speeding: who was driving?

[crem]

If you had (and still have) a Mail Redirect in place, then surely you can

be reasonably confident they haven't previously issued a NIP. If they used the old DLVA address then you would still have received it a couple of days later than intended that's all.

 

On this basis it would still be worth pursuing the point that it is an out of time NIP.

[uk_geezer]

If you had (and still have) a Mail Redirect in place, then surely you can

be reasonably confident they haven't previously issued a NIP. If they used the old DLVA address then you would still have received it a couple of days later than intended that's all.

 

On this basis it would still be worth pursuing the point that it is an out of time NIP.

 

Well all our other mail gets redirected from the old address, including (recently) car AND bike tax reminders, so in my opinion they DID NOT send a NIP to the old address; although they claim they did.

 

I believe they did not but it would be impossible to prove; they could argue that they sent it but it got lost in the post?

 

With regards to your comment about pursuing it as out of date, how do I do this?

 

I have (my Wife has) until 2nd September to respond to the NIP she received.

[lamma]

the service is rebuttable (Interpretation Act). the fact that everything else has been redirected okay is usable in your argument.

rebuttal is done by swearing to it so it is essential that you maintain credibility at all stages.

[uk_geezer]

My Wife has responded to her NIP, declaring me as the driver; which I was.

 

I have received my NIP and responded, admitting I was the driver.

 

I have now been offered £60/3-points.

 

This has really grated on me as I am not in the habit of speeding, so much so that the kids hate it when I drive because they say I "drive like an old man". I have been a professional driver of either taxis/vans/HGV's/Trains for the last 20 years with no previous, (and as far as the HGV's and Trains go, we have "blackbox" spy in the cab technology).

 

I recently took my Wife's car for 2 new front tyres, and the chap commented on the fact that the tyres currently fitted were not the correct size; i.e. my Wife had purchased a set of alloys from ebay, complete with tyres, which I knew were rubbing slightly on the mudflaps.

 

I have calculated (I'm quite good at maths) that these tyres will have caused the speedo to read LOW; not by much; about 3mph.

 

I have now changed the front tyres to a lower profile, which will keep the overall tyre circumference nearer to the original factory fitted tyre size, which will minimise any discrepancy in the speedo.

 

Anyway, when I was clocked at 35 in a 30, the speedo would have been reading 32, which yes is still speeding, and would have been a rare momentary excess for me.

 

Would this be taken in mitigation? Is it worth going to court? Or should I just cough the £60/3-points?

[crem]

 

I have calculated (I'm quite good at maths) that these tyres will have caused the speedo to read LOW; not by much; about 3mph.

 

Anyway, when I was clocked at 35 in a 30, the speedo would have been reading 32, which yes is still speeding, and would have been a rare momentary excess for me.

 

Would this be taken in mitigation? Is it worth going to court? Or should I just cough the £60/3-points?

 

Most car speedos (dare I say all?) would be reading low already, so to be clocked at an official 35 would have meant your car speedo was reading 37 or 38 in the car. taking the 3mph off for the tyres still leaves you at 34 or 35 on your speedo. Mind an extra 3mph just for a slightly different size tyre still sounds excessive. That's about 10% extra you've added on?

 

Best handy place for checking this I find is if you have one of those speed warning signs near you, not the ones that just flash *30* at you, but the ones that flash up your actual speed as you appraoch.

 

btw I think these type of signs are much better for road safety as most of us actually do slow down if they flash an excess speed instead of just hitting drivers unexpectedly with a fine and 3 points 2 weeks later.

[MrShed]

Another good way is via a satnav speedo - these are more accurate(and showed my speedo to be exactly 10% over my actual speed at all times).

 

In any event, I think this is irrelevant, as the timescale issue is still an absolute defence as far as I can see.

[crem]

Another good way is via a satnav speedo - these are more accurate(and showed my speedo to be exactly 10% over my actual speed at all times).

 

I would agree with that MrShed also. I tend to drive more to my SatNav as long as my learners drive to the speedo.

[crash3903]

Despite 172 if you genuinely don't recall because of the passage of time who the driver was then you cannot just nominate anyone. To do so would be perjury

 

Wrong only committed when under oath

 

Anyway, if the offence is dated in may and the nip is dated in august they are well outside the 14 days

[patdavies]

Best handy place for checking this I find is if you have one of those speed warning signs near you, not the ones that just flash *30*at you, but the ones that flash up your actual speed as you appraoch.

