Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 6 points in first 2 years
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (Hotel Oscar 87 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2008 - 21:21) *
Hi again BHB

Davidson is correct in that you have not strictly been banned but the revocation of your licence has the same basic effect. It means you start again as if you did not have a driving licence at all - which means that if you had, for example, also passed your m/c test then you lose the entitlement to that too.

The procedure to get a licence back, re-applying for a provisional, passing the theory and practical tests again (and having to be accompanied during this period) could conceivably be done in 4-6 weeks (strangely similar to the effect of a short-term ban) but are likely to take more like 12 weeks or so. And, BTW - the points follow you onto your new licence. The only real saving grace is that if you foul up again and collect 6 more points they can't revoke your licence for a second time but then you are quite likely to be "totting-up".

I'd go for the short-term ban every time. Its a real b*ggeration but at least you get to keep the licence without added points.

Thanks for the advise but I genuinley do not believe I would have been speeding in that road and do not genuinley know it was 100% myself driving (works vehicle and i'm not 100% sure what time I picked up my own vehicle), i know the road very well and being on my last 3 points before an effective ban am very careful so surely I would remember a Scamvan parked (i usually do when I see them check my speed and if border line(31-33mph) I worry for a while), I am going to fight it as much as i can as I've genuinley got nothing to lose. If I get 3 points I WILL lose my job as my company can't afford to keep it open for 2 months or so. Also why should I just accept that the camera has clocked me and I was speeding (i'm not even 100% sure it was me driving) the road is one long bend and I ALWAYS slow when I reach the 30 MPH zone. I was def doing no more than 41.65mph in the 40mph zone(so why wouldn't I slow in the 30mph zone), never saw a camera but try and keep close to the limit , I definetley didn't drive at 35mph in a 30mph zone. I've nothing to lose except a few £100s in court costs if I contest it. I've my Job, my house and maybe my Marriage to lose if I just role over and accept 3 points that I don't believe I deserve. From the cases I've read on here I reckon why roll over and let them ruin my life. I've been to court loads (for non driving related cases) am not scared of the system and am clever enough not to be hood-winked by the CPS if you guys can help me, I will never give them the satisfaction of an easy prosecution as some on here are advising.
blackheathbaggie
So what do I do now? do I wait a few weeks and ask for Photographic evidence? I spoke to a solicitor (not a specialist solicitor)who seems to think i'll be very unlikely to win a speeding case and I should think about taking the points and retaking my test, to be honest he didn't seem interested.
Chas820
QUOTE
So what do I do now? do I wait a few weeks and ask for Photographic evidence?


No,ask for a pic to help i/d the driver(dont mention the word evidence)you have to get the nip back to them by the end of 28 days or you risk an s172 offence.Hopefully the pic will show someone else,if not it will give you some idea of what you are facing(defence wise)
Glacier2
QUOTE (blackheathbaggie @ Mon, 14 Jan 2008 - 22:12) *
So what do I do now? do I wait a few weeks and ask for Photographic evidence? I spoke to a solicitor (not a specialist solicitor)who seems to think i'll be very unlikely to win a speeding case and I should think about taking the points and retaking my test, to be honest he didn't seem interested.


Have you had a NIP in your own name yet? If not do nothing.

Tbh, if you really need to keep driving, I would ignore the NIP when it comes and take the S172 hit. You would have 9 points but you would be able keep driving.
Barking Mad
This case particularly saddens me.

I have a good feeling that this lad has told us the absolute truth as far as he can recall.

If his vehicle's "tracker" shows he was exceeding the speed limit by 1.6 miles an hour then this is **** disgusting! The lad is going to lose his job for absolutely nothing. Disgraceful!

Yet someone like Peter Hain overlooks declaring some ONE HUNDRED AND THREE THOUSAND POUNDS in election monies and he sticks his head down and ploughs on, oblivious to the stinking wreak and stench of the whole matter.

I will repeat: I am a natural Labour voter. I do not like thieves. I can not wait to go and vote Tory!
blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (Chas820 @ Mon, 14 Jan 2008 - 22:29) *
QUOTE
So what do I do now? do I wait a few weeks and ask for Photographic evidence?


