Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About dazer

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Update - we replied to the NIP sent to my wife and enclosed a short statement saying she is not aware of any accident. Police replied saying there was a witness to the alleged accident and that my point about the effectiveness or otherwise of their s112 notice had been referred to their legal dept (presumably the CPS). The next day they sent another letter saying they intend to take no further action. My wife was never asked for interview or even to produce any driving documents. Now I have the insurance side of it all to deal with as the owner of the other car wants to talk before rep
  2. PatDavies - you might recall I posted on the parking/offences forum about the s112/s172 issue - the police sent s112 RTRA notices giving 7 days to reply when they should have sent s172 RTA notices giving 28 days to reply. My concern here is that the police might have decided not to proceed becuase of this procedural difficuly they have, rather than because they think the evidence is insufficient. that said, my wife is unaware of any accident. thanks
  3. Thanks for the replies. The police were involved at the outset - it seems a witness reported it to the police. In the police's letter they set out the date/time - and my wife would have been there then as she was picking up our daughter from school. But my wife is unaware of any accident - its curious. Thankfully the police have decided to take no further action in regard to any of the alleged offences (leaving the scene/failing to report/careless driving) - even though the police say there was a witness and even though the complainant says her car was damaged. It cannot be much damag
  4. A third party has claimed that my wife was involved in a car accident. My wife is unaware of any accident. We received a notice of intended prosecution from the police, to which we replied saying we are unaware of any accident. The police said there is an independant witness, and subsequently said they intend to take no action in the matter. I now have a telephone message from the third party saying she has estimates to repair her car and wants to talk before reporting to insurers. There is no new damage to our car as far as i am aware, so any damage to her car must be small. I h
  5. I think I have the answer - "There is an exemption (for the prosecution to serve a NIP) under section 2 (1) of the RTOA if an accident occurred as a result of the presence of the vehicle either at the time or immediately afterwards. The NIP would not be required for even the most minor accidents which did not involve a third party, but a NIP is required if the D is unaware of an accident taking place (Metropolitan Police v Scarlett [1978] Crim LR 234 and Bentley v Dickinson [1983] RTR 356. These cases are now restricted to cases of minor accidents which could have been missed, as oppos
  6. I am told that s.1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act (the bit that imposes the 14 day period for the NIP) does not apply in the case of accidents. However on the net there are numerous references to the 14 days continuing to apply if the alleged offender was not aware an accident had occurred - as in my case. Does anyone know if this is correct? thanks
  7. Thanks. My wife got her NIP today - she has just opened it. It refers to the same 3 RTA 1988 alleged offences and requires her to respond within 7 days under s112 of the RTRA 1984. So we will use your draft letter and see what happens. Yes I have asked the question on Pepipoo. thanks
  8. Thanks alot for that. The 7 day period expired earlier in the week and before it did I returned the completed NIP. Your research though I think might allow me now to say that their section 112 request for driver id was invalid (for the reasons you give in your message) so the evidence of driver id was obtained improperly. Do you know what the consequences of that are - are they out of time for re-issuing a new request for driver id (alleged offence date is 11 June). What is the best way to use their mistake against them? Maybe if it goes to court - we use it then - but I would prefer
  9. Having had a quick look at the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, there is no obvious reference I can find to the charges mentioned in the NIP (indeed in the NIP those charges refer to various sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988). Section 112 begins "This section applies to any offence under any of the foregoing provisions of this Act...". If their initial request for the identity of the driver should have been made under s 172 RTA, can this be used to defeat the charge (if one is brought) - or can I use this argument now to stop the process in its tracks. thanks
  10. She was either driving it or had it parked up - so she was definitely in the area at the time - but she says nothing happened as far as she is aware - nothing at all.
  11. The alleged offences are careless driving, leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report an accident. my wife was using the car at the time and she says she cannot recall being involved in, causing or witnessing an accidnet. So we are mystified at present. The NIP comes from the local police force.
  12. This NIP says that under s.112 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, i am required to identify the driver within 7 days of service of the NIP. However looking at section 112, there is no such time limit. Reading around the forums, it seems that 28 days is often cited as the relevant response period. Has anyone come across this 7 day period in a NIP, and might it invalidate the NIP if what is stated in the NIP is wrong? thanks
  13. Hello - I have received one of these in regard to an alleged traffic accident. I was not the driver at the time, so i will have to identify who was. my question is this - in part 1 of the form i have to insert my name, address, DOB and occupation - does anyone know how much of that info i am obliged to give? Why should i disclose my occupation - I am not the alleged offender. thanks
  • Create New...