N.i.p.

[dodgy]

A friend of mine has received a Notice of Intended Prosecution

for failing to comply with double white lines(contrary to section 36(1) of the rta 88, regulation 10 of the traf signs regs 2002 and schedule 2 of rtoa 1988.

this is all it says and then goes on about: Section172 of the RTA '88 ie - giving the driver info or we prosecute you.

anyway, i seem to remember, (could be wrong though) that after the offence, it used to say something like

'this carries a possible points of * and up to

[lemoncurd]

You could try asking on the PePiPoo forums as they talk about this kind of stuff a lot over there...

I don't think you have to respond, but then you can end up getting a greater punishment for failing to provide details of who was driving the car...

Sorry, not much info but hope it helps!

Ben

[andydclements]

i thought they gave that statement about possible fines etc when they send the conditional offer for offences/ option to dispute. I don't remember it being on the 1st bits of aperwork asking who the driver was.

But then again, A wasn't really in the mood to read that letter either time.

[dodgy]

so would this be a first letter just to know who to ripp off, sorry , sent the bill to.

the second would be the one saying 'this carries a possible points of * and up to

[Katie]

Has he enquired if they are able to support their intended prosecution with photographic evidence?

[Setras]

Has he enquired if they are able to support their intended prosecution with photographic evidence?

Have to agree. Get the evidence if they have any..

[Bibs]

As Ben recommended, get on PiPiPoo, great site. Careful what you write with regards to specific details about the event (time/date/place/car etc) as the cops/CPS do read it, in fact some cops are the biggest contributors but they will give you the best advice. I've used the site many times and it's always been pretty helpful

[matk]

Dave

As said above, this is the first letter only, used to identify the driver. They can't send the offer of points unless they know he's the driver. Once he admits to being the driver a second letter will follow which then makes the offer.

I've been in this situation (usually with cameras) many times. The problem here is that the Police DON'T have to produce the evidence unless you go to court. Going to court means turning down the offer, so in effect you have to take your chances and make your choice without knowing what they've got on you.

Having said this many forces WILL produce evidence if asked NICELY.

I'd write recommend saying something along the lines of:

"I'd really like to comply with your request but the car is driven by more than one person (myself & partner?) and to be fully accurate in stating who was driving at the time can you let me have any photographs, statements etc so I can identify the driver at the time of the alleged incident to accuratley complete and return your form".

As your asking for info to help them get the right guy they normally comply. Additionally having written this you can fail to return the first letter until they do reply. If they then try to prosecute for not returning driver details you can legitematly state you have done all you can to identify the driver by writing to them.

Most forces are used to this by now and invariably reply, at which point you can then decide next step.

What intrigues me is the offence itself. I don't know of cameras that spot white line transgressions, which implies it was a patrol that saw it. If so why not pull him there and then? If there is simply a statement from a cop car and it doesn't identify any driver details, very easy to state that there were 2 drivers on the journey and you don't know which one was at the wheel at the time of the alleged offence.

Keep us informed.........

[arbell9]

This is a fascinating fact. To 'Corroborate The Police Officer's Personal Opinion'....

ACPO guidelines also clearly state that the officer should only use speed-measuring equipment to corroborate their prior personal opinion of excess speed - take a look at section 32.5.

"32.5 Operators should bear in mind that the device confirms and corroborates prior personal observations."

This means that the officer is not supposed to point the equipment indiscriminately at all of the passing traffic, in the hope of catching one of the vehicles "speeding". This also explains why a police officer's witness statement normally includes the words "I formed the opinion that the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit".

Who reckons they can determine that a car is say doing 35 instead of 30, 46 instead of 50 just by eye? I would say most people cant, but I have seen them on TV programs just zapping everyong to see who is over. I know that they are guidelines and hence its open to judgement but this is an example where a specific police procedure should have an SOP, and where they deviate it should be documented in detail.

So how does this related to the topic, there should be clear SOPs published on who should do what in this type of event for both police and innocent until proved guilty joe public. The police should document who was in the car and when and on which type of road, state the offence they say they witnessed, and also document why they felt they could not apprehend the driver. Then the police logs for the day should be available up front as evidence to corrobarate any claims. The accussed must then declare everything on the form within a specified time. It cant be hard to write such a procedure and so one begins to think that the establishment like the vaguries of the system.