 

No.

 

There is no guarantee as to the accuracy of these (as there is no legal requirement for calibration, etc.).

 

Also, there is a tendency to set them slightly below the limit anyway.

 

Sat-nav is far more accurate, even though it cannot provide an instantaneous reading.

[Dyanomo]

I would ask for more info and dispute the fact that you were speeding. Have you received points for speeding before?

 

If it is not to late then you can ask for all sorts of info as to the calibration of the equipment involved etc. Also, was it a mobile unit or a fixed camera that got you?

[MrShed]

Guys - why complicate this. The timescale issue is key!

[crash3903]

Guys - why complicate this. The timescale issue is key!

 

Absolutely correct MrShed!

[Dyanomo]

I'm not so sure. It is the OP's responsibility to inform DVLA of where the car is being kept. He did not. As far as all the other mail being redirected, this could work in his favour or against. The CPS could say 'it is convenient that all other mail was redirected but not this'.

 

I think it is important to know whether this NIP was the first one sent. If it was then you have a case. If not then it could go either way. Perhaps ask why there was such a delay although you will find this out when you receive a summons. I would not rest on one argument alone!

[MrShed]

Yes, but until that avenue is exhausted, then the rest is just superfluous information. Why worry about calibration etc(which, by the way, to my knowledge is a lovely theoretical argument but has never worked in practice), when you have an absolute defence if you can show that they simply took ages to send the NIP?

[Dyanomo]

The idea is that you don't want to go to court and to make it so difficult, time consuming, expensive and not worth going. If you state all the points out in a letter with everything you intend to contest, a fiver says they will drop the case.

 

Oh and the the calibration argument is not theoretical. I used it twice in 2003 on the Wessex Way in Bournemouth. Got caught by both speed cameras doing 5 miles over the limit. Sent a series of letters and the case was dropped. If you google it, this defence has been used several times and cases won.

 

I was also in Court last friday, New Forest, and won.

[patdavies]

The idea is that you don't want to go to court and to make it so difficult, time consuming, expensive and not worth going. If you state all the points out in a letter with everything you intend to contest, a fiver says they will drop the case.

 

Oh and the the calibration argument is not theoretical. I used it twice in 2003 on the Wessex Way in Bournemouth. Got caught by both speed cameras doing 5 miles over the limit. Sent a series of letters and the case was dropped. If you google it, this defence has been used several times and cases won.

 

I was also in Court last friday, New Forest, and won.

 

Under English Law, you are not entitled to see any of the evidence, including calibration certificates, etc. until after you have entered a plea of not guilty to a Magistrates' Court summons.

 

The fact that some SCPs do send this out beforehand is a bonus, not a right.

[Dyanomo]

That doesn't stop you from asking for it and indicating what you would require and how much work they would have if they take you to Court.

 

The whole idea, if you don't want to accept the fine, is to make it not worthwhile them taking you to Court. Use whatever excuse you like, personally I would hit them with everything rather than dragging it out for so long.

 

I don't understand why anyone would take a chance on one reason when you have several perfectly valid ones.

[MrShed]

Because the one reason, if we can establish the background behind it, is an absolute defence. I dont see the need to confuse matters on this basis.

 

However, point taken about the theoretical/practical application of calibration

[Dyanomo]

Who would you be confusing? The main reason I suggest the calibration argument is because he was only doing 35. If he was doing 40 in a 30 then I would agree with you. I think there are 2 main issues here.

1) Exactly when was the first NIP sent, who to and what address?

2) Whether there is a case of speeding to answer.

 

I have a feeling the SCU sent the NIP within time, to the wrong address. Not their fault. They would then contact the DVLA to confirm the address is correct by way of a VQ5 certified document. This all takes time and is within the allowance of a Court.

 

The redirected mail is interesting but can be used for both sides - although it does provide reasonable doubt depending on what the SCU has actually done about this. Simply saying you didn't receive the NIP is not enough. I suspect this is the second or third attempt.

 

If this was just a straight forward case of the NIP arriving out of time without any mitigating factors I would whole-heartedly agree with you.

