Legality of not signing NIPs.

[dazren]

Where in law does it say a registerred keeper is not legally obliged to sign the NIP when returning it to the scamera partnership with the relevent info filled in?

DAZ

[jeffreyarcher]

dazren said:

Where in law does it say a registerred keeper is not legally obliged to sign the NIP when returning it to the scamera partnership.?

It doesn't.

[kevinday]

dazren said:

Where in law does it say a registerred keeper is not legally obliged to sign the NIP when returning it to the scamera partnership with the relevent info filled in? DAZ

Dazren, more to the point, where in the law does it say you do have to sign it.... it doesn't.

[dazren]

Thanks.

So if a registerred keeper fills in the details of who they believe was driving and don't sign it, the scamera partneship cannot use this form in evidence in a court procedding against the named individual.

DAZ

>> Edited by dazren on Friday 27th February 12:15

[volvod5_dude]

Don't sign it, don't send it back just bin it!

[jeffreyarcher]

dazren said:

So if a registerred keeper fills in the details of who they believe was driving and don't sign it, the scamera partneship cannot use this form in evidence in a court procedding against the named individual.

No, no, no. This has been covered gazillions of times.
There is no point in a RK not signing when he is not the driver because his form cannot be used as evidence against the driver anyway.
However, by not signing, the RK opens himself up to the likeliehood os a S172 prosecution.
It is only the driver who does not sign.

[idris]

Surprised no one mentioned my appeal to the High Court
March 16, Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.

S172 does not MENTION signature - some cases have been dismissed for lack of signature, others, like me, have been fined £60, £300 costs)

I am appealing as above, that no signature is required
Clearly it is not specified explicitly (unlike Eire's very similar law, which was changed in 2000 to specify signture needed)

The court will decide in effect whether it is required implicitly - I have seen our Counsels skeleton argument, and it looks good to me.

If I win cameras are dead in the water unless the CPS appeal to the HoLords, or the Government change the law Both would take months, so every reason to return unsigned now

idris

[Roadrage]

respect m8 and keep the fight going.

how long for the eropean court case now.
is it still a couple of years off ?

[Dwight VanDriver]

JA and others:

Forms sent to Reg Keeper (who was not the driver) to name driver under S 172. If he doesn't enter details then S 172 kicks in. Entering details of the driver but not signing then complies with the law.

But, and here I playing devils' advocate, the authorities will have details of a driver from Reg Keeper and therefore evidence of this fact signed or not.

So, if the real driver (named by Keeper) does not sign or bins the form there does not appear to be anything to stop them calling the Reg Keeper as a witness in a Court case, whose attendance can be secured by a Witness Summons and if recalcitrant, deal with him as a Hostile Witness.

DVD

[streaky]

Dwight VanDriver said:

JA and others: Forms sent to Reg Keeper (who was not the driver) to name driver under S 172. If he doesn't enter details then S 172 kicks in. Entering details of the driver but not signing then complies with the law. But, and here I playing devils' advocate, the authorities will have details of a driver from Reg Keeper and therefore evidence of this fact signed or not. So, if the real driver (named by Keeper) does not sign or bins the form there does not appear to be anything to stop them calling the Reg Keeper as a witness in a Court case, whose attendance can be secured by a Witness Summons and if recalcitrant, deal with him as a Hostile Witness. DVD

But it is not necessarily the case that a RK will know who was driving at the time of the alleged offence (covered on this Forum before) - Streaky

[jeffreyarcher]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Entering details of the driver but not signing then complies with the law.

FWIW, I agree with you because it is not the intention of the CC to use that forms as evidence to convict he driver (Broomfield), however, many scammers and CPS areas take a different view, i.e. para. 24 of Broomfield, in isolation, and you will be prosecuted. So, since there's no gain, there's no point in taking the risk.

Dwight VanDriver said:

But, and here I playing devils' advocate, the authorities will have details of a driver from Reg Keeper and therefore evidence of this fact signed or not.

They will have knowledge, but not evidence.

Dwight VanDriver said:

So, if the real driver (named by Keeper) does not sign or bins the form there does not appear to be anything to stop them calling the Reg Keeper as a witness in a Court case, whose attendance can be secured by a Witness Summons and if recalcitrant, deal with him as a Hostile Witness.

Correct, but unless the RK was there at the time of the speeding incident, he is of no use. And, unless the circumstances are unusual, they would have no knowledge of this fact anyway.

>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Friday 27th February 15:47

[Dwight VanDriver]

I,m not covering that scenario Streaky, merely what could happen to the RK if he returns the forms naming the driver signed or not.

Obviously if he cannot name the driver, he opens the possibility of 172 prosecution for failing to name and shame and then he will have to prove he cannot with due diligence to the satisfaction of the Beaks.

DVD

[jeffreyarcher]

Dwight VanDriver said:

I,m not covering that scenario Streaky, merely what could happen to the RK if he returns the forms naming the driver signed or not.

I thought you were too.

Dwight VanDriver said:

But, and here I playing devils' advocate, the authorities will have details of a driver from Reg Keeper and therefore evidence of this fact signed or not.

[jeffreyarcher]

So, Dazren, to sum up.
Your wife as the RK names you, and signs, but waits as late into the 28 days as possible before returning the form.
By the time you get yours, it may well be by the 16th March and the result of Idris's appeal will be known. Remember, you will have 28 days too.

[dazren]

Thanks JA, DVD and Idris.

Hope the case goes well Idris.

DAZ

[V6GTO]

So what happens if I get a NiP, fill it out all correctly and sign it, but I have named the driver as Mr B Adams of 132 Acacia Drive, Sydney, Australia?

[boosted ls1]

They'll be stuffed. Can't you think of a german driver or somebody from Soweto or better still a township in Jamaica could be best as the mail usuall gets collected in person from a post office.