Sure, the 2 months part doesn't look good!
I just had a look on Multimap and the estimated time from the camera to my first job is 24 minutes, so the camera must be out by nearly an hour, which seems a bit odd. But even with evidence of being elsewhere, if the picture shows my car and my 'evidence' shows I was in the area at around that time and date, am I on a hiding to nothing trying to get away with it?
|
How come you get a delivery on a Sunday? Saturday?
Are you the Reg Owner of the vehicle involved?
If no then ignore the rest of the NOIP bit.
For the offence of speeding they have to send a NOIP to the Reg Keeper or driver that has to be delivered in the ordinary course of the Post within 15 days of the offence other wise they cannot proceed. Your Notice is out of time and you have an argument that they have not complied with the law on this point.
Obviously any information you can get from PO as to why hold up can help you in ths respect.
As mentioned first step mention the non receipt of NOIP and also ask for photo as you do not believe that it was you outlining your work record as mentioned above and that it may be a cloned vehicle. . They may just disengage. If the photo ID's your vehicle and more importantly the DRIVER as you then be very careful.
You then have the option of accepting their evidence that it was you or you can elect for a Court hearing so that matters can be heard before Magistrates. Be very careful on this step as head of ACPO Traffic has promised that steps are being taken to weed out those that try to circumvent the system and which has resulted already prison sentences for those trying. However the argument of non service of NOIP is valid.
dvd
|
A colleague of mine got a NIP a couple of years back. The time/date was when he was away on business out of the country and his car would have been garaged.
Obviously he phoned up to ask questions and when he asked the person what was the registration plate on the photo, they said something like "oh, I'm not reallt sure... you cannot read it". He then asked what colour the car was.... and that was wrong too. So basically they'd seen a photo of a BMW M3, did a partial lookup of the number plate and then sent out the NIP.
My colleague had to send a photo of the car in and that was the end of that.
|
Like dvd has said, for the nip to be served it has to be delivered (to the address on the V5) within the time limit, not sent by them within the limit (also the legislation says by 1st class post, so if they've sent it 2nd class which unbeleivably they still sometimes do, then its not considered served as well)... There is a standard skeleton letter for an out of time nip you could copy and paste from pepipoo.com forums.
They sometimes assume thats a lie though, and take the case to court anyway so the prosecutor can cross examine the defendant to trip them up - but as you actually do appear to have an out of time nip, that shouldn't matter. Also it varies area to area, and the met are particularly short of court time and more likely to drop cases.
You could see if they drop it after a letter pointing out it was out of time, and if not save the other discrepencies for the magistrates, where it sounds like you've got an excellent case (and you can apply for costs when acquitted)
|
has to be delivered (to the address on the V5) within the time limit, not sent by them within the limit
This is why some police forces are now using special delivery to send out NIPs.
It seems to me that there is a clear case here of the NIP not being served in time due to the post, so I wouldn't even bother going down the route of investigating camera time and where you were etc.
|
You guys have gone away from the original post somewhat. It *appears* that the NIP was 'served' correctly - in that it is postmarked withing 14 days of the alleged offence - it seems the Post Office have mislaid it somewhere along the line. Dave should check that it was sent 1st class, and that it is a Post Office mark, not a Camera Partnership Frank, he should also take heed of DVD's advice regarding reg keeper.
So the only question remains the time - is there a chance the camera was set to GMT rather then BST? I'd have thought in any case if there was reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the camera's clock, then that would be enough to seed resonable doubt on the case, and it would be dismissed (since the time interval between the photos is critical in corroborating the speed). I think writing back with copies of job sheets and "not there at the time" has got to be the 1st port of call.
--
RichardW
Is it illogical? It must be Citroen....
|
Thank you for all your comments guys.
I spoke to the Post Office today, boy was that hard work. I've got a form to fill in about late/missing mail, but the guy said it will go nowhere as it's impossible to trace regular mail. At least he was honest!
The postmark on the envelope is just the Camera Partnership frank, so I'm not sure what that means, apart from they actually franked it. It was sent first class.
I'm not sure what to put on the NIP form, as you only really have 2 options. Yes it was me at that time and place, or no it wasn't, it was xxxxxx. Ha, I need an option that says it wasn't me at that time, and it wasn't anyone else.
Can I just write them a letter saying at that time I was elswhere and the vehicle was with me, or at least I left it in the car park, and it was still in the same place later?
|
I'm not sure what to put on the NIP form, as you only really have 2 options. place, or no it wasn't, it was xxxxxx. Ha, I need an option that says it wasn't me at that time, and it wasn't anyone else.
