NIP - Photographic Evidence Received -Help please
Discussion
Have just received a "copy of an image captured from a still frame of video recorded evidence". I asked for this so that we could ID the driver.
The image is quite clear of the car (a hire car) but the data of the alleged offence is printed right across the windscreen therefore totally obscuring the driver. Is this the best they can do? Does anyone else have any experience of the likelyhood of being able to ID the driver from the video?
We are disputing the NIP as the hire contract ended on the day of the alleged offence (5 months ago) and my wife can't recall if it was her or the hire company driving at the time?
She has not signed the NIP yet and I have written back asking for evidence that will show the driver!
Any help gratefully received
The image is quite clear of the car (a hire car) but the data of the alleged offence is printed right across the windscreen therefore totally obscuring the driver. Is this the best they can do? Does anyone else have any experience of the likelyhood of being able to ID the driver from the video?
We are disputing the NIP as the hire contract ended on the day of the alleged offence (5 months ago) and my wife can't recall if it was her or the hire company driving at the time?
She has not signed the NIP yet and I have written back asking for evidence that will show the driver!
Any help gratefully received
stever said:
Have just received a "copy of an image captured from a still frame of video recorded evidence". I asked for this so that we could ID the driver.
The image is quite clear of the car (a hire car) but the data of the alleged offence is printed right across the windscreen therefore totally obscuring the driver. Is this the best they can do? Does anyone else have any experience of the likelyhood of being able to ID the driver from the video?
We are disputing the NIP as the hire contract ended on the day of the alleged offence (5 months ago) and my wife can't recall if it was her or the hire company driving at the time?
She has not signed the NIP yet and I have written back asking for evidence that will show the driver!
Any help gratefully received
Well surely all she needs to do is turn up in court and state that it was a hire car, which she returned that day. She can't remember exactly what time but thinks it was before the time of the offence. In theory the hire company will have an accurate record of what time the car was returned, but are obviously blaming her anyway.
My suspicion is that if you can cast doubt as she genuinuely doesn't know she was driving she will get off, as the Hamiltons did last week. I also believe you will find that its highly unlikely the photo has ever been used to identify the driver.
Cheers Chris, trouble is she would rather pay the fine ten times over than go anywhere near a court. She has suffered from Post-Natal depression and couldn't handle the pressure.
I'll continue to dispute the evidence if the photo evidence isn't going to get any better!
Appreciate your comments
I'll continue to dispute the evidence if the photo evidence isn't going to get any better!
Appreciate your comments
stever said:This phrase suggests that the alleged offence was captured by a TrafPol rather than a scamera(I wait to be informed otherwise by those here with more experience). If so, it's surprising that they did not stop the car at the time.
Have just received a "copy of an image captured from a still frame of video recorded evidence". I asked for this so that we could ID the driver.
...
It's also suprising that there is no time shown on the "frame". It might be that any recording (date, time, speed, etc.) is captured on a different 'track' on the 'video', thus disabling the easy display of this information on a specific "frame".
If indeed it is video evidence, I suggest you press to see the entire video and hear the accompanying soundtrack. Reports suggest that the CPS (or police) are extremely reluctant to show such 'evidence' to the accused and certainly to have it shown in court. One has to wonder why (if one doesn't already have a view on this
). Streaky
Streaky - the image does indeed have the time and date on it and it is just this that is plastered across the windscreen of the image in a black band. After 5 months (NIP to hire co then NIP to me, then NIP to Mrs) she can't recall why she was, let alone where!
In fact if you wanted to obstruct the driver yourself you couldn't place it any better. it is possible to see the rear view mirror and the top of the dash but nowt inbetween!
Phoned hire company of course when 2nd NIP received but they were not exactly certain from their records.
She cannot recall a scamera van (probably wouldn't have known one then anyway) and certainly didn't clock a trafpol!
In fact if you wanted to obstruct the driver yourself you couldn't place it any better. it is possible to see the rear view mirror and the top of the dash but nowt inbetween!
Phoned hire company of course when 2nd NIP received but they were not exactly certain from their records.
She cannot recall a scamera van (probably wouldn't have known one then anyway) and certainly didn't clock a trafpol!
stever said:Oops, I missed the fact that you did say 'date'
Streaky - the image does indeed have the time and date on it and it is just this that is plastered across the windscreen of the image in a black band. ...
! But if this is a 'still' from a 'video' then the date/time other information is usually at the bottom of the picture (AFAIK). This sounds as though the information has been added subsequently. If so, I would wonder whether this is a proper procedure and whether it had been followed correctly. Does the NIP contain information relating to the location at which the alleged offence took place? If so, does the picture tend to confirm or gainsay this?
I am surprised that the hire company cannot identify the time at which the vehicle was returned. If indeed they cannot, then they have no basis for saying your wife was driving at the time. They are obliged to keep the necessary records.
Push back on this one.
BTW - why did the hire company send the NIP to you? Did you hire the car? If so, could you have been the driver at the time? If that is possible, then there are three potential sources of driver: you, your wife and the hire company. Maybe there are four if they hired the car out after it was returned by you/your wife. 'Reasonable doubt' springs to mind
NOTE : I am not a lawyer - Streaky
If you're not a lawyer Streaky, maybe you should be!
Hire co returned 1st NIP saying it was me driving as the hire contract was in my name (and charged me £25 barstewards) I received 2nd NIP and returned to say it was HQ driving, hence wife received 3rd NIP! NIP gives road alleged offence took place but is impossible to verify this from the picture!
Makes me wonder if the scamera had any signs up or if it was hidden but then again if it was the wife she would probably be chatting on the mobile too!
