I know you have covered this topic a few times, but I am a little confused over a few issues and wondered if anyone could shed some light.
I have just received a Notice Of Intented Prosecution, dated the 11/09/02, for a speeding incident on the 15/07/02 (2 months ago), presumably by a camera. Until now I had not heard anything about this. Now I know they have to send you the NIP within 14 days, but I understand there are exceptions to that rule if you are not the registered keeper. I bought the vehicle at the end of June, so I had sent off the V5 and all but I guess it hadn't been processed. Speaking to the camera unit call centre they say as long as the origional NIP was sent out to the registered keeper within 14 days of the offence then it's valid. Well my V5 says at that date I was the registered keeper, (though to be fair I have only just recieved the backdated V5 in the post). So the police claim they have spent two months trying to trace the driver of the vehicle, surely there must be a time limit on this thing. And obviously, I have absolutly no memory of the day or the event, and have no idea who was driving, it could have been me, my girlfriend, my parents, anyone. Any advice on what action I should take would be much appreciated.
|
see a legal bod, try www.abd.org.uk, they should be able to recommend someone
dont whatever you do take it lying down
contest it
complain
i) about the police's lack of investigative skill - they could have rang the dvlc - via an official complaint recorded delivery to the chief constable cc your MP
ii) complain to whoever the obudsman/adjudicator is for dvlc
deny it, turn up in court, and defend yourself
dont take police camera units advice, they know less about traffic law than you could find out in an hour at the library
|
I'd definitely agree this should not be accepted. I don't believe they can legally issue the NIP to you if you notified DVLA of the sale of the vehicle immediately.
Despite the fact it may have taken the DVLA a couple of months to process it, every item of post recieved in a Civil Service office is date stamped when it is recieved. So, it is easy for plod to check when the notification of transfer was recieved by DVLA and that you were not the registered owner when the offence took place.
The trouble is, plod wants an easy hit so cannot be bothered to check this simple fact. And they wonder why people have so little respect for them nowadays!
|
|
They are winging it. Just write back saying you have no idea who was driving as a number of people drive the car and due to the elapsed time between the alleged offence and you receiving the NIP.
|
Was the NIP sent by registered mail or recorded delivery? Nothing else will do. Mind you, you have now contacted the traffic office so they know you have got it!
Another useful website is www.caughtspeeding.co.uk.
Good luck and please keep us updated on your news and progress!
|
Definately worth the hassle of taking advice and at the very least writing a letter. You might get somewhere by taking the line that it was a long time ago and you don't know who was driving.
Don't get too excited about the technicality though because I think this is very thin. If everything is straightforward then Plod has little excuse for not posting the NIP in the 14 days.
If plod has to investigate however then things change dramatically. The notice period still applies but doesn't start until the investigation is complete.
It also doesn't matter if the NIP doesn't arrive on time, or even arrive at all. Plod only has to show it posted on time - and it doesn't have to be recorded delivery.
|
|
I'd say go for one excuse or the other. If you go for both it just looks like you are wriggling.
|
NIP's do *not* have to be sent by recorded delivery.
The fact that you don't know who was driving is a crime in itself.
Here's an interesting post from a newsgroup from somone in a similar situation:
"Firstly I'd like to point out that the alleged offence was comitted in a
4-wheeled contraption, but the law that was applied in my case relates
to bikes as well so may be of use to those who read on.
I was clocked by a camera on Dec 7th 2001 on the A14 at Haugley near
Ipswich in my old Escort at 64mph in a 50 limit, fair enough. I waited
for an NIP to arrive but it never did so I forgot about it and assumed
the camera was not armed with film. I moved house and changed address
details on the car in late December 2001. In mid April 2002 I got the
NIP through for the offence. 4 and a half months after the alleged
offence. Now I'd been led to belive that the NIP had to be served within
14 days and sent by recorded delivery to make a case stick, so I wrote
back claiming the 14 days were up and they'd better withdraw the charge.
They didn't, they sent a letter telling me to inform them of the driver
as they say that an NIP was sent to my old address on the 18th deceber
2001. Now I still had the keys to my old place at that time and would
periodically pop in to pick up the mail, and I never received an NIP
there.