Its very simple really
If the form really only gives you those two options in those words, then you say
Yes it was me at that time and place..........NO
Who was at that time and place .................N/A
Let them sort it out. if the form is going to ask closed specific questions you give closed answers. let them work it out later.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
|
I believe The NIP wasn't served correctly - it must be delivered before the 14 days. Delivered, not posted. If the person the NIP is sent to is the registered keeper, and hasn't changed address recently, then it's in all probability timed out. The Pepipoo site has more detailed info.
|
Ravenger,
I believe you are mistaken - the police have no control over the post, so my understanding is that it is deemed to be served as long as it is in the post (1st class or better) by the 14th day. Otherwise everybody would shrug and say "Never received it".
Dave,
I think you need to reply, acknowledging receipt of the form, pointing out that you received NIP and reminder at same time, that you believe you were elsewhere, and include copies of the job sheets. Probably best to save questioning the camera clock's accuracy or requesting a photo for later communiques (of which there will no doubt be several).
--
RichardW
Is it illogical? It must be Citroen....
|
|
|
Proof of posting, by the police or scamera partnership, is deemed to prove delivery - even though the PO loses ??????? items per month and admits to it. The excact number escapes me! In fact I have just had a £1500 hearing aid go missing in the post. It was sent by a well known chemists chain, for repair, and has disappeared. I asked them why it wasn't sent registered or by courier and they said it was cheaper to repalce the odd one that went missing ie mine, than pay the higher costs of insuring item that is sent!
|
the person at the other end of correspondence, will (believe it or not) be human.
If you are curt, rude, antagonistic or apparently 'trying to have someone over' then human nature dictates that the person at the other end will try their best to ensure you get your come uppance.........that is how life operates and why occasionally you see in the papers someone brought to book for things like pretending a foreign national was really driving etc...
you need to politely reply, sending copies of everthing relevant, such as your time sheets and request photographic proof because;
- you cannot possibly have been present there at the times stated and have witnesses who would state otherwise.
if you can keep the correspondence going long enough, in a pleasant fashion, the hope is that whoever is dealing will give up and move on to easier claims. If he/she takes it personally it won't go away, will it, because they'll make sure it won't.
|
Well I took advice from here and PePiPoo, and wrote 'Please see attatched' on the NIP, and enclosed a letter simply saying I was somewhere else at the time, the car was with me and stationary, parked at a business premises. I didn't see why I have to start presenting my evidence at this stage.
It's a bit rich that they only have to send the NIP by 1st class post and you're deemed to have recieved it. If they said they never recieved it back in time, can I use the same defence, ie. I sent it back 1st class post so they must have received it?
I still can't work out how I would have broken the limit, even if the time is incorrect. I've got an Origin thingy, and I know where most of the camera are on the A13. I would also have been in the NS lane as I come off at the North Circular. It's always pretty busy along there, so even if I'd ignored the Origin beeping and flashing at me, eveyone else slams on the brakes when near the camera, so I'd have been a right plum to carry on at an indicated 53 in the nearside lane while undertaking everyone else slowing down to 38.
|
|
The course of action that you have taken is also what I would have done myself. I agree that it would be best to just tell them that you were elsewhere, you have job sheets with times to prove it, and keep quiet at this stage that you did travel down that road but not at that time. Hopefully they will just drop it in favour of going after easier convictions.
|
UPDATE:
I received a letter from them today saying:- You have indicated there may be another vehicle bearing a duplicate of your reg number etc.
They would like me to provide 6 photos - rear, offside, nearside, rear and offside diagonal, rear and nearside diagonal, close up of rear number plate. Thay also say they can't refund me for the cost of the photos, nor return them to me (sounds like Vision On).
Am I obliged to provide these? It may well have been my car, but it's the time that is incorrect.
|
If you want to hedge your bets, put some sort of quite large sticker in the back window, that wasn't there on 24th August, take the photographs and send them as requested. Send them electronically so they they have to download them to view and/or print as they require. This will result in minimum financial outlay by you. I am slightly more anti than usual at the moment by recently being 1mph over the key speed at or below which a speeding awareness course is offered in lieu of fine/points. GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
|
Do as A S suggests, but why not fit new rear numberplate with different design/EU badge etc on it. A suitable 10 mile drive in this weather should "blend in" the plate ok.
This is the first prosecution I have heard of where the "criminal" has been asked to supply the prosecution with evidence at his own cost.
|
NIP - Questions - Dave N Mon 13 Nov 06 00:28 .. so the camera must be out by nearly an hour ..
in reply to dave n :
have you asked whether the time of the alleged offence is calibrated in gmt or bst?
gmt + 1hour = bst ?
|
>> NIP - Questions - Dave N Mon 13 Nov 06 00:28 >> .. so the camera must be out by nearly an hour .. in reply to dave n : have you asked whether the time of the alleged offence is calibrated in gmt or bst? gmt + 1hour = bst ?