No,ask for a pic to help i/d the driver(dont mention the word evidence)you have to get the nip back to them by the end of 28 days or you risk an s172 offence.Hopefully the pic will show someone else,if not it will give you some idea of what you are facing(defence wise)



Hi do you know where on the site i can get a rough transcript of a letter asking for a Photograph to identify the driver? I'm not the best at letters and will need to be sending it real soon.
Thanks chris.
nemo
Just keep it short and simple:

QUOTE
West Mercia SCP
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx

Notice of Intended Prosecution ref: xxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs,

With reference to the above mentioned Notice of Intended Prosecution, please could you provide copies of any photographs which may assist with identification of the driver.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

BHB
blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (nemo @ Fri, 1 Feb 2008 - 20:14) *
Just keep it short and simple:

QUOTE
West Mercia SCP
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx

Notice of Intended Prosecution ref: xxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs,

With reference to the above mentioned Notice of Intended Prosecution, please could you provide copies of any photographs which may assist with identification of the driver.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

BHB




Do i post the NIP back also? as it is 28 days next friday when they posted it to me.
nemo
QUOTE (blackheathbaggie @ Fri, 1 Feb 2008 - 20:32) *
Do i post the NIP back also? as it is 28 days next friday when they posted it to me.

You wouldn't ordinarily return their form with a photo request letter..

You should, however, be mindful of the expiry date of the 28 day response window of the s.172 request. Whilst the scammers normally freeze the clock if they perceive meaningful correspondence to be taking place, you could leave youself open to prosecution if you fail to respond within the permitted timescales..

blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (nemo @ Fri, 1 Feb 2008 - 21:13) *
QUOTE (blackheathbaggie @ Fri, 1 Feb 2008 - 20:32) *
Do i post the NIP back also? as it is 28 days next friday when they posted it to me.

You wouldn't ordinarily return their form with a photo request letter..

You should, however, be mindful of the expiry date of the 28 day response window of the s.172 request. Whilst the scammers normally freeze the clock if they perceive meaningful correspondence to be taking place, you could leave youself open to prosecution if you fail to respond within the permitted timescales..




I can't actually fill it out until i know who was driving (and if it is clearly myself in any Photo's i won't fill it out then as I will need to go down the S172 route then)as i don't know who actually drove the vehicle as well as me that day cuz it isn't my vehicle. Thnks for your help.
nemo
QUOTE (blackheathbaggie @ Fri, 1 Feb 2008 - 21:24) *
I can't actually fill it out until i know who was driving (and if it is clearly myself in any Photo's i won't fill it out then as I will need to go down the S172 route then)as i don't know who actually drove the vehicle as well as me that day cuz it isn't my vehicle.

From what I have read of this thread, there would appear to be uncertainty as to whether you were the person keeping the vehicle or not.

If you were a 'person other than keeper', then you would be required to provide information which is in your power to give and which may lead to identification of the driver.

Accordingly, you would need to tell the police everything that you do know - ie by naming all 15-16 other possible drivers, that it was not your usual vehicle, that no conclusive log of drivers was kept by the company, etc.. Do not leave anything out.

If you were the 'person keeping the vehicle' and were summoned for failing to provide driver details, then the reasonable diligence test would apply. In this case, you would be required to demonstrate that you had done everything which could have been reasonably expected of you in attempting to identity the driver and why, despite your best efforts, the driver's identity remains unknown. Reasonable diligence would include checking mobile phone bills, fuel receipts, asking friends / family / colleagues / customers, etc (the list is not exhaustive)..

Even if you were the PKV, it would still be in your best interest to advise the scammers (now) with as much information as you can - in particular a list of all possible drivers of the vehicle. No harm in adding this information to a photo request letter, IMO.

blackheathbaggie
That is the point Nemo, I am not normally the keeper of this vehicle but was using it because mine was in the garage being fixed (i used it for a day and a half at most), I cannot name all the people who have access to the vehicle because i do not know them. I do actually think it may have been myself driving but am not 100% sure and am not willing to name myself if i'm not 100% certain. My own opinion is that my company should have asked for the photo to see who was driving but they took the easy option and sent it to myself.
cheekycharlie
Given that you have already spoken to a general solicitor who advised you to take the points and resit your test, why dont you speak to a specialist lawyer who may and will advise differently? Do this prior to asking for photos / sending back forms as I was until recently in a similar situation with my 2 year probationary period, and have been cleared by virtue of a technicalility (ok getting cleared this way stinks but the law stinks even more when it comes to this rule)

Resitting your tests would take at least three months from the date that you receive your points to get a practical test, how confident are you of passing first time again?

