Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
A Site only vehicle ,which i was a user of (along with a number of other authorised drivers) was recorded going through a red light -by a static camera set at 0.50 of a second- at apparently 0.55, according to the prosecution notice!
Main point, I was not the driver!
Problem arises due to the transport/ fleet manager ( based over a hundred miles away) giving the police my details despite me telling her i was not the driver at the time of the offence.
I subsequently contacted the police and told them that and filled in the notification and returned it.
As this was back in FEB 2008, you can imagine my shock when i received a summoms advising me that i am going to be prosecuted for an offence-alledgedly commited on the 1ST July- namely,
"failed to give information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle, namely a **&%^$£, registration number **&%$, who was alleged to have been guilty of an offence."
The FACTS are:
1. vehicle neither owned by me nor am i the registered keeper!
2. I informed the owner and registered keepers` representative- namely the transport manager of a large construction company- that i was not the driver at the time of the alleged offence
3.keys to all site vehicle left on desks of a communal office
4.On site plant manager had duplicate keys for all site vehicles
5. there was no documented system in place were vehicles were, " signed out", to record a vehicles driver at any given time- is this not a mandatory requirement ?
6. Although the vehicle was mainly used by the sub contractors staff of 3- of which i was a part- the main contractors staff of over 50 personnel was authorised to use all site vehicles owned by the parent company and frequently did.
Therefore, why am i being targeted when i have already confirmed i was not the driver and don`t know who was and why am i being held responsible in the eyes of the police when i do not own the vehicle
any advice would be greatly appreciated as the hearing date is set for the 4th of December
coincidently , the summons contains a few inaccuracies regarding my surname and the vehicle description!
What are you being charged with? Red light offence or failure to supply information S172?
OP's post
As this was back in FEB 2008, you can imagine my shock when i received a summoms advising me that i am going to be prosecuted for an offence-alledgedly commited on the 1ST July- namely,
"failed to give information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle,
Originally Posted by jasmin2008
I assume you received a NIP for the red light offence. Did you complete the S172 notice and return it to the police?
OP's post
I subsequently contacted the police and told them that and filled in the notification and returned it.
johans, we need exact dates. On the face of it, you have nothing to worry about
I need to know:
the date of the red light offence
the date that the NIP/S.172 notice was served (ie delivered to you)
the date that you returned it and what you wrote exactly
the date that information was laid before the Court to issue the summons (this is not the date you received the summons)
As you are not the registered keeper, the duty placed upon you by an S.172 is less onerous in that you only have to give information that is within your knowledge. What you know is that you were not driving (do you have any collaboration of this and did you inform the Police of this?). What you do not know is who was driving.
"failed to give information relating to the identification of the driver of a vehicle, namely a **&%^$£, registration number **&%$, who was alleged to have been guilty of an offence."
.
further to the above, it goes on to say
"contrary to section 172(3) of the road traffic act 1988 and schedule 2 to the road traffic offenders act 1988
i assume they are prosecuting me for not disclosing who thre driver was even though it was `nt me, i told them i did`nt know who was and no one has admitted to it.
they also claim they did not receive the n172 form i sent back! however i did ring cheshire police as soon as i was notified of the alleged offence to tell them they had sent it to the wrong person!
i can only assume they are being vindictive because it`s a company vehicle and they have no one to pin the offence on!
date line
22/8/2008.....date of offence
1/7/2008....offence of failing to give information ( i am sure my phonecall will be on record )
they also claim they did not receive the n172 form i sent back! however i did ring cheshire police as soon as i was notified of the alleged offence to tell them they had sent it to the wrong person!
Do you have any proof of posting?
i can only assume they are being vindictive because it`s a company vehicle and they have no one to pin the offence on!
It won't be vindictiveness; it's essentially an automated process
date line
22/8/2008.....date of offence
1/7/2008....offence of failing to give information ( i am sure my phonecall will be on record )
4/12/08...court date
help please!
Sorry, doesn't fly. The originating offence cannot be nearly 2 months after the failing to provide offence.
I wouldn't rely on your phone call being on record; in any case, a response is legally required in writing.
Please have another go at answering all the questions. It is hard to give any precise advice without knowledge of the facts.
search the intertent for motoring solicitors near you. Contact them, they will gladly represent you and obtain their costs from court. If your case is as you say, it wont cost you a penny and you will win
So they are dual charging you with both the original offence and the S172 failure to supply information. The summons for the original offence will fail as they do not know who was driving, The S172 can be more troublesome.
On what date did they lay an information for the red light offence? And also what date for the S172? This information should be on the summons.
As advised a good solicitor will get you off of both charges and get the costs back from the court.