[patdavies]

"Your worships, we had moved from the address on the V5 and had not yet informed the DVLA of this fact. However, we have put in place x months Royal Mail re-direction service and it would appear that all other mail for either or both of us has been successfully re-directed, including other documents like V11 VED renewal reminders which also rely on the name & address as shown on the V5.

 

I would argue that the SCP are partly authors of their own misfortune as they have signed-for delivery options available to them under law for the service of a NIP. They failed to avail themselves of one of these and instead used simple first class post, which even the Royal Mail acknowledges loses millions of items of mail per year, knowing the risks of non-delivery of the NIP."

[patdavies]

Who would you be confusing? The main reason I suggest the calibration argument is because he was only doing 35. If he was doing 40 in a 30 then I would agree with you. I think there are 2 main issues here.

 

 

You would risk confusing the Magistrates, who don't like multi-stranded defences - it smacks of desperation and you are likely to have your arguments dismissed out of hand. Remember that Magistrates are a summary court and dispense summary justice.

 

In order to avoid issues over inaccuracies of equipment (especially defendant's speedo) ACPO guideline for prosecution are limit + 10% = 2 mph. So for a 30 mph limit, prosecution starts at a threshold of 35 mph. The law also requires that no vehicle speedometer may under-read at any speed. To ensure this, all manufacturers build their speedos to over-read - to allow for mechanical wear and losses, and changes in overall wheel circumference as tyres wear.

 

So to achieve 35 mph, it is likely that the vehicle speedo would be reading close to 40 mph. I accept your argument about calibration certificates, but these are only required to be renewed annually for the speed detection equipment

[Dyanomo]

I'll say it again. The idea is to NOT GO TO COURT IN THE FIRST PLACE! If, in the event you do go to court you can choose to defend how you wish. Surely preventative measures are better than saying "I didn't receive it so take me to Court!"

 

You are repeatedly misunderstanding me and I am getting tired with repeating myself over and over. I give up. Good luck to the OP.

[patdavies]

I'll say it again. The idea is to NOT GO TO COURT IN THE FIRST PLACE! If, in the event you do go to court you can choose to defend how you wish. Surely preventative measures are better than saying "I didn't receive it so take me to Court!"

 

You are repeatedly misunderstanding me and I am getting tired with repeating myself over and over. I give up. Good luck to the OP.

 

I am not repeatedly misunderstanding you; I am pointing out the flaws in your advice.

 

At the risk of repeating myself, the OP is not entitled to any of the information prior to being summonsed and pleading not guilty. that some SCPs will supply the information does not make a requirement, nor that it will happen in the OP's case, nor make it good advice.

 

You say that you are demonstrating how much work they will have to do in order to obtain a conviction. They have to do this work anyway. The summons bundle will contain an S.20 statement that covers all of your demands. If you disagree it (and there is a time-scale in which you can disagree) then the individual pieces of paper and the relevant people will be brought to court. If you are found guilty, then the costs will escalate to cover the extra costs involved for the prosecution and witness attendance costs.

 

Your advice echoes that of various publications advertised nationally to get people off speeding charges. It is nonsense and likely gives the SCP a good laugh when they receive a letter following your advice.

[Dyanomo]

For the second time in this thread I can confirm that the advice to ask for those documents is not nonsense. I have had 2 cases dropped because of it. Just because you have no legal right to the documents does not mean you can not ask for them. There is no legal requirement for you to see photographic evidence either yet most will send you them before a Summons is sent.

 

I really don't understand who you think I would be confusing - yourself perhaps? If the SCU or CPS get confused then great! Also, the gross amount of work does not need to be done anyway if the case is dropped before the Summons stage.

 

What you choose to ask for before a case gets to a summons stage and what you choose to ask for afterwards are completely different.

 

I will stick to my way of dealing with the Courts and you stick to yours. To date, I have had 2 cases dropped before the Court date (directly because of callibration evidence etc requested) and one verdict of Not Guilty due to photographic evidence not being received when requested (following a NIP).

 

In summary, on all 3 cases I asked for information that the opposition do not legally have to send. All 3 cases won!

(I will add that in all 3 cases I was only doing 5 miles or less over the speed limit!)

 

Laugh away