...and if you are not sure if you are the driver or not why are still wanting to take the punishment for this ?

...and no company logs?

If you do intend to ask for photos and the photo is still unclear as to who the driver is then name all possible drivers. The burden will rest on the registered keeper who has an obligation to know or to keep records of who is driving his/her motor at a particular time. Plus all this will use up extra time, they have six months to lay. If you delay any reply to the 26th day then that would have taken up nearly two and a half months.
Pikachu
If you don't name yourself as the driver, what would your company do if they were asked to substantiate their nomination of you? They could be asked to make a statement/ produce their records etc to show you were the driver. This does actually happen. In those circumstances you could end up in the worst of all situations because the police would have independent evidence you were the driver and hence the speeder but also they could say you could have found out all this and must have known you were the driver -hence they could prosecute you legitimately for both offences ( I have seen this happen). The mags could then convict you of both and could impose separate points -which I think would tot you? I think the short ban route would be safer but its up to you!

As to your tracker is it calibrated? Is it primarily intended to measure speed? What margin of error do the manufacturers allow for (bear in mind speedos can be 10% out). If you're going to fight on this point you are going to need some kind of expert evidence to trump the calibrated camera. Even if a bench of magistrates find a doubt unless you have a solid evidential base for your argument you could well end up in the Divisional Court.
blackheathbaggie
Are there any specialist solicitors in the West midlands? also I only have 1 week wouldn't i be cutting it a bit fine and leave myself open to a s172 anyway. and thirdly how much do these solicitors cost? considering they are specialist's.
blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (Pikachu @ Fri, 1 Feb 2008 - 23:21) *
As to your tracker is it calibrated? Is it primarily intended to measure speed? What margin of error do the manufacturers allow for (bear in mind speedos can be 10% out). If you're going to fight on this point you are going to need some kind of expert evidence to trump the calibrated camera. Even if a bench of magistrates find a doubt unless you have a solid evidential base for your argument you could well end up in the Divisional Court.

I think the tracker part has been misunderstood, the tracker shows i was only just over the speed limit in the 40mph zone not the 30mph zone where i was filmed, i only posted that because it shows i don't speed(why would i drive legally in the 40mph and not in the 30mph zone when i know there are camera sign's, i don't do that), i always try and stick to the limits. I still genuinely do not believe i was speeding unless they caught me slowing down from the 40 to the 30 zones and maybe i was a fraction to slow at slowing down (thats the only thing i can think i am a careful driver, HONEST).
saracengb
QUOTE (blackheathbaggie @ Fri, 1 Feb 2008 - 23:43) *
Are there any specialist solicitors in the West midlands? also I only have 1 week wouldn't i be cutting it a bit fine and leave myself open to a s172 anyway. and thirdly how much do these solicitors cost? considering they are specialist's.



They vary their prices BHB - I had one quote from a specialist RT law firm to take on my case @ NIP stage for a measely £1500 - with a guaranteed 80% success rate. They promised that if the case went to court they'd only charge another £500. I could hardly believe my luck - here was I confronted by the scammers who only wanted to give me 3 points and charge me £60 for the service and on the other hand I could give these other scammers a large sum and possibly get the NIP quashed. I of course declined their offer. laugh.gif

I've seen others on here quote more reasonable fees and some will give you 20 mins free telephone time and charge you by the hour. Google "road traffic offence specialist lawyers" or something similar and you'll see what I mean.