So they are dual charging you with both the original offence and the S172 failure to supply information. The summons for the original offence will fail as they do not know who was driving, The S172 can be more troublesome.
On what date did they lay an information for the red light offence? And also what date for the S172? This information should be on the summons.
As advised a good solicitor will get you off of both charges and get the costs back from the court.
according to the wording under the headline- information- the last paragraph on the summons
it would appear i am only being charged for not returning the original forms relating to disclosure
So it comes back to my original four questions - of which you have only answered three.
The important one is when was your NIP served on you and what was your exact response (and was it in writing)?
If you can't or won't supply the information; we cannot help you.
To answer your original post #1 question: No they are definitely not bluffing. If you fail to fight this, you will end up with 6 points, about £600 fine, plus prosecution costs and victim surcharge (£15)
So it comes back to my original four questions - of which you have only answered three.
The important one is when was your NIP served on you and what was your exact response (and was it in writing)?
If you can't or won't supply the information; we cannot help you.
To answer your original post #1 question: No they are definitely not bluffing. If you fail to fight this, you will end up with 6 points, about £600 fine, plus prosecution costs and victim surcharge (£15)
steady on pat, the NIP was dated 25/3/2008, i filled it in and sent it back, i contacted them some weeks later to check on the progress and they said they never received it and would send out a duplicate.I never subsequently received a duplicate and so thinking that the original had therefore turned up, forgot about it assuming my statement had been accepted!
On 22/Feb/2008 the vehicle was drive through a red light.
On 1/Jul/2008, it is alleged that you failed to give information as to the identity of the driver.
What date was your NIP served (not the date that was on the NIP, but that date it was delivered) and on what date did you return it? What date did you contact them by telephone?
I have noticed that in some police force areas that where a person is the 2nd person or further down the chain and they tell the police that they don't know who was driving they are automatically charged under S172.
The [problem]mers don't seem to realise that such people only have to supply information that is in their power to give. This is not the same as the RK responsibilities.
On 22/Feb/2008 the vehicle was drive through a red light.
On 1/Jul/2008, it is alleged that you failed to give information as to the identity of the driver.
What date was your NIP served (not the date that was on the NIP, but that date it was delivered) and on what date did you return it? What date did you contact them by telephone?
the first NIP was dated the 25th -3-2008 and i cannot accurately say what date i received it but it was almost definately within a few days of the date, incidently it had the wrong surname, 6 letters and mine is a 10 letter surname.
they maintained they never received it back with the appropriate information! so i suppose the date of return is academic
as i kept a photo copy, is the fact that the different surname would constitute a failure to present within the required time frame on their part? never mind the main contentions
Who are they writing to on this court proceedings papers, the 6 letter surname or the 10 letter surname?
If they are now using your correct surname, that would imply they received your first S172 back as otherwise why would your name now be spelt right if you haven't told them?
If they are still writing to the 6 letter surname then it would appear you have not been summosed because you are not that 6 letter person.
the first NIP was dated the 25th -3-2008 and i cannot accurately say what date i received it but it was almost definately within a few days of the date, incidently it had the wrong surname, 6 letters and mine is a 10 letter surname.
OK, let us assume 28th March; in that case, the offence was committed 28 days after that. (you have 28 days to respond from date of service)
as i kept a photo copy, is the fact that the different surname would constitute a failure to present within the required time frame on their part? never mind the main contentions
Yes. Near guaranteed defence.
You have not failed to respond as you were never asked.
As Crem says, if the summons is in your correct name, then they must have had the S.172 form back.
If the summons is wrong as well, then you will still need to respond to it - as the 'slip rule' applies to the summons (but not the evidence)
so officially, the first document of record sent to me - with my correct name and spelling -was the 2nd NIP dated, 30-5-2008.
However i never received this document- this being the alleged replacement for the original and incorrectly titled 1st NIP which although i had completed section 5, THEY CLAIMED THEY NEVER RECEIVED IT.
All the more remarkable as the 2nd had my correct name and spelling this time, was this just a coincidence?
So from the first NIP which i completed -although originally addressed to somebody else- to the next documentation which was in effect the summons received by me on the 28-10-2008, some 8 months after the original offence was commited- by still person unknown!
Crem they have summonsed the 10 letter surname -me- but they are relying on the innitial NIP documentation that was issued although to my address and same first name, but to someone with an entirely different 6 letter surname!
What documents were contained in your summons bundle? Can you scan, wash and post please.
You should also be aware that as you will be pleading not guilty, the case will be adjourned on 4th December to another date. You should have had a pleading form with the summons. You do not have to surrender your licence with teh plea form, as long as you have it with you in court.
are the police bluffing?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by jasmin2008
