Alleged using mobile phone & late NIP

[electrogear]

Hi guys, first time poster so sorry if I break any etiquette...

 

I've been sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution for the alleged offence of driving whilst using a mobile telephone on 20/05/2013. It arrived today (04/06/2013) - I make that 15 days after the offence(?) Also, the letter is dated 03/06/2013 which is 14 days after the offence - am I right in thinking that the police must send the letter TO ARRIVE BY 14 days after the offence?

 

If it makes any difference, I don't think I was guilty of this offence. I occasionally check my phone when at traffic lights and this is all that I can think has happened.

 

On the FAQ form sent with the NIP it says "If your notice arrived after 14 days, it may be because the type of alleged offence involved is not one to which the requirement applies. Alternatively, you may have been named as the current driver / keeper / hirer of the vehicle or the Central Ticket Office may have applied a statutory exemption."

 

Is there anybody who has some expertise in this area and could give me some advice? Thanks

[Aretnap]

Afraid the question is irrelevant as using a mobile phone is not one of the offences to which section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act applies, and therefore it doesn't require a NIP, within 14 days or otherwise.

 

FWIW where a NIP is required it must be served on the registered keeper on or before day 14, where the day of the offence is day 0. If it's a lease car or company car the registered keeper will usually be a company, and the NIP will go to them. They'll name you, and there's no particular time limit for you to get your own NIP.

 

You can still contest the charge if you want and the prosecution would have to prove that you were using your phone while driving... but while there's no definitive case law on whether waiting at traffic lights is driving, I suspect that a court would probably decide that it was, and convict you.

[electrogear]

Thank you for that useful information! I will complete my S172 form and return it then. I have asked them for photographic evidence in accordance with their FAQ section. If they can provide evidence then I'll take it on the chin. If not, then I may go to court.

[memgrubb]

Keep us posted

[electrogear]

Sure, I will do! Does a police officer's testimony alone provide sufficient evidence to prosecute if I wasn't photographed on my telephone? According to the FAQ they say that the photograph does not have to be of the driver - only a photograph of the car. But then what's to stop some idiot police officer taking photos of any old car because he doesn't like the way they look, and then having them prosecuted?

[memgrubb]

There was a case on here where someone took it to court and won. On my mobile so can't find the link at the moment, I will check it out for you.

[electrogear]

Thanks, that would be really great if you know where it is? I've had a look but I'm useless with these things...

[memgrubb]

Here you go:

 

Challenging Hand held mobile offence...not guilty. **Acquitted**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?381916-Challenging-Hand-held-mobile-offence...not-guilty.-**Acquitted**

 

Let us know your thoughts after reading through this.

[Tony P]

And maybe get your phone company to send you a log of calls/SMSs made and received around the relevant time.

[memgrubb]

And maybe get your phone company to send you a log of calls/SMSs made and received around the relevant time.

 

Good shout

[electrogear]

Thank you so much for finding me that thread. After reading through it I'm tempted just to take the hit. Normally I'd make a stand, but in the next 2 months I am: 1) Buying a house 2) Getting married 3) Changing jobs 4) Going on a 1 month honeymoon. So don't need the added stress!

[memgrubb]

Thank you so much for finding me that thread. After reading through it I'm tempted just to take the hit. Normally I'd make a stand, but in the next 2 months I am: 1) Buying a house 2) Getting married 3) Changing jobs 4) Going on a 1 month honeymoon. So don't need the added stress!

 

No problem. We can only give you examples and options and allow you to make your own choices based on these, so if that is what you want to do, then fair enough.

 

It's always worth remembering in case there is another time!

[electrogear]

One day I will take on the police and win! It annoys me that I'm a law abiding citizen yet I have had to deal with the police on three occasions now for doing absolutely nothing, or very little wrong.

[sgtbush]

the case i think in the post was the phone was in a cradle and that was the argument, along with the policemans attitude and the pcso proven not to be in a position to observe properly.

 

im still of the opinion that if you have had the phone in your hand, with the engine running, ie at a set of traffic lights you are guilty of the offence. no doubt people with give there opinion on the law, but at the end of the day, if you want the definitive opinion, go to court with it and the judge will decide.

 

as to a policeman observing you with no photographs, it is admissable as evidence, as are your observations too, but the judge would decide on what to belive

[assisted blonde]

hi my oh was observed using his phone allegedly, in a white car, the car was actually bright orange at the time with writing on it!!! very observant methinks !!!

[crem]

If it makes any difference, I don't think I was guilty of this offence. I occasionally check my phone when at traffic lights and this is all that I can think has happened.

 

Yes it does make a difference. It would appear that you openly admit you commit the offence "occasionally" and, it would seem, on one of these occasions you have been seen by the police.

 

Please stop using your mobile while driving for the safety of all of us on the road.

[borisbeaver]

And the fine for using a mobile phone whilst driving goes up to £100 next month.