Son's 2 Speeding NIP's - In two places at the same time ?

[toxtethogrady]

My son has just received two letters with Notice of Intended prosecution for speed camera offences. 

First is almost certainly a fair cop - 82 in a 70, on the M1 which was on his route he took that day. 

Second is on a different motorway , about 15 miles away, again 82 but in a variable speed zone which was at 50 at the time - this was NOT on his route, and for good measure the two notices give the time and date of  the incident as exactly the same - to the minute, and the speed is also exactly the same. 

We are unable to use the details provided for either alleged offence to log into the portal to give driver details or to view the image they referred to - just says "unable to login , check your details". 

We will ring the number provided tomorrow but anyone had this before or got any advice on how easy or otherwise it will be to get them to see this is clearly not possible? I foresee a wall of red tape .....

Cheers for any advice. 

[Ethel Street]

When you say the second offence "this was NOT on his route" is your son saying he definitely did not commit the offence? 

But the first offence - "82 in a 70, on the M1" - he does accept that  he did that.

It's very importantr he returns the NIPs within the deadlines otherwise he will commit another offence.

If he agrees he did commit the first offence then he should identify himself as the driver and plead guilty.

Tagging @Man in the middle who is knowledgeable about these things who may be able to advise the best way to repond to the second NIP. My first thought was 'cloned numberplate' but for it to be exactly the same speed, time/date as the first offence suggests otherwise.

 

[toxtethogrady]

Yes, he accepts he is likely to have done 82 on the M1. He is happy to take what he's due for that .

No

he definitely was not on the other motorway at any time

- he was making a specific journey home from a place he has never been before (its not a road he would have used ever ) and its not in the same direction as the route he took to get on the M1 -  he's certain that wasnt him.

I thought cloned plate also but it seems weird it is recorded at same time exactly and at exactly same speed - they aren't stretches of the same motorway but two completely different roads,  

It looks like a procedural error to me but not sure how to reply , especially as we can't see the photo evidence due to not being able to get onto the portal. 

Thanks for the advice so far, will await further input .

[Mycathasfleas]

It would be very tempting to plead not guilty to both and use the opposing photo in each case to throw reasonable doubt on the other.

I have seen a similar defence work in a London magistrates court but that was some time ago.

In any event I would suggest a lawyer to present it correctly. 

[toxtethogrady]

Thanks for the response, I know what you mean, but he's not out to play the system (and I wouldnt encourage him to)

- he's happy to accept the M1 offence but is bricking it about the accusation of 82 in a 50 which he is certain is an error. 

For background, he's 25 , 7.5 years driving , no endorsements and still comes to Dad when things go wrong  

[honeybee13]

Well done, Dad.

I hope your son's going to follow what happens here though, as the case develops. We often see kind parents posting on behalf of their children but at the end of the day, he's the one who will have to deal with the police or the court.

Hopefully Man in the Middle will be along with further thoughts for you. When do you have to respond by?

HB

[toxtethogrady]

Yes, he's following the thread and will be responding to all the necessary police stuff himself. He just panicked ! 

He's got 28 days from 25th of Feb to respond.

We would have given details for the first one already if we could have logged on to do it -

will try again later in case its just the site thats down.

Just not sure how to respond to the second one. 

[Grotesque]

2 hours ago, toxtethogrady said:

For background, he's 25 , 7.5 years driving , no endorsements and still comes to Dad when things go wrong  

Don't you remember signing that invisible contract for life, 25 years ago...

[dx100uk]

so these places are only about 10mins apart travelling at +80Mph

what section of what mway is the 1st NIP for please

and

what section of what mway is the 2nd NIP for please

[toxtethogrady]

The M1 one is southbound between J41 and 40, the other one is "M606 southbound near slip, marker post 1.0, Bradford"

He left a place just north of M62 in Tingley, got on the M62 heading east and onto the M1, shortly after which he was seen on the M1 camera. The time for that ties in with his departure time . So fair cop. 

The M606 joins the M62 west of where he started from , and he didnt go that way - there's no conceivable reason for him to be going south on the M606 starting from where he did. And as I noted, the times / dates and speeds are identical for the two incidents. 

 

[dx100uk]

thank you

has he got camera/GPS in the car?

or p'haps facebook or google location tracks turned on for his mobile phone that tracked his movements that day?

those would be really useful and 100% proof that can't be argued with.

dx

[toxtethogrady]

The car has factory fitted sat nav which he would have been following. I'm not certain what  info that stores . he doesn't have a dash cam . 

[dx100uk]

has he locations services turned on for his phone and say facebook or google (if he uses either of those) allowed to access that info?
if so there should be tracks on his phone you can download/look at.

dx

 

[toxtethogrady]

He says not. All about the privacy settings apparently. 

But surely he can't be guilty of being in two places at the same time ? 

[dx100uk]

no, as you say probably an admin mistake but he must respond to each.

just getting your ducks in line for when the experts come here.

as we know the type of questions they will ask.

dx

[toxtethogrady]

very much appreciated, cheers

 

Edited March 3 by dx100uk
no need to keep using @username

[Tony P]

My very uninformed view is that, although in post #1 you/your Son consider the first is a "fair cop",  both police and motorist must have followed procedures correctly, which appears not to be the case.

Assuming it is the same police authority/office, they appear to have been procedurally incorrect somewhere. That is not good policing but more importantly, they should not prevail in such circumstances. Establishing procedural impropriety usually ends a case straight off.

In these circumstances, not being someone to meekly "roll over and think of England" I would fight the situation to ensure everything had been correct before admitting anything - rather as suggested in post #4.

However, as others have said, your Son MUST respond to the NIPs within time.

I suggest he returns both forms together, with a covering letter (I don't know how these things work) admitting to being the Driver at the time(s) but disputing the locations due to conflicting claims of the police, without admitting to being at either location.

It may save him a fine/points but more importantly, also as a Father, I'm sure he has already learned his lesson - but so should the police learn to get things correct. 

 

 

Edited March 18 by Tony P

[dx100uk]

any news?

dx

[toxtethogrady]

Thanks for the helpful replies. 

BY way of update :

he sent back both the NIPs, and we did (almost) as Tony P suggested later

- sent a covering later identifying him as the driver at the time and date identified.

He also however said he was on the M1 at that time , and so with regard to the NIP that placed him elsewhere he admitted only to being the driver at that time but not to being at the location.

He stated he felt that an error had clearly been made and denied being on the other motorway at any time.

We had no idea whether anyone would even read it......

Within a couple of days he received an offer of a speed awareness course for the M1 offence and a covering note to say that they agreed an error had been made.

They said the second NIP would be cancelled and a replacement may be sent out

- I guess it's possible we hear something else.

He swiftly accepted the offer of the course and has paid for and booked it.

Nothing else received so far.

He is still 100% certain that he didnt travel on the second alleged route at any point, 

Still crossing fingers.

 His driving has been more considered since - at least when I've been present anyway. 

 

 

[Man in the middle]

Thanks for letting us know.

Quote

They said the second NIP would be cancelled and a replacement may be sent out - so I guess it's possible we hear something else. 

 

A NIP served beyond 14 days after the date of the alleged offence would not comply with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders' Act, so no prosecution could succeed.

The police know this but it is not unheard of for them to offer a fixed penalty in such circumstances, hoping the recipient is daft enough to accept it.

But note there would still be an obligation to respond to the accompanying "request for driver's details."

 

[toxtethogrady]

That's really helpful, thank you.

14 days is well expired now, that will make him feel happier.

If he does happen to  get another one come through we will comply with the request for details and I will post again here . 

Cheers all.