Jump to content


nip and some dodgy behaviour from police. Opinions needed please.


Recommended Posts

Looking for input and people’s opinions please, just so I get different views…

 

Bare facts….

wife comes home annoyed with herself because she’s convinced she’s been caught by mobile speed camera,

 few days later nip comes in post in my name ( I’m registered keeper) 34 mph in  A 30 limit, from mobile camera in location and day time wife said…..

all simple so far


although I did consider accepting 6 points and fine rather than grassing Mrs up to police I have no respect or like of, wife insisted  ( only because of big fine) I fill form in and return with her details, 

form returned, fulfilling my section 172 Rta obligation as far as I’m concerned.

 

here’s where things get odd ! 

 

a few weeks later police send me second letter saying thanks for response however there appears to be a discrepancy so not able to transfer to nominated driver ( wife). 
examination of photo evidence suggests driver is not person I named as age and or gender do not correspond with my nomination.

if I wish to view photo I can ask for it.

letter goes on to make threats and demands under s172  ( although I believe I’ve fulfilled my s172 obligation by completing nip ) 

 

In my opinion they obviously  think my Mrs is taking points for me or something similar… obviously this isn’t the case, I’ve nothing to be worried about and chose to ignore the threatening letter…

I don’t see why I needed to ask for picture so didn’t, besides I’m not going to go out of my way to be overly helpful I’m no fan of police remember…

I’m of the opinion that if I see picture I’m privy to information I might have to share , besides my research tells me the photo has no other legal purpose than identifying the vehicle keeper from registration.

My attitude is I’ve fulfilled my legal requirements if they don’t believe me that’s not my problem, I’ll laugh at them in court.

Go forward around 6 weeks, I’ve had another letter saying that they can’t deal with this anymore and I’ll hear from the courts…

 

quick side note, my Mrs hasn’t been contacted by them…

obviously I’m assuming at some point I’m going to get a summons for either failing to supply information (s172 ) THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENCE.

OR speeding 

or you never know the fools might even try perverting the course of justice.

 

so,,, that’s pretty much where I’m at, I’m looking for input please and feel free to tell me if I’m missing anything.
Thanks 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as it grates on you, you should have engaged with the police when this first arose. A quick look at the photograph you were offered would have confirmed your suspicion that this is a cock-up (or not). However, you are where you are. 

 

I imagine the next you will hear will be a single justice procedure notice for "Failing to provide driver's details." You will obviously plead Not Guilty to this and unless somebody looks at the case beforehand you will face a trial. 

 

Taking what you've said at face value, you have a cast iron defence. You've provided the details of the person you believe was driving. Is there any possibility she wasn't? Might she have lent the car to somebody without telling you? There is one thing you need to realise:
 

Quote

 

...besides my research tells me the photo has no other legal purpose than identifying the vehicle keeper from registration.

 

 

Whilst that's certainly what it was taken for, the police may use it for any purpose they choose. If it provides them with evidence to support their suspicion that an offence has been committed, it will be used (that's why it was a good idea that you saw it). 

 

You are correct - Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice is certainly a possibility and if you are charged with that offence you need to seek formal legal advice. If they just go for the s172 offence you will be served with the evidence they intend to rely on to convict you before you enter your plea. So you should see the photograph they have.

 

You need to wait to see what they do.

 

As an aside:

 

Quote

Yes 34 mph I’m afraid 

 

Any chance you might post the NIP up here (redacted, of course). There is another forum where members are very interested to learn of any action taken against drivers at below the (Limit+10%+2mph) threshold.

Edited by Man in the middle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Man in the middle, grates is an understatement 🤣

I was not and will not go out of my way to help them, 

besides you never know the Mrs might get off with it 😂

 

The nip itself is long out of my hands I’m afraid, it was filled in and returned 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the matter is discontinued, at some point you will need to engage with this. If you receive a SJPN at the very least you will need to respond to it. Failure to do so will see you tried in your absence. If it was me I would be absolutely intrigued to find out what this is all about and why the police believe you were telling Porkies. 

