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

[Bad lad]

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 

Edited March 2, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[Bad lad]

Yes 34 mph I’m afraid 

[Bad lad]

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 

[Bad lad]

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

[Bad lad]

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

 

 

 

[Bad lad]

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.

 

[Bad lad]

Apologies on no Recent updates.

 

To put it bluntly nothing has happened, I decided not to say anything to the police, to be fair they have nothing to substantiate their spurious unfounded allegations.

 

In other words I decided on the leave em to it and see approach… 

 

I’m waiting for my moment to give them grief  (6month rule) we have just shy of a month to go,  might as well feel the benefit of immunity to prosecution

 

once the 6 months are up I’ll probably taunt and shame them on Facebook to exact my revenge

.Obviously I’ll post a link here

Edited February 3, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[Bad lad]

So, here we have a development.

yesterday I received a single justice procedural notice dated 21/02/22.

literally just over a week to go until 6 months are up ! 

Charges are failing to give information of driver and speeding..

 

Lots of information to comprehend as I’ve never dealt with one of these before.

interesting to see statements from camera operator etc. 

the most interesting one is from police admin guy who starts off by saying he received s172 nomination but basically they’re not happy with picture and it suggests driver sex / age doesn’t correspond to nomination. 

It’s worth noting my name is spelled incorrectly in his statement.

he goes on to say that furthers172  requests were sent with no reply.

 

Obviously this proves that S172 was complied with and I nominated my wife, I stand by my belief that I’m under no obligations to keep supplying the same information and S172 request was complied with. 

I also look forward to seeing  ( questioning) the photo evidence they refer to that shines doubt on my wife driving. It is physically impossible that anyone other than my wife was driving ( she knew she’d got the ticket at the time and we know exactly where she’d been and why ( till receipt with date and time a couple of minutes before offence).

 

The photo’s they’ve sent me are useless and it’s impossible to even tell there’s a driver, they have absolutely no reason to say they don’t believe it’s her.

 

As a quick side note it’s interesting to see the speeding offence date of charge  is 07/09/21 

but fail to supply information is 12/12/21 not date  of speeding…

 

Again they appear to be playing silly buggers juggling dates, maybe because they realised they are almost time barred to prosecute.

 

Any advice welcomed, thanks.

Edited February 27, 2022 by dx100uk
spacing

[Bad lad]

Hi Man in the Middle, thanks for your help yet again.

there’s no photos with the idpc, in fact I’d missed the fact that they were   Skirting around that, thanks for the heads up

it looks like the s172 they’re trying it on with is  dated 17/11/21. 
 

thanks for doing some digging around btw.

im struggling to find the Scottish case , typical.

looking at s172 section 7b looks helpful and I came across Phiri vs Dpp 2017 EWHC2546 that might be a little helpful 

[Bad lad]

Thanks for your excellent imput again, you certainly do have a broader view than me.

I know it’s hard for you to accept what I’m saying as 100% true etc, I’m more than happy to email you pictures of the paperwork if you wish. I can post my email address here if that’s within group rules.

let me know if that’s ok with you , I’d rather not post private information here, plus I’m not totally sure how to

[Bad lad]

I’ve updated my profile picture, that’s what the police say doesn’t appear. To be the gender or age I nominated

[Bad lad]

Thank you again,  your explanations make perfect clear sense to me, I cant find fault with that rationale.

dates are as follows :

 07/09/21 speeding offence committed.

10/9/21 police sent nip with s172.

29/9/21 (on or around) police say they they received  S172 nomination.

01/10/21 letter sent to me saying they viewed photo evidence and it suggests incorrect due to age / gender. Asked me to re check my records. HAd S172  On back.

12/11/21 police did pnc / dvla checks on me. After no response. From me.

12/11/21 police sent letter saying they had no correspondence, summary proceedings being considered. 
16/11/21 police got email from me requesting photo evidence.

17/11/21 police sent photo evidence along with another S172

22/02/22 police sent SJPN with statements etc

26/02/22  SJPN recieved.

…Charge dates on SJPN….

12/12/21 fail to give information identifying driver.

07/09/21 Speeding. 
 

Obviously I’ve got some of that date information from police statement  accompanying SJPN.

Hope that helps.

thanks again.

 

 

[Bad lad]

Fantastic, I really appreciate your help. Obviously I’ll be posting updates on here as things move along.

[Bad lad]

Quick question is this group the same as the fb community action group? If so I’ll post redacted paperwork there easier 

 

[Bad lad]

Please note I’ve posted redacted pictures 

 

Docs1.pdf

[Bad lad]

Thanks again for your continued dedication man in the middle,  I’m chuffed you found the Scottish case

[Bad lad]

Well done you obviously have some very good friends and contacts. Thanks fo coordinating them

 

btw I’m assuming you have seen the paperwork I’ve posted on Facebook,  take a look at those pictures.

 

Yes they really are that bad, that’s probably why police aren’t including them in prosecution.

 

Nothing to substantiate their  unfounded claims there…

[Bad lad]

Apologies Manxman, I did type out a reply to you earlier, god knows where that vanished to.

 

Anyway you’re right I’m not a fan of the police but I didn’t pull any sillly stunts, S172 was completed properly and signed.

 

I didn’t see any reason to give them ammo to use against me,,,, Little did I know what was to unfold.

Edited March 2, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[Bad lad]

It’s madness, but then again this sort of thing is exactly why I don’t like the Police. They have too much power when they are judge jury and hangman. They start to behave as they like, Thugs.

Edited March 2, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[Bad lad]

Yes he’s been very helpful and obviously put a lot of effort and thoughts into it. I’m very grateful.

 

There’s one thing MITM mentioned and I’m not sure about, that’s the “Abuse of Process “  Im thinking this is a bit of a Hand grenade to be thrown in if needed…

 

The question is do I  go “all in” with my defence with the SJPN  quoting pretty much every point MITM makes, including saying that the Police actions will cause an abuse of process if If the case is forwarded to trial. 

A sympathetic magistrate might decide enough is enough and Police have overstepped the mark,  others might be interested to see it go all the way and how it plays out.

[Bad lad]

MITM message understood, thanks.

You  cleared that up perfectly.

Have you not looked at my profile picture? You keep mentioning it as if you haven’t. That’s the evidence supplied by police. I’ve also put it on the Facebook group with another they supplied. You will have a good chuckle to yourself when you see it and despair at how the police can cast such aspersions. Please have a look and let me know. Thanks, Phil..

[Bad lad]

Thanks to Dx100 for getting the paperwork and photos up in this thread for me.

MITM  and Manx exile please take a look at message number 33, as I said you will be amazed police are questioning who driver was. 
 

[Bad lad]

Madness isn’t it. Btw there’s no photos supplied in their disclosure if it’s called that or is it evidence? 
I’ve just looked at the camera operators statement and it’s mentioned but isn’t included can this be added later by police or are they pulling a fast one there too ? 
Please excuse my probable scepticism that they aren’t following procedure,, I’m sure you understand why

camera operator’s statement says  “ a print of the vehicle is produced as police item mrs/01”

[Bad lad]

.Manxman Exactly what I thought, I assumed that picture would have been submitted to the court as evidence. 
personally I think that the date of S172 offence charge makes it clear that they’re referring to the final S172 request. Not the first one that I replied to… they appear to not really want to question that any more and  seem to be accepted it as fact it’s madnes

I like MITM’s Sausage factory statement, there’s obviously only Braun in the factory.

[Bad lad]

Quick update,  nothing new to report at the moment I’m afraid. SJPN was returned special delivery and signed for, I’ve not heard anything back yet.