HTH
blackheathbaggie
After i sent a letter asking for a photo to confirm i wa driving last week today the Scammer's phond my company to ask for the tracker records from the date the the offence was alleged to have occured, so after recieving a call from my manager I phoned the scam office to see why they need the tracker records and was spoken to by a very nice man who was very helpful (at first) he explained to me that the photo only showed the reverse of the vehicle but was from a manned van camera. When I said that i wasn't 100% sure it was me driving but it may have been, he said he would send me the photo and give me a further 2 weeks to reply and if i still wasn't sure it was me driving he would then get the tracker records to see if that helped them find out who was driving.
Now for the down side my Manager has now stated that he believes it was me driving as my work sheets show i was our only engineer in that area on that day (i wish he'd told me this before it would have made things so much clearer) so it seems it was me driving and my work will have to provide evidence to support that.
Also on the question of the camera being a manned camera, do they catch people speeding from behind?? as i was under the impression that they are front facing speed camera's in vans yet they stated that they only had reverse view photo's of my van.When i asked the man on the phone this he said he didn't know. I'm confused by all this now.
saracengb
QUOTE (blackheathbaggie @ Fri, 8 Feb 2008 - 16:48) *
After i sent a letter asking for a photo to confirm i wa driving last week today the Scammer's phond my company to ask for the tracker records from the date the the offence was alleged to have occured, so after recieving a call from my manager I phoned the scam office to see why they need the tracker records and was spoken to by a very nice man who was very helpful (at first) he explained to me that the photo only showed the reverse of the vehicle but was from a manned van camera. When I said that i wasn't 100% sure it was me driving but it may have been, he said he would send me the photo and give me a further 2 weeks to reply and if i still wasn't sure it was me driving he would then get the tracker records to see if that helped them find out who was driving.

Well at least it's another two weeks to look at everything biggrin.gif Gives you more time to find a solicitor if that's how you decide to play it.
I've had a quick scan through the thread as it's been a while since I read it all - how do they know your vehicle was fitted with the tracker? And would this evidence put you "in the frame" - pardon my pun.

QUOTE
Now for the down side my Manager has now stated that he believes it was me driving as my work sheets show i was our only engineer in that area on that day (i wish he'd told me this before it would have made things so much clearer) so it seems it was me driving and my work will have to provide evidence to support that.

That's a pisser - as you say why didn't your manager have this info earlier. Only good thing is it's stretched things out longer - but probably maybe not long enough! The new extention take you to the 22nd Feb - that's nearly 3 months since the date of the offence.
Only 3 more to time out though that's probably a bit optimistic at the moment. You definitely need to stave off an s172 prosecution though so identification is important - one way or the other. If they end up having to ask for the tracker records and it clearly shows you were the driver they'll want to know why you couldn't have done this. Won't look good if it does come to court.

QUOTE
Also on the question of the camera being a manned camera, do they catch people speeding from behind?? as i was under the impression that they are front facing speed camera's in vans yet they stated that they only had reverse view photo's of my van.When i asked the man on the phone this he said he didn't know. I'm confused by all this now.

Mobile units can detect front or rear. When you get your picture and if it shows the speed you should see a - (minus sign) in front of the speed showing the vehicle was travelling away from the detection unit - probably an LTI 20.20 or similar.



blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (saracengb @ Fri, 8 Feb 2008 - 17:38) *
Well at least it's another two weeks to look at everything biggrin.gif Gives you more time to find a solicitor if that's how you decide to play it.
I've had a quick scan through the thread as it's been a while since I read it all - how do they know your vehicle was fitted with the tracker? And would this evidence put you "in the frame" - pardon my pun.

I don't know how they no there wa a tracker on my vehicle, my manager or somebody in the office must have told them, maybe they just asked why my company had forwarded it to me and they told them about the tracker, unless they've been reading my thread sad.gif as for a solicitor i've had a brief look into getting one but I just can't afford it at present.


QUOTE
That's a pisser - as you say why didn't your manager have this info earlier. Only good thing is it's stretched things out longer - but probably maybe not long enough! The new extention take you to the 22nd Feb - that's nearly 3 months since the date of the offence.
Only 3 more to time out though that's probably a bit optimistic at the moment. You definitely need to stave off an s172 prosecution though so identification is important - one way or the other. If they end up having to ask for the tracker records and it clearly shows you were the driver they'll want to know why you couldn't have done this. Won't look good if it does come to court.

The thing is just because the tracker has me going from my house and ending up in shrewsbury doesn't conclusively prove it was me driving, sometimes we go out in pairs and then i'm not always driving. Thing is because i can't remember the incident it looks like i'll have to name myself as driver.