 

As I said, you will have to wait and see what they do. One thing you should realise is that a conviction for s172 will see you with an endorsement code MS90 and it is one which insurers hate. It will see your premiums rocket for up to five years. PCoJ, of course is a different ball game entirely. I would be doing everything I could to avoid either of those (especially the second) and I'd want to know what it is all about.

 

Do report back to let us know what you find out. I'm more intrigued than you are!  😀

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info folks, just to add further information, I’ve emailed police asking for photo, only because it’ll be beneficial to my defence. 
Also my Mrs isn’t 100% sure but  she may  have been gardening at the time and had a baseball cap on  to keep her hair out of her face then nipped out . I suppose it’s possible they think it’s a young lad. Me and the Mrs are early 50s

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update…. 


Today I’ve been  sent 2 photos and a further request for information under s172 ( again ! )

QUESTION, am I correct in thinking I’ve satisfied my s172 obligations by completing and returning the nip in the first instance ?

 

The photos: 

apologies, the offending speed is 35 mph on the picture not 34…

 

the pictures are pretty crap to be honest, I can just about tell it’s my Mrs by the long hair ( pictures are dark ) 

 

Im not totally thick and see a really weak reason for questioning who the driver is because photos are not conclusive,  I can also see argument that they shouldn’t be casting wild aspersions with no evidence…

 

from the pictures I’ve been sent I can only describe their actions as reckless and unfounded !
Obviously I rest on my laurels knowing exactly who was driving so can afford being on the moral high ground 🙂


to answerable couple of the above comments ,

 

it’s looking like the police are dead set on court going by their actions, I’m not really choosing it.

If they won’t accept the truth that was given to them what else can I do ?

 

of and if we end up in court I won’t be physically laughing but do believe I could run rings around their actions etc so far.

 

 

Opinions and views welcomed please 🙂

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you have satisfied your obligations under s172. However, there is nothing in s172 that says they cannot ask you again and (as far as I know) no English case law that covers the matter. There is a Scottish case which addressed the issue and the ruling in that was that refusal to respond to a second request (when the first had been received) was not an offence. However, Scottish case law is not binding on courts in E&W (though it can be persuasive).

 

It depends how much you want to stir the hornet's nest. If you decline to respond to the second request they may try to prosecute you for that and the outcome would be uncertain (as above). If you respond to it in exactly the same manner as you did the first, that removes that potential obstacle. That will leave you in the same position as now -  that is that you have responded with what you believe to be the truth. It would be for the police to produce evidence that you have not responded truthfully and from what you say they cannot do that. At the very simplest you could ask your wife to provide a statement that she was indeed the driver at the relevant time and that she is indeed the person shown in the photographs. However, the trial process involves the prosecution presenting its case first and they have to produce sufficient evidence so that the court could (but not necessarily would) convict you. Only if they do that will you be required to respond with your defence. If the prosecution fails to do so (in your opinion) you can ask them to consider that there is "no case to answer" and if they agree then no defence is required.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Man in the Middle, you seem very knowledgeable I’m assuming you are a solicitor or similar. Your time and efforts are appreciated.


Btw My googling only resulted in the Scottish case for reference.

you have given me food for thought. 
 

im considering replying to the police although it pains me, 

 

my reply might consist of a shot letter saying I believe I have fulfilled my s172 requirements and stand fully behind my original reply. I’m aggrieved by the inference of their letters

I do not intend to enter into further communication.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's wise.

 

I understand your reticence to go along with their demands. However, it will be far easier to win this argument by complying with their requests. If it does go to court and you can show that you have co-operated as far as you can the court cannot draw any adverse inferences by you trying to be obstructive. You want to win this and the police will be just as much defeated if you go along with their requests and you will not have left any avenue open for potential defeat.

 

There is no obligation to provide the information required on the pro-forma the police send you. However, to avoid an accusation that you have not responded properly I would include something like

 

"...and stand fully behind my original reply. For the avoidance of any further misunderstanding the driver was Mrs [firstname] Badlad, [address], [driving licence number]. This is now the second time I have provided these details as I am obliged to do under s172 ot the RTA and I now consider this matter closed.

 

Take a copy and get a free certificate of posting from the Post Office.

 

Do let us know the outcome.

 

 

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...