Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge

Honest John Back Room » Legal matters
What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
View Threaded
Mon 18 Nov 2013 21:49
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - Jeffo489

I have received a NIP for 58 in a 50, and to which I replied immediately.

I am genuinely not aware of who was driving at the time as it could be either my wife or me. The photographs are from the rear and do not identify the driver. I offered to take responsibility for the incident as the registered owner, stating that I did not want to furnish a false statement as the Notice to provide the details of the driver specifically states to do so is an offence.

The police sent me a summons. The court is 200 miles away, and they have only given me 2 weeks between the summons and the court date. I need to write a letter to the court and try and get this dismissed as surely they cant charge me with speeding if we dont know i was driving, and that has not been determined yet. Plus they shouldnt charge me with failing to provide information as I kept replying and asking them for advice.

help?

J

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 18 Nov 2013 22:10
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - RT

Go onto the Pepipoo website ASAP

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 18 Nov 2013 22:39
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - FP

RT's advice is sound. You may also wish to consult a solicitor, but you need to be aware that your room for manouvre is very limited.

From Pepipoo: "...if the photograph they provide proves to be inconclusive, the keeper may still guilty of an offence unless they discharge their legal obligation under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 by:
Providing the name of the driver, or;
By providing a list of possible drivers."

Therefore, even though you seem to think you've been doing something helpful by "replying and asking them for advice", that does not really amount to doing what the law requires and you are still not complying with it. In any case, the police and the court are not there to provide legal advice, except in very broad terms. Writing to the court in an attempt to get your case dismissed is pointless.

I don't wish to be harsh, but you need to sort this out properly, or you will be convicted. Again, from Pepipoo: "If the keeper fails to name the driver, they may be liable to prosecution and the punishment could be worse than for the speeding offence, i.e. 6 points, a fine and costs."

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 09:53
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - Dwight Van Driver

If a driver is not named in the 172 request then offence committed. Pure and simple.

However there is a provison under the section:

(4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

So the RK has now to prove this to the satisfaction of the authorities and in this case.. a Court.

Problem being that this has been abused so much that Mags tend not to believe unless there is compelling evidence. Remember 'Peter and the Wolf'

True that whilst some Courts will lump a speeding charge along with a S172 offence of failing to name they cannot proceed with the speed charge because they do not have a signed 172 that offender was driver, unless at Court perchance they declare that they were.

dvd

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 12:56
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - wrangler_rover

I thought a cornerstone of British law was "Considered innocent until proven guilty."

It seems that this is no longer the case.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 13:13
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - skidpan

I thought a cornerstone of British law was "Considered innocent until proven guilty."

It seems that this is no longer the case.

No one has been found guilty yet, it is up to the court to decide that.

But an offence of speeding has been committed and the registered keepr has failed to inform the authorities of the drivers identity, another offence.

It remains to be seen what they are found guilty of but the speeding offence would be way cheaper.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 13:34
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - FP

'I thought a cornerstone of British law was "Considered innocent until proven guilty."'

You might also like to ponder the principle of justice whereby no-one, if accused, should be forced to give evidence that might incriminate them (the "right to silence").

Unfortunately, challenges mounted on this basis in the European Court of Human Rights in relation to speed-camera offences have come to nothing.

Think of that what you will.

Edited by FP on 19/11/2013 at 13:35

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 13:41
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - RT

You might also like to ponder the principle of justice whereby no-one, if accused, should be forced to give evidence that might incriminate them (the "right to silence").

I thought that was part of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution and only applied in the USA

Edited by RT on 19/11/2013 at 13:42

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 14:36
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - FP

"I thought that was part of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution and only applied in the USA."

The case in question was Gerard O'Halloran and Idris Francis vs. the United Kingdom June 2007.

Judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg voted 15 to two to reject their argument.

As I understand it, the underlying principle of the law is that the defendant does not have to prove his innocence — the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. Thus the defendant does not have to do, or say, anything.

Unless his vehicle has been caught by a speed camera.

Edited by FP on 19/11/2013 at 14:44

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 16:12
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - RT

Unless his vehicle has been caught by a speed camera.

