Help - NIP - Traffic Light - Courtesy Car

[breakanegg]

Hi there, I was hoping for some advice on how to proceed with an NIP I have received for failing to comply with an Automatic Traffic Signal. It's not quite simple because it is for a courtesy car and I am not sure I was the driver.

FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL(RED LIGHT) @ A320 VICTORIA WAY, JUNC CHOBHAM RD, WOKING on 25/03/2009 at 08.52 hours. Speed 18 mph

Contrary to section S36(1) RTA 88 R10 TSGD 02 & SCH 2 RTOA 88.

1. My own vehicle was with a local Volvo garage for servicing and they had issued me with a courtesy car.

2. I did not sign anything nor was I given any paperwork for the courtesy car, all I remember was that it was a Volvo. They have a number of Volvo courtesy cars.

3. I do not recall jumping a red light. I am also not from teh area so not very familiar with roads so I don't even know the area that the offence occured. I downloaded picture of camera from Camera website but it doesn't ring any bells.

4. The garage initially sent me the NIP for completion after my car was returned (I no longer had courtesy car). All it had was teh licence plate so I rang Surrey police to explain I didn't know if this was the vehicle I was driving and I don't recall jumping a red light. They responded that actually it was an offence for the garage to issue me the NIP, they are required to complete it. I was instructed to send back to garage which I did. I included a letter explaining what police said and asking for copies of paperwork that leads them to believe I was the driver.

5. Received nothing from teh garage but later received the NIP addressed to me.

6. Sent a letter to Surrey Police explaning that I was issued a courtesy car from A, that car was a Volvo, that I wasn't asked to sign any paperwork etc.

7. Received a reminder threatening 6 points on 9th June.

8. I rang Surrey Police saying I explained in letter the situation, they said hadn't received letter but do have records of my calls and can see I've contacted them about it.

9. Suggested I write to them again, this time Special Delivery and explain situation again and include previous letter and letter to garage.

So that's the stage I'm at now. I'm not sure exactly what to put in letter. I don't want to incriminate myself by saying I was driver when not sure I was. At same time I don't want to get into trouble for not exercising dilligence in trying to provide that information. However since I'm not registered keeper and don't hve records of the vehicle I don't see how I can reasonably give information.

Also planned to maybe write to the garage again, recorded delivery, asking for paper work again.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[patdavies]

What you should have done at step 4 is - nothing. The Police would then have chased up the dealer or prosecuted them for failure to provide - you would be in the clear.

What you actually did was let them off the hook and put yourself into the frame instead.

All you can do now is try to find out if the offending car was the one which was issued to you. I am amazed that there was nothing signed by you, as the garage cannot pass on any pcn without a signature from you accepting liability. For a PCN, they would have to supply a copy of the signed agreement to be able to shift liability.

Whether or not you were the driver, you have a NIP and s.172 request, You must respond or you will be prosecuted for the s.172 offence; regardless of whether or not it was you driving when the car crossed the red light.

If you 'fess up, then you are looking at £60 and 3 point FPN; for failing to provide you are looking at 6 points and several hundred pounds in fine/costs.

My advice would be, pragmatically, is if you were driving in that area at about that time, accept that it was you and name yourself and take the FPN.

If you are unsure, then write to the Police and say so; the matter will then be passed to Magistrates' Court to decide. The duty on you as someone other than the RK is that you can only be required to provide information that is within your knowledge.

If you take the second path, you will need to demonstrate to the Bench that you have undertaken reasonable diligence in trying to find out who was driving. The first step in this was asking the Volvo garage - regardless of lack of response.

You should also ask the Police for picturs of the offence if you haven't already been provided with them. This will identify the car (taken from behind, it is unlikely to identify the driver) and that may jog your memory one way or the other as to whether you were driving or not.

[breakanegg]

Thanks Pat,

Calling surrey police and then sending NIP back to garage was stupid. I wish I'd thought to post on a forum before, but too late now.

I'm worried that if I don't send back the NIP and say it was me, even though not sure I'm going to end up getting 6 points instead of the 3.

If I write to police (and garage AGAIN) and say I'm trying to obtain information to establish the driver's identity, explaining everything about the courtesy car etc, and ask nicely for copies of photos to see if photos of car helps 'jog my memory'.

Do you think they will just proceed to a summons? Or will they give me some more time to comply with the NIP?

I did write to them after first receiving NIP. My computer shows the letter having been written on 7th May, although I've no proof of postage I don't think that matters because I read elsewhere a person couldn't use that as a defence for not receiving a NIP so doesn't seem fair they could themselves use it as a defence to say they've not received a letter from me within the 28 days!

Plus they said they have records of me calling them.

If I can get them to hold out I would like to get information from garage and maybe photos from police so I can assure myself I was driver before accepting 3 points.

However if they're gonna go directly to summons then I might just grudgingly take the 3 points so that I can avoid 6 and put it down to stupidity for a) not requesting proper paperwork when I got courtesy car and b) trying to do the garage's duty for them.

[TheBogsDollocks]

Originally Posted by patdavies

What you should have done at step 4 is - nothing. The Police would then have chased up the dealer or prosecuted them for failure to provide - you would be in the clear.

What you actually did was let them off the hook and put yourself into the frame instead.