QUOTE
Mobile units can detect front or rear. When you get your picture and if it shows the speed you should see a - (minus sign) in front of the speed showing the vehicle was travelling away from the detection unit - probably an LTI 20.20 or similar.


I know when i've seen camera's in that road before they look like they're taking speed's while forward facing shows you just don't know do you? I genuinley don't think i was speeding but 35mph doesn't feel much faster than 30mph so you never know. I'll just plod on and hope they make a mistake somewhere along the lines i've nothing to lose.
saracengb
Just a thought - sometimes insurance policies provide legal cover - have you looked at it from that angle?
blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (saracengb @ Fri, 8 Feb 2008 - 23:21) *
Just a thought - sometimes insurance policies provide legal cover - have you looked at it from that angle?



I actually have a extra cover on my car insurance, don't know if it cover's me for legal things while i'm driving my works vehicle though i'll look into it thanks.
blackheathbaggie
I've just checked my insurance and no luck, looks like i'm fighting this myself.
On a different note, i've just been reading on the site about LTI 20.20 which seems to be the camera that has taken the alleged speeding and in the 2 still's i've been sent photo 1(log 35) has the van down as doing 35mph but his has an asterix next to it which if i've understood correctly is a pre-set speed not the vans actual speed and photo 2(log 36) doesn't have a speed at all on the still. Seems strange could somebody tell me if this is correct.
saracengb
QUOTE (blackheathbaggie @ Sun, 10 Feb 2008 - 21:01) *
I've just checked my insurance and no luck, looks like i'm fighting this myself.

Oh well - worth a try sad.gif

QUOTE
On a different note, i've just been reading on the site about LTI 20.20 which seems to be the camera that has taken the alleged speeding and in the 2 still's i've been sent photo 1(log 35) has the van down as doing 35mph but his has an asterix next to it which if i've understood correctly is a pre-set speed not the vans actual speed and photo 2(log 36)
doesn't have a speed at all on the still. Seems strange could somebody tell me if this is correct.


There are many people on here far more qualified to speak about this device but in the meantime I'll say what I know.
From my very limited experience of the LTI 20.20 pics I think speed measurement is shown on one pic as that was when the trigger was pressed. Should also be a distance measurement on the speed pic. Other pictures will be to show reg numbers and not intended to show speed/distance.
All the asterisk shows is that the operator keyed in a speed limit. The speed against the asterisk is the speed recorded of the target.
Seems they're keying in a low speed value - used to be you could rely on 10% + 2 mph as a threshold which is 35. If they're prosecuting at 35 then the set value could be anything less than that - even 30 I suppose.
blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (saracengb @ Sun, 10 Feb 2008 - 22:23) *
QUOTE (blackheathbaggie @ Sun, 10 Feb 2008 - 21:01) *
I've just checked my insurance and no luck, looks like i'm fighting this myself.

Oh well - worth a try sad.gif

QUOTE
On a different note, i've just been reading on the site about LTI 20.20 which seems to be the camera that has taken the alleged speeding and in the 2 still's i've been sent photo 1(log 35) has the van down as doing 35mph but his has an asterix next to it which if i've understood correctly is a pre-set speed not the vans actual speed and photo 2(log 36)
doesn't have a speed at all on the still. Seems strange could somebody tell me if this is correct.


There are many people on here far more qualified to speak about this device but in the meantime I'll say what I know.
From my very limited experience of the LTI 20.20 pics I think speed measurement is shown on one pic as that was when the trigger was pressed. Should also be a distance measurement on the speed pic. Other pictures will be to show reg numbers and not intended to show speed/distance.
All the asterisk shows is that the operator keyed in a speed limit. The speed against the asterisk is the speed recorded of the target.
Seems they're keying in a low speed value - used to be you could rely on 10% + 2 mph as a threshold which is 35. If they're prosecuting at 35 then the set value could be anything less than that - even 30 I suppose.