I wrote again to the Ticket Office asking for them to provide proof that
they had sent the NIP to my old address and got nothing back, instead I
got a summons for failure to notify of whom the driver was at the time
of the offence and a summons for the speeding. I naturally pleaded not
guilty on the form and opted to go to court to state my case.
Well my case was heard today. I turned up at 11-30 and waited until 3pm
before I saw the duty solicitor. I explained my defence and he went away
to have words with the clerk of the court. When he got back I was in for
a major shock.
Apparently an NIP is deemed as served upon you as soon as the letter
containing the NIP is posted by the Ticket Office. It can be handed to
you in person, sent by first or second class mail and doesn't even need
to be sent recorded delivery. If you dispute the fact that it was ever
sent, then it is up to the defendant to prove that the office did not
send it, which is absolutely f***ing impossible. In other words, you're
f***ed. If you say you never received the NIP it is not good enough, you
don't need to have received it, all they need to do is post it and
that's good enough for the courts.
So my solicitor advised me to plead guilty and he went away to chat to
the prosecuting lawyer. He came back and said they will drop the
speeding charge if I plead guilty to the failure to inform and he'd
suggest to the bench that I get the same penalty that I would have got
had I responded to the initial NIP, i.e 60 quid and 3 points.
So into court I trot and the prosecution state the facts of the case,
then my brief gives my version of events and it turns out the bench is
in a good mood. I got nicked for failure to inform for which they fined
me 100 sheets plus 40 more in costs and slapped 3 more points on my
license to have fun, bring it up to a grand total of 6.
Now this is pretty good bearing in mind that I could have got 6 points
and up to 1000 quid fine for the speeding, and then another 3 points for
failure to notify with another 1000 quid fine. At least I escaped the
possible, but unlikely ban that was hanging over the proceedings.
What does p*** me off though is the fact that this is the very first
time I have ever been convicted of any offence in a car, which is pretty
amazing when you take 40,000 business miles a year into consideration.
Even more amazing is that in the last 15 years I have only received 3
points for speeding on the bikes when I cover appx 10-12,000 miles a
year on them. I'd been nicked christ knows how many times in the 8 years
before that mind.
Overall I think I have got away very very lightly over the years, and I
doubt if this kind of incident will make me slow down any, it will make
me even more concious of traffic revenue cameras though.
"
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
Toad
not a bad result in fact I was quite pleased with my own recent £60 and 3pts for 90 on the motorway. I did go to view the picture from the mobile camera, it was clearish and they assured me it was not re-touched or enhanced so paying up on first offer seemed ok.
Like you what really eats me up is that I do 30-40k per year and have done so for last 10 years and its the first time I've been nicked and as the photo showed there were no vehicles within 500yrs of me at the time on the motorway. In the good old days probably a telling off and grovelling.
However to go to the original point the speedtrap bible website is worth a look by the original contributor it has a lengthy section on NIP etiquitte.
as ever
Mark
|
|
|
I am not legally qualified but I understand that NIPs DO have to be sent recorded or registered and here is why.
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Section 2 Para 1(1)(c)(ii) states "An NIP must be served, in the case of a non-cycling offence, on him or the person,if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence" Paraphrased slightly for brevity.
Section (2) states unambiguously "A notice shall be deemed to be served on a person if it was sent by REGISTERED POST or RECORDED DELIVERY SERVICE to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.
All you have to do is write back to the police asking whether the NIP was served in accordance with Section 1(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. If they claim that it was, ask for proof of delivery or proof of non-delivery.
The full wording the relevant Act can be found at:-
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19...m.
If we break the law we are guilty, if the authorities can't enforce it in accordance with the law of the land that is their problem and we cannot be found guilty in a court of law. We have to jump thru the hoops and so do they! Get it right or it's wrong!
|
Section (2) states unambiguously "A notice shall be deemed to be served on a person if it was sent by REGISTERED POST or RECORDED DELIVERY SERVICE
I know from experience you're wrong. Yet you can proove you're right.
Weird.