[Bibs]

^ that's the reality of prior opinion!

[Kimbers]

Great!!

I blame the originator of this post (thanks Dave) for bringing it up and daring plod to send me a "Notice of impending Prosecution" that has just winged it's way through the post at work!!

10 years clean!! 10 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!

I'm fuming!! 34mph in a 30!

Get a F**king life! 34 in a 30? Welcome to the police state.

(incidently this was at 11.00pm on a SUnday night on a dual carraigeway part of the City, away from schools or houses!)

[Simon350S]

Dude....

Edit your post then delete this one dude.....

Your incriminating yourself on a public forum.......

Remember it was your "colleague" that recieved it....!!!!

And then tell him to take a look and follow some of the advice on here....

Simon

[bo90]

One thing to check is the date of the NIP. A NIP should be issued within 14 days of an offence give or take 1-2 days for sundays/bankholidays. If it's arrived late then this would be a good start to not proceed with their request.

[Tentenths]

Bloody hell... a clean licence for 10 years. That's some achievement Kimbers. Mine's been pretty much the opposite, but is now clean for the first time in about 15 years.

As far your NIP is concerned, did you receive it within the prescribed 14 days of the alleged offence? If not, you'll almost certainly be able to get the case dropped (been there, done that). Here's a link to the so-called RAC letter that many (inc. me) have used successfully - clicky

[Bibs]

One thing to check is the date of the NIP. A NIP should be issued within 14 days of an offence give or take 1-2 days for sundays/bankholidays. If it's arrived late then this would be a good start to not proceed with their request.

The NIP MUST arrive at the 14th day after the event at the very latest, no give or take at all. If they post it on the 14th day and it arrives the day after, they can't enforce it therefore it must be issued the 13th day after the event at the latest.

We follow their rules, they must follow them too.

[Kimbers]

Yeah, just a few days to arrive. Unfortunately my company will not let me fight it as they would then be liable (we had a similar case recently and the company was fined). This resulted in the "employee" who refused to accept liability losing his car. One of our directors is a Lawyer and I've had a word with him already.

[andydclements]

Yeah, just a few days to arrive. Unfortunately my company will not let me fight it as they would then be liable (we had a similar case recently and the company was fined). This resulted in the "employee" who refused to accept liability losing his car. One of our directors is a Lawyer and I've had a word with him already.

Tell me about it....

A senior person in a company failed to return a company car when an employee left, he didn't move it to a pool car officially, and didn't keep a log of who had used the car and when

It was recorded as having exceeded the speed limit, the company got the "who was the driver" letter, couldn't answer, they sent the photo (of the rear of the car, on the other side of a dual carriageway) so he couldn't identify the person from it.

A company director may face the fine of

[Advantage]

Tony, your 34 in 30 - were you pinged by a static camera on a pole, a copper with a hairdryer or a scamera operator?

Only asking, because the devices that are operated by a human can only be used to confirm the users pre-formed opinion that you were speeding. (In other words, they can't just blast away on the off chance they'll catch someone)

I'd be very surprised if anyone could tell the difference by eye between 30 and 34. (which is why the guidelines give a small percentage leeway before prosecution, despite the black & white nature of the 'offence')

Your speed would ususally mean you were eligible for the 'Speed Awareness' course, where you get told off by a bloke in a High Vis jacket for an hour or two, instead of 3 points & 60 quid. If you get offered this chance, bite their hand off and put up with a morning of lies, lies and damn statistics instead.

[Kimbers]

I was pinged by a static.

[Bibs]

Remember to fax me the NIP, it sounds very odd to me to have a Gatso set so low. I'll look into it and see what can be done

[Kimbers]

Just got it from upstairs. they said 34 but it actually said 36....poop! :crybaby:

[Bibs]

Fax it over anyway dude

[Advantage]

Ahhh, 36. You're toast. Hooligan.

Won't somebody think of the children?!

[Setras]

Who reckons they can determine that a car is say doing 35 instead of 30.

perhaps some Californian members can verify.

CHiPs and others in the state of California can prosecute without the gun as with their training can accurately gague the speed of a vehicle een when driving in the opposite direction.

[Bibs]

Cool