All you can do now is try to find out if the offending car was the one which was issued to you. I am amazed that there was nothing signed by you, as the garage cannot pass on any pcn without a signature from you accepting liability. For a PCN, they would have to supply a copy of the signed agreement to be able to shift liability.

Whether or not you were the driver, you have a NIP and s.172 request, You must respond or you will be prosecuted for the s.172 offence; regardless of whether or not it was you driving when the car crossed the red light.

If you 'fess up, then you are looking at £60 and 3 point FPN; for failing to provide you are looking at 6 points and several hundred pounds in fine/costs.

My advice would be, pragmatically, is if you were driving in that area at about that time, accept that it was you and name yourself and take the FPN.

If you are unsure, then write to the Police and say so; the matter will then be passed to Magistrates' Court to decide. The duty on you as someone other than the RK is that you can only be required to provide information that is within your knowledge.

If you take the second path, you will need to demonstrate to the Bench that you have undertaken reasonable diligence in trying to find out who was driving. The first step in this was asking the Volvo garage - regardless of lack of response.

You should also ask the Police for picturs of the offence if you haven't already been provided with them. This will identify the car (taken from behind, it is unlikely to identify the driver) and that may jog your memory one way or the other as to whether you were driving or not.

Execellent advice.

As an aside and possibly for future reference in regard to PCN's for those in the dark.

For for a hire company (a lease of 6 months or less) or a garage that offers a courtesy car it is essential that the agreement you sign complies with what is listed in the link below. Any failure however minor means that the signed agreement does not qualify to enable the transfer of liability to the hirer and the hire company/garage will remain liable for the penalty charge.

Many agreements out there, particularly courtesy car ones, fail to meet the required standard and many of the big name hire companies have not amended their agreements to include PCN's but continue to refer to excess/standard charges.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...&filesize=1078

[breakanegg]

That's really interesting. I certainly don't recall signing anything remotely like that!

Does the requirements apply in terms of NIPs or just PCNs?

In that case I'm thinking that rather than write to police and accepting 3 points I'm going to write and say that I can't identify driver at this time but confirm I had courtesy vehicle on that date. Include copy of previous letter and letter to garage (which I think I can say they received since they NIP was enclosed and the completed the NIP so must've got attached letter), and take it from there.

What think?

Also I'm going to write to garage again, recorded delivery and ask again for information. Should I quote the relevant law to them?

i.e. should I say please send copy of agreement in accordance with

"SCHEDULE 2, Regulation 3, Particulars required in a Hiring Agreement to comply with Section 66 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988" or just say 'documentation or records that led you to identify me as the driver at the time of this offence'?

Thanks again for help guys

[breakanegg]

Originally Posted by TheBogsDollocks

Execellent advice.

For for a hire company (a lease of 6 months or less) or a garage that offers a courtesy car it is essential that the agreement you sign complies with what is listed in the link below. Any failure however minor means that the signed agreement does not qualify to enable the transfer of liability to the hirer and the hire company/garage will remain liable for the penalty charge.

The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000 (No. 2546) - Statute Law Database

Thanks for advice you guys. I wrote to police again, with copies of previous letters, explaining uncertainty that this is the courtesy vehicle I was driving, demonstrating that I'd written to the garage, also recorded delivery and so could not identify the driver with current information.

Also asked for copies of photos to see if it would jog my memory as you advised.

No response from Police. I rang them yesterday "23rd) and they said have no record of that letter EITHER!? It was sent recorded and I have the proof of signature from Royal Mail online saying was delivered on 18th.

Woman was actually pleasant on phone, said only thing can advise is write again and again include previous letters and this time include my proof of delivery. She said meantime she will log that I have rang again.

This is all becoming rather circuitous

Anyway, today I received a letter from the garage recorded delivery. In it was a covering letter saying please find attached documentation "clearly shows you were using our loan car REGISTRATION between dates, that establishes that you were in position (assume possession?) of the car on the dates of alleged offence".

Here's what's included:

1. A copy of the signed job card for my vehicle, it lists MY vehicle details (not the one for the alleged offence), details of reapirs to be done and is signed by me. This contains no details of a courtesy car, it is only a document authorising the listed repairs, nowt to do with a courtesy car.
2. A copy of the invoice for all the work, again details of my car and repairs done etc, nothing detailing courtesy car.
3. A print out from what I assume is an internal computer database that the garage use for logging courtesy cars. It is not an official document, contains no signature or details of any conditions as per Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000.

I assume this 3rd is their own database for keeping track of vehicles. However as I say it is not an official document and contains nothing signed by me.

It does identify the vehicle in question, has dates in and out and has my name and licence number on it. However I'm sorry, that's not an official document and there's nothing to confirm the accuracy of that data.

Also don't know if relevant but this 'database' includes boxes for drivers own insurance and current convictions. Both of which are blank. I have 3 points on my licence for speeding.

Any advice on what should do now guys?

Do I write to police again and say something along lines of

"With reference to above NIP and previous correspondence of x and y, please be advised that I have received correspondence from the registered keeper of the vehicle X as per attached. As you can see the only documentation supplied that indicates I was in possession of this vehicle at the time of the offence is what appears to be a print out from an internal database used by the garage, the accuracy of which I cannot be certain of especially since this information was