Thanks for that, do you know anywhere online I can get more details about the LTI 20.20, just wanna check all avenue's and all the facts.
saracengb
Why not start on this site:

http://www.pepipoo.com/LTi2020_screen.htm

and this thread - starts in 2004 but is very interesting

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1211

HTH
blackheathbaggie
Ok the Scammers have given me a final notice and until monday to reply to there NIP so i have filled it out and am ready to post it tomorrow, now I need to know what i do next, do i just wait for a summon's?

saracengb
QUOTE (blackheathbaggie @ Thu, 21 Feb 2008 - 22:04) *
Ok the Scammers have given me a final notice and until monday to reply to there NIP so i have filled it out and am ready to post it tomorrow, now I need to know what i do next, do i just wait for a summon's?


FWIW - make sure you send it Recorded First Class for evidential purposes. And you can check to see they got it in time on the Royal Mail site.


You should get a COFP first. Then if you try to accept it they'll see you're under two years and the DVLA will revoke your license AFAIK. Putting you back to a provisional license holder.

HTH
blackheathbaggie
I already had a COFP on my original NIP from them which I have decided to ignore, if i'm guilty of speeding and am gonna lose my licence then I ain't just gonna role over and let them take it from me without a fight.
saracengb
QUOTE (blackheathbaggie @ Thu, 21 Feb 2008 - 22:27) *
I already had a COFP on my original NIP from them which I have decided to ignore, if i'm guilty of speeding and am gonna lose my licence then I ain't just gonna role over and let them take it from me without a fight.


I thought that was the case - just reading through the whole thread again so sorry I missed that one icon_redface.gif
blackheathbaggie
So do i just wait for the Summon's now? from what i've read on here they'll serve me with it just before the 6 months is up just so i think i've gotten away with it is that right?
saracengb
So a quick recap - please correct me if I've got it wrong.

13th Jan you passed the two year mark.

Offence occurred before this point.

If you admit to being the driver then the offence will stand - 3 points - license revoked.

If you don't admit to being the driver - S172 offence - summons - 6 points - but the offence of failing to notify occurs after the 13th Jan so you end up with 9 points?
blackheathbaggie
yes BUT they have been in touch with my company asking for the tracker details and for the reason the company forwarded the NIP to me, if my company provide this i'm told i can be done with a S172 and the speeding offence as they would have independant proof that i was driving.
blackheathbaggie
By the way is it possible to take this to a magistrates court and just get a short ban instead of the 3 points? I've read on other cases that this is an option but they seem to be doing high speeds, because i wa only just over the limit is this still an option?
The Rookie
A short ban is still an option and could still be asked for for any offence of excess speed as I understand it....

Simon
blackheathbaggie
I posted the NIP back on the 22nd March signing it and ticked the part 1 stating that i was the driver on the date of the offence I then filled out and signed part 7 (the declaration) but didn't accept the fixed penalty (£60 +3points) that they were offering me. To my suprise i have recieved another NIP and a letter which goes like this

Dear Sir

I acknowledge reciept of your completed and signed Notice confirming that you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.
If you wish to accept the conditional offer will you please complete, sign and return the driver's statement on the front of the Notice along with your payment for sixty pounds and your driving licence to this office by the 17th March 2008.
If you wish to request a court hearing will you please complete the Notice at part 1 on the reverse and request the hearing at part 6 of the notice and return it signed at part 7 to this office by the same date.

your faithfully

***********
SAFER ROADS PARTNERSHIP

now this has me puzzled, why have they offered me a conditional offer again when I have obviously declined it in the first instance? why do I have to fill out part 7 (the declaration) again and thirdly they want me to fill out part 6 which has nothing to do with myself requesting a court hearing? i thought that it was there job to decide if im to be prosecuted in court so why do i have to request a hearing when i haven't actually been charged with anything yet? do i just ignore this as i have already filled out the NIP once?
Lance
My opinion is that they may be uncertain what your intentions are and suspect that you have simply accidentally omitted to accept the fixed penalty.
I would now do nothing and see what happens next: a summons most likely, but you never know...
andy_foster
They want you to take the fixed penalty (and give them £60, even though they don't get to keep it directly any more).
By (unlawfully) trying to make you request a court hearing if you don't accept the COFP, they are trying to futher coerce you into accepting the COFP.