The time given is 11.22am, and it was still BST. It's entirely possible I was going past at 10.22am (BST), so if they are working on GMT, wouldn't the time be 9.22am?
|
It seems highly unlikely you're under any obligation to take these. How about a polite letter saying you don't have the time in your busy work schedule to take the photographs and are not entirely sure what they want, but if they'd like to make an appointment at your convenience to come along and take them themselves they are welcome? I'd caution against changing appearance of the car, as that does seem to be a bit risky.
JS
|
changing the look of your car would be incredibly silly
you could very easily find yourself arrested and investigated for attempting to pervert the course of justice, which if found guilty is a serious criminal offence, (and you would look guilty wouldn't you)...for which you'd get a criminal record, which can hamper your job prospects and/or travel plans......and a term of imprisonment a real possibility, even in this day and age
all for an offence that at worst is a £60 fine and 3 points
if you haven't done it, say so.....the onus is on the prosecution to prove you have, not you the other way around...if you have done it, pay up like the rest of us
|
if you can keep the correspondence going long enough, in a pleasant fashion, the hope is that whoever is dealing will give up and move on to easier claims. If he/she takes it personally it won't go away, will it, because they'll make sure it won't.
Brilliant advice. An old guy said to me years ago, "that attitude is the art of gunnery." I liked it soo much.
vbr......................MD.
|
"It's a bit rich that they only have to send the NIP by 1st class post and you're deemed to have recieved it. If they said they never recieved it back in time, can I use the same defence, ie. I sent it back 1st class post so they must have received it?"
Love that one Dave N, sorry to hear about your dilema.
Funny isn't it that bills never get lost in the post.
--
Fullchat
|
|
No - I am sure that the nip (actually RTA s.172 notice) has to be "served" within the time limit, not just posted. Served is taken to mean arrived at the registered keeper's address. Your easiest defence is an out of time nip.
|
|
Where the confusion arises is that posting by registered/special delivery (signed for services) is enough to establish service -- but in the case of 1st class post only establishes 'presumption of service'. This means that testimony under oath rebutts this presumption - all you would have to do is tell the truth about when the nip arrived.
|
|
Already having in the house, a spare pair of numberplates in a different design is handy in these oppressive modern times.
|
Already having in the house, a spare pair of numberplates in a different design is handy in these oppressive modern times.
And risking a charge of perverting the course of justice?
I have to say that, while I have absolutely no issue with trying to remove doubts (unlike some on here), I would morally draw the line at actions like this.
|
|
If "they" don't do the job properly in the first place, and then ask an "innocent" person to provide further evidence, at his own cost, of his guilt then "they" deserve all they get (or don't get). The photos they have asked for cannot be used in court, anyway, evidence obtained under duress.
|
That's not perverting the course of justice.
There's no law against changing numberplates as long as they are BS AU 145d compliant etc...
|
|
There's no law which states that you have to own a camera, either!
|
|
Well changing your plates to try and fool the police into thinking you were not the car in the picture could be perverting the course of justice...but I agree, it is outrageous that they ask you to provide the evidence that they could use to prove your guilt..they ought to come round themselves and take their own pictures, if they can't do that then the matter should be closed...unbelievable.
|
|
That's what they've trained us to think.
|
Ha, I'm not going to change anything on the car and then take photos. A few points is one thing, a spell in the slammer is something different! I value my shooting too much, for one thing.
Their letters says 'You have indicated that there may be another vehicle bearing a duplicate of your reg number......before we can eliminate your vehicle from our enquiries' etc. I never indicated any such thing. All I said was, I was somewhere else at the time of the alleged offence, they've made the assumption about a cloned car.
So I guess I'll have to write back pointing out I never mentioned cloned vehicles, just that I was somewhere else at that time. I just don't want it to get to court, they whip out my photos, the judge says 'well it looks like your car, so what if the time is incorrect, it's still your car going through the camera, here's your fine'.
|
Ah! It wasn't you who mentioned cloned cars! In that case, your approach sounds good. Just stick to the facts - you were not there at the time thay say you were and you can prove it.
JS
|
That's not perverting the course of justice. There's no law against changing numberplates as long as they are BS AU 145d compliant etc...
You don't think that committing a crime in a vehicle, and then disguising that vehicle to hide the fact is perverting the course of justice?
|
He said he hadn't committed a crime, so presumably there's no course of justice to pervert.
I'm surprised about the request for photographs, what if he'd had new alloys/privacy glass/spoiler, etc since August? It's nearly four months down the line, there could be accident damage or anything, totally unrelated to trying to 'dodge' responsibility, it seems a foolish request.
|
He said he hadn't committed a crime, so presumably there's no course of justice to pervert.
I think we'd moved on to 'speaking in general' rather than specifically about the op's case, since it would be a little late to suggest having kept a spare set of plates in the house.
Besides which, I think making up a false alibi, even if you actually are innocent, is generally frowned upon.
|
|
|
|
|