No doubt DVD will explain.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
TOTH. I am neither right nor wrong! I have merely quoted the law of the land! If your experience is that the law I have quoted is wrong perhaps you should have had better representation in court. The Law is the Law, it is the interpretation that goes wrong IMHO!
|
Hasty hop backwards Toad:
Service of NIP may be effected as follows:
Verbally at the time: e.g. after being stopped for a follow or Handheld Radar you should hear the immortal words " You will be reported for the consideration of the question of prosecution for exceeding a speed limit" - followed by your not obliged to say etc etc.
Or within 14 days of the offenc can be offender or Registered Keeper where applicable:-.
Served personally on an offender or person authorised to accept and deal with his mail (wife etc).
Addressing it to the offender and leaving it at his last known address.
By service of summons for offence.
By Post, either Registered Post, Recorded Delivery OR FIRST CLASS POST to the last known address.
(Section 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.)
DVD
|
|
Err so having posted it's enough then? Jeeze. Wonder if that works with sending your tax return in.
|
|
As I see it:
New ownership of vehicle occurred end of June.
Some 14 days later alleged speed offence occurred.
Looks as if this has happened. Accept 7 days lost (post/weekend) before DVLA received change of ownership and because of backlog not processed when Police interrogated DVLA Computer and came up with old owner as Reg. Keeper. NIP/Offence/name and shame Forms sent to old owner (who was at that time shown as Registered Keeper) within 14 days then law complied with as far as NIP concerned.
Old Keeper had 28 days to respond and did so saying vehicle sold. Fresh interrogation of DVLA Computor and up comes current owner who is then sent the Forms, hence the delay.
Unless it can be shown that the old Keeper did not receive a NIP within 14 days of the offence then you have no argument on this point and also bear in mind all the Police have to do is show due diligence in attempting to serve within 14 days. Being thwarted by incorrect records of DVLA counts in their favour.
There has been sufficient information in this Forum on the 'cloned vehicle? syndrome. Could this apply? Ask for photographic evidence to show whether or not the vehicle involved was yours.
If it is your vehicle down to you to either admit the offence (£60 plus score draw) or fight as crazed says on the name and shame offence. For this there is the defence that a person shall not be guilty of failing to name the driver if he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained whom the driver was. (Section 172 Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by S.21RTA 1991) I personally doubt if the time factor alone would stand a chance but there again nothing ventured nothing gained. We also await a European Court of Human Rights Appeal by Idris on this very question but don't hold your breath.
May be worth having a word with a Duty Solicitor of C.A.B.(free)and depending on his views engaging a Legal Eagle to take through to and at Court.
DVD
|
>>The fact that you don't know who was driving is a crime in itself.
Not true. The registered keeper is obliged to give all the "information in their power".
A genuinely truthful response of "I can't remember whether it was me or my girlfriend/gran/dog/monkey" driving is perfectly legitimate, and will get you off the hook.
But, if you're caught lying, it's perverting the course of justice, which usually means prison.
Regards
Rob F
|
>>The fact that you don't know who was driving is a crime in itself. Not true. The registered keeper is obliged to give all the "information in their power". A genuinely truthful response of "I can't remember whether it was me or my girlfriend/gran/dog/monkey" driving is perfectly legitimate, and will get you off the hook.
WRONG!
A police cheif constable was recently unable to find a driver of one of his forces cars. He had to pay the fine.
Bet the hypocrite didn't resign.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
Yes but just to add to the confusion a Chief Superintendent got off by saying he couldn't remember who was driving his car.
|
ToTH
"A police cheif constable was recently unable to find a driver of one of his forces cars. He had to pay the fine.
Bet the hypocrite didn't resign."
Am I missing something? Why is he a hypocrite?
C
|
If I am correct didn't a well known football club get off with a speeding offence,by their solicitor saying they did not know who was driving the clubs car at the time of the offence
Robin Hood
|
Ok, thank you all for your help. I have kinda accepted the fact that the NIP is valid, as they did write to the registered keeper (the one listed by the DVLA at the time of the offence), so thats not really the problem - even if a little annoying. But I still have no idea who was driving the vehicle, the location of the offence is just down the road so anyone driving it would have to drive by there. I share the car with my girlfriend, and at the time my mother was staying with us (who also used the car while she was here). Both me and G/F work from home, so it's not like one of us would have been at work at the time. Now I can understand that it is illegal to withhold information that would lead to them finding out who the driver is, similarly not admitting to being the driver. But that isn't the case in this scenario, I really don't know who was driving, and have no way of finding it out - surely it cannot be illegal to not keep a log containing who drives the vehicle and when, I know company car pools have to do this, but a private motorist? I can also see it wouldn't really wash after 5 days, because we all know waht we did 5 days ago, but not 2 months ago on regular route from the house.