There is absolutely no requirement to respond to a COFP in any form.
blackheathbaggie
But can I ignore a 2nd NIP? it won't leave me open to a section 172 will it? and why do i have to fill out part 6 (which is the section to explain why I can't name the driver) to request a court hearing? shall i leave it till just before the 17th March and write to them asking that they clarify why i need to fill out these sections again? It could waste another month or so?
blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 1 Mar 2008 - 22:51) *
They want you to take the fixed penalty (and give them £60, even though they don't get to keep it directly any more).
By (unlawfully) trying to make you request a court hearing if you don't accept the COFP, they are trying to futher coerce you into accepting the COFP.

There is absolutely no requirement to respond to a COFP in any form.



Thats what i thought thanks, still I might write back to them in a few weeks asking why they want me to fill out section 6, I like them to make themelves clear and while they keep doing that the clock i ticking its been 3 months already and even though they still have plenty of time they seem keen to give me extra time to consider there Fixed penalties.
andy_foster
If you have provided all the required information in relation to that alleged offence in the manner required (or at least the substance of the manner required), you have discharged your legal obligations.

They acknowledge receipt of your 'completed and signed Notice confirming that you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.' You have evidence from them (in the form of their letter) that you have complied with your legal obligations. End of!

If the NIP had been served to you at the 'wrong' address (e.g. work address), and you have named yourself providing a corrected address, it might be arguable that a subsequent NIP served on you at your corrected address was a fresh notice and constituted a separate requirement, but in the instant case it appears that they are solely trying to coerce you into accepting the COFP. If the instructions in their letter do not tally with the enclosed notice, that is probably because they're a bit thick.
blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 1 Mar 2008 - 23:04) *
If you have provided all the required information in relation to that alleged offence in the manner required (or at least the substance of the manner required), you have discharged your legal obligations.

They acknowledge receipt of your 'completed and signed Notice confirming that you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.' You have evidence from them (in the form of their letter) that you have complied with your legal obligations. End of!
If the instructions in their letter do not tally with the enclosed notice, that is probably because they're a bit thick.


Then I have definetley complied with my legal obligations and the ball is now in there court (whether to summons me or not), Its the 3rd NIP sent (+ 1 to my work) to my own address (i filled out the 2nd one after being sent a photo and given a 14 day extension to rely to it (ain't I lucky)).
The instructions in there letter do not tally one bit and I might write to them asking that they explain why I need to fill in sections 1,6 and 7 as i have already completed the NIP once. I'm just time wasting and playing them at there game. As i've said before they ain't getting my £60 and more importantly 3 points without a fight, which i have told them over the phone (didn't go down to well) but they still seem keen to offer me the fixed penalty. Perhaps they are thick or perhaps they don't really want the hassle of taking me to court its there decision if i've complied legally.
Lance
In my opinion you are still probably best off not writing at this stage, but waiting to see what happens next. No sense in drawing unnecessary attention.
blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (Lance @ Sat, 1 Mar 2008 - 23:47) *
In my opinion you are still probably best off not writing at this stage, but waiting to see what happens next. No sense in drawing unnecessary attention.


Does it actually work like that? surely they have 100's of letters each week and 1 letter asking a genuine question should draw there attention?
Lance
It might. Surely better to let them get on with answering the 100s of other letters.
Is the van registered in your name?
blackheathbaggie
no the van is my works vehicle.
Lance
Was the NIP/S172 notice that you completed addressed to you or the company?
blackheathbaggie
QUOTE (Lance @ Sun, 2 Mar 2008 - 11:09) *
Was the NIP/S172 notice that you completed addressed to you or the company?



It was addressed to myself, my work had one sent to them firstly and then a total of 3 have been sent to me, i filled out and signed the 2nd of them. They seem very keen for me to take there fixed penalty offer ain't i lucky to get offered it 3 times biggrin.gif
blackheathbaggie
Just a quick question, i've been up the Road (London RD)where my alleged speeding was yesterday and even though its signed with a camera sign and a 30mph sign as you enter the 30mph zones both ways in the road there are 2 roads entering the 30zone from the left and neither of these have any camera signs as you enter London Rd from them. Should there be any signs warning that you may be entering a road that may have speed camera's in them? because if you enter from either of these roads there are no warning signs visible.
leegomery16
What is the speed limit of the side roads? If they're 30 too then no warning signs are needed as far as I know.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.