Which provides enough evidence to secure a conviction under S172 of UK law, for which the penalties are higher than for speeding.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 16:27
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - thunderbird

Why do people bother trying to help others who have clearly broken the law.

The OP or another driver has been caught speeding, should have paid up and taken the points.

Instead the OP has then not identified the driver, guilty again and now in court. Will now have to pay the fine and take the points the court imposes.

No sympathy.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 16:56
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - FP

"Why do people bother trying to help others who have clearly broken the law.

The OP or another driver has been caught speeding, should have paid up and taken the points."

Well, it seems you've decided he's not only broken the law, but is/was fully aware of that.

I and some others thought it a reasonable and civilised thing to offer advice, clarify the legal position and ponder (for general interest) some of the issues.

But the number of unsympathetic people on this forum seems to be on the increase.

Depends on your outlook on life, I guess.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 17:41
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - thunderbird

Well, it seems you've decided he's not only broken the law, but is/was fully aware of that.

I have been driving for almost 40 years and in that time I have not had a speeding ticket. I must have been very lucky and must be living on borrowed time by now and one day I expect my luck to run out.

When that happens I will be somewhat peeved but I will pay up or tell the authorites if the wife was driving my car.

The OP has never suggested he was not speeding thus accepts that the limit was broken. Its the fact that they appear to have tried to use the old excuse of pretending not to know who was driving to get off and have now got themselves into deeper trouble by not responding in time.

Only themselves to blame.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 17:55
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - FP

"Its the fact that they appear to have tried to use the old excuse of pretending not to know who was driving to get off..."

That's how you chose to see it. You could be right. However, I try to avoid souring the atmosphere. There's too much of that here already.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 19 Nov 2013 21:55
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - Avant

"Why do people bother trying to help others who have clearly broken the law?"

You really shouldn't have to ask a question like that. The answer is - because we (most of us) are a pleasant bunch of people whose natural instinct is to help each other. FP is quite right on this.

Sometimes the most effective way to help is by speaking bluntly, without skirting round the issue, particularly if we think an OP needs to accept that they are at fault. But there is still no call to be rude, 'holier than thou' or offensive. What we post on here should be no different from what we would say to someone's face.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 20 Nov 2013 08:55
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - thunderbird

What we post on here should be no different from what we would say to someone's face.

Correct and if this issue cropped up in conversation I would say exactly to same to the persons face.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 20 Nov 2013 19:43
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - Brit_in_Germany

So you would say to someone's face that they are not telling the truth when you have no basis for such an allegation would you? Have you actually read the OP?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 21 Nov 2013 07:41
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - thunderbird

So you would say to someone's face that they are not telling the truth when you have no basis for such an allegation would you? Have you actually read the OP?

I have read the OP's post. Where would I be accusing him of tellling a lie since he does not dispute the speeding part, its the fact he has not disclosed who the driver is. I would be telling him that by not disclosing the drivers identity he has broken the law. That is not an allegation, its a simple fact and its why he is due to appear in court.

Any solicitor would tell them exactly the same.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 21 Nov 2013 08:35
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - Brit_in_Germany

Try the sentence "I am genuinely not aware of who was driving at the time as it could be either my wife or me."

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 21 Nov 2013 09:48
Volvo XC90 - NIP and Section 172 charge - RT

Try the sentence "I am genuinely not aware of who was driving at the time as it could be either my wife or me."

A way to proceed in that case is to wait until it goes to court and then the registered keeper can have their day in court - but courts don't generally accept that argument unless there are very special circumstances relating to it, they've seen selective memory loss too many times before - so 6 points and a big fine will be issued.

I'm not suggesting the OP isn't honest - but can you imagine what would happen with all the less than honest speeders if courts readily accepted that argument.

To the OP, it's probably too late now to avoid the serious penalty - but 3 points and £60 (it may have gone up recently) is nothing really, especially as 99.99% of drivers speed at one time or another and we all know it's just luck whether you do or don't get flashed.

Actually, 58 in a 50 would probably have got a speed awareness course and no points.

Edited by RT on 21/11/2013 at 09:49

Reply | Report as offensive | Link