Basically, I already have six points on my license (all arrived in the past 3 weeks??), I want to fight this because I don't see why I should take the blame if my girlfriend was driving (and vice versa), but I similarly don't want to end up like the guy who Toad was talking about who got 3 points for withholding the information and 3 points for speeding, as then I would lose my license. So I might be best admitting the offence (even though it probably wasn't me) and just taking the three points. any thoughts?
PS. I have already written a letter to the camera dept asking them to send me copys of the photographic evidence, so I can have a better idea of who was driving.
|
|
If you REALLY don't know who was driving, it is up to them to prove who was - you are entitled to a preseumption of innocence. A recent case of a much greater importance involved 2 louts who killed a pedestrian and CPS dropped the prosecution as, while they both admitted being in the car neither of them would admit to being the driver. There was apparently "No realistic possibility of a conviction" They weren't forced to name the driver, why should you be?
|
>>A police chief constable was recently unable to find a driver of one of his force's cars. He had to pay the fine.
That's because legal bodies such as the police force, companies etc. have a duty to keep a record of who's driving.
It's because if a vehicle is owned by a legal personality (such as a company) then obviously the 'company' doesn't have a human memory to recall who was driving at the time. Hence the duty for a the company director/secretary to be responsible for maintaining a record of who was driving.
There is no such duty on the registered keeper of a private vehicle. Even the law is not so stupid as to demand you say "make sure you sign the car out before you go to the shops, darling".
Hence the success of the "I can't remember who was driving" defence.
Regards
Rob F
|
Cardew: Why is a rozzer who is prosecuted for something a hypocrite? Well because the rozzers are paid to uphold the law. If they breach it they shoud resign. I can't see how you can look at it any other way. The 'familiies officer' guy in Soham who's alleged to have fairly catholic tastes will lose is job. What's the difference?
Rob F: If all you have to do to get of a ticket is claim not to be able to remember who was driving I suspect very few speeding fines would be collected. I agree it's worth a try on the off chance that they can't be bothered to chase it or send photographic evidence. We need MLC or DVD to offer an opinion on this one.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
>>I agree it's worth a try on the off chance that they can't be bothered to chase it or send photographic evidence.
Good god Toad, I didn't say you should start telling lies, or you'd may be in for a stretch like your namesake!
An *honest* lack of recollection is perfectly legal (for a private individual).
Regards
Rob F
|
Toad
When the legislators made this perfectly reasonable and needed piece of legislation then they obviously appreciated there would be instances when if would not just be possible to know recall/know who the driver was at the time, hence the defence in the Section.
Unfortunately the possibility for abuse, like many other things, was quickly seized upon and used so that the instances outweight the truth and when put forward as a defence is looked at with some disbelief. As an intelligent man can you blame them?
DVD
|
Robert: What method do they use to distinguish between truthful people and liars???
DVD: Not sure I really speak as an intelligent man. ;-) Your point backs up mine. You couldn't employ this system and make it workable *unless* you assumed everyone could remember. Therefore if a car that, say, 4 people have access to gets camera'd and they don't know who was behind the wheel at any one moment they have to agree between them who takes the hit otherwise the points go to the registered keeper. Compare this with a recent case where a couple killed a baby. Because it couldn't be determined which one struck the fatal blow neither were charged with murder. (Although both did see the inside of a cell)
I understand why it's essential to be able to force a car driver to state who is the driver of a car at the time of an offence.
However this seems to be used by the Camera people a *lot* yet when a friend's sister was hit by a hit and run driver the registered owner simply said he wasn't driving and was *let off*!
Strict speed enforcement is OK, as long as motoring offences involving danger and non-motoring offences are taken as seriously.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
|
|
