm not admitting to the offence because it's obviously not me driving.

What's the best course of action ? So far I've declared me as the registered keeper as they know that already, but not signed anything.

Do I need to supply a list of the people who drive the car and let them decide who was driving ?

Thanks

[Cooperman]

Whatever you decide to do don't sign the NIP or anything else to do with the alleged offence.

[busa_rush]

Thanks, haven't signed anything yet. Any other advice ?

Is the photo showing two cars admisable ?

[kevinday]

Something else to consider - Is it in fact your car? If the driver is wearing a hat and none of the none drivers wear hats then maybe it is a case of mistaken identification. Was your car at that location on that day at the given time?

[busa_rush]

Nobody can remember driving it that weekend on that road . . . but then they wouldn't would they ! Bu**ers.

I'm going to suggest to the Scamera Partnership that I take the hit as there's no way we can identify the driver. I'm not going to admit to it as that would be pergery (??) but they've got to try for somebody haven't they. I guess if it goes to court then the picture isn't any good as evidence and I'm not going to admit to it, so there's no proof it was me.

I'm still wondering though about the fact there are two cars in the picture that shows the speed. Is this relevant ?

[kevinday]

busa_rush said:

Nobody can remember driving it that weekend on that road . . . but then they wouldn't would they ! Bu**ers. I'm going to suggest to the Scamera Partnership that I take the hit as there's no way we can identify the driver. I'm not going to admit to it as that would be pergery (??) but they've got to try for somebody haven't they. I guess if it goes to court then the picture isn't any good as evidence and I'm not going to admit to it, so there's no proof it was me. I'm still wondering though about the fact there are two cars in the picture that shows the speed. Is this relevant ?

I do not know about the two cars bit, but if you can show that you have made a reasonable effort to find out who was driving, there is no way you should be penalised. Do not offer the take the hit if you were not driving!

[icamm]

kevinday said:

busa_rush said: Nobody can remember driving it that weekend on that road . . . but then they wouldn't would they ! Bu**ers. I'm going to suggest to the Scamera Partnership that I take the hit as there's no way we can identify the driver. I'm not going to admit to it as that would be pergery (??) but they've got to try for somebody haven't they. I guess if it goes to court then the picture isn't any good as evidence and I'm not going to admit to it, so there's no proof it was me. I'm still wondering though about the fact there are two cars in the picture that shows the speed. Is this relevant ? I do not know about the two cars bit, but if you can show that you have made a reasonable effort to find out who was driving, there is no way you should be penalised. Do not offer the take the hit if you were not driving!

Exactly. If Christine Hamilton can get off with it because she can't remember if she or her husband were driving on that section of road then you have a much better case. You have taken all reasonable steps to identify the driver. Including getting a photo that shows the driver. This clearly does not identify anyone who drives that vehicle (from what you have said). If nothing else take photos of all the other drivers with you to court and, as a last resort, ask the prosecution/bench to match them to the one of the offender.

>> Edited by icamm on Tuesday 23 December 14:20

[HarryW]

Didn't a certain Police force have the same problem, their cars were caught by cameras speeding, but the meticulous records seemed to be not so meticulous when the NIP's arrived.
I seem to recall the CC took a hit on behalf of his force in the way of a slap, i.e. nothing.
If the police cannot name the drivers of their own vehicles, which I find incredulous, what chance does a mere member of the public that has access to pool vehicles have then . There maybe some case to quote on this one, whether it is precedence or not I haven't a scoooby

Harry

[Boosted LS1]

Magistrates hate it when a person pleads guilty whilst stating it wasn't him because they want the system to be fair. They won't want to convict you in those circumstances. If you choose this route you have to make sure they see you as an innocent victim pleading guilty.

[icamm]

Boosted LS1 said:

Magistrates hate it when a person pleads guilty whilst stating it wasn't him because they want the system to be fair. They won't want to convict you in those circumstances. If you choose this route you have to make sure they see you as an innocent victim pleading guilty.

No no no. Do not plead guilty unless you really want to get stuck with the points and fine for something you didn't do.

Prove it wasn't you and that you have done everything possible to identify the driver.

You have already said that the photo does not resemble any of the drivers who have permission to drive this vehicle. Use that. It is a perfectly valid defence in law.

For gods sake, the Hamiltons were both in the car at the time and "they couldn't remember which one was behind the wheel" and they got off. You have done far more than they have to try and identify who it was in your absence.

At the end of the day you can prove it wasn't you, doesn't look like someone who has access to the car so it could have been taken without consent OR even be a ringer. Don't let them shaft you for something you know, and can prove, you didn't do.

[Boosted LS1]

The magistrates won't want to accept your guilty plea as it's being made under protest/duress etc. They will want or be advised by the clerk to enter a not guilty plea and have a trial. Thing is, they may already be sympathetic to your plight

[blueyes]

Boosted LS1 said:

The magistrates won't want to accept your guilty plea as it's being made under protest/duress etc. They will want or be advised by the clerk to enter a not guilty plea and have a trial.

Boosted is right. I did the same with one of our vans from work. Nobody would cough so I went to court in a suit, used the duty solicitor and said " It wasn't me but I have to take the rap or fire somebody- this way will be cheaper" Case dismissed.

Lovely!