Thanks for your help
Hire co returned 1st NIP saying it was me driving as the hire contract was in my name (and charged me £25 barstewards) I received 2nd NIP and returned to say it was HQ driving, hence wife received 3rd NIP! NIP gives road alleged offence took place but is impossible to verify this from the picture!
Makes me wonder if the scamera had any signs up or if it was hidden but then again if it was the wife she would probably be chatting on the mobile too!
Thanks for your help
The hire company, as the "registered keeper" of the said vehicle, are responsible for any speeding/parking fines actioned by its vehicles if they cannot say for sure exactly who was driving THEIR vehicle at the specific time of an offence.
It is down to the hire company to identify the driver at the time the alleged offence took place, and if they can't, then I believe the directors of the hire company are culpable.
From what you say, the hire company's records do not accurately show for sure that you or your wife had the said vehicle on hire at the exact time of the alleged offence, therefore, it is all down to the hire company to PROVE that you aor your wife were the driver at the time, otherwise the registered keepers take the rap.
If I were you, I'd throw it back to the hire company, and state that you believe that you nor wife were not the driver at the time of the alleged offence, but are prepared to be corrected should the hire company be in a position to categorically prove that you had not returned the car at the time of the alleged offence or obtain the photographic evidence that you or your wife were driving at the time.
I am not a lawyer, but done a fair bit of research on something similar, after my daughter picked up a parking ticket and the Council come after me as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
It is down to the hire company to identify the driver at the time the alleged offence took place, and if they can't, then I believe the directors of the hire company are culpable.
From what you say, the hire company's records do not accurately show for sure that you or your wife had the said vehicle on hire at the exact time of the alleged offence, therefore, it is all down to the hire company to PROVE that you aor your wife were the driver at the time, otherwise the registered keepers take the rap.
If I were you, I'd throw it back to the hire company, and state that you believe that you nor wife were not the driver at the time of the alleged offence, but are prepared to be corrected should the hire company be in a position to categorically prove that you had not returned the car at the time of the alleged offence or obtain the photographic evidence that you or your wife were driving at the time.
I am not a lawyer, but done a fair bit of research on something similar, after my daughter picked up a parking ticket and the Council come after me as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
My wife had post natal depression, this after our fourth child and no problems with the first three. We had a very committed GP who helped us through the period and told me what I should and should not do.
From our experience I would suggest that this is not helping her condition one bit. Ask yourself if you are not putting your wants before her needs.
My wife reckons it was the worst time of her life - and that's saying something after being married to me.
Derek
From our experience I would suggest that this is not helping her condition one bit. Ask yourself if you are not putting your wants before her needs.
My wife reckons it was the worst time of her life - and that's saying something after being married to me.
Derek
Well Derek you may be right but at the end of the day £60 is better in our hands if there's a doubt about it! If it comes to the crunch, we would cough up as I know she would not go to court.
PND is tough on my wife and I support her as much as I can ,but it is also hard on the rest of the family and I tend to catch the brunt of it. Hers came also after the birth of the 4th child (3rd and 4th to be exact) and they will be 4 on 2nd Jan!
Incidentally, her GP was crap and we have had more improvement via an alternative practioner!
Glad to hear you have come out of it!
Regards
PND is tough on my wife and I support her as much as I can ,but it is also hard on the rest of the family and I tend to catch the brunt of it. Hers came also after the birth of the 4th child (3rd and 4th to be exact) and they will be 4 on 2nd Jan!
Incidentally, her GP was crap and we have had more improvement via an alternative practioner!
Glad to hear you have come out of it!
Regards
Sorry to hear about the hassle. You might find decent help in this book; no doubt mentioned in PH before somewhere (I havent looked).
www.streetwisepublications.co.uk/user.asp?page=60
Stick with it. Your wife will hopefully see the positive reasons.
Rob
www.streetwisepublications.co.uk/user.asp?page=60
Stick with it. Your wife will hopefully see the positive reasons.
Rob
buckshee said:
The hire company, as the "registered keeper" of the said vehicle, are responsible for any speeding/parking fines actioned by its vehicles if they cannot say for sure exactly who was driving THEIR vehicle at the specific time of an offence.
It is down to the hire company to identify the driver at the time the alleged offence took place, and if they can't, then I believe the directors of the hire company are culpable.
From what you say, the hire company's records do not accurately show for sure that you or your wife had the said vehicle on hire at the exact time of the alleged offence, therefore, it is all down to the hire company to PROVE that you aor your wife were the driver at the time, otherwise the registered keepers take the rap.
If I were you, I'd throw it back to the hire company, and state that you believe that you nor wife were not the driver at the time of the alleged offence, but are prepared to be corrected should the hire company be in a position to categorically prove that you had not returned the car at the time of the alleged offence or obtain the photographic evidence that you or your wife were driving at the time.
I am not a lawyer, but done a fair bit of research on something similar, after my daughter picked up a parking ticket and the Council come after me as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
stever said:
Cheers Chris, trouble is she would rather pay the fine ten times over than go anywhere near a court. She has suffered from Post-Natal depression and couldn't handle the pressure.
I'll continue to dispute the evidence if the photo evidence isn't going to get any better!
Appreciate your comments
try and get you doc to state shes unfit to enter a plea do to her medical condition.
then there stuffed
Derek Smith said:
Yes,
It's a rotten time for everyone. My sympathies. It does get better though. If slowly. It took me some time to realise that it was an illness just as much as pneumonia, etc. Once I got that through my head it was easier not to react or get wound up.
Best of luck.
Derek
know that one my mrs sufers from acute depprestion
not post natal.
and it is dificult remmbering they dont mean it some times.
See this thread also. I posted the question separately so it wouldn't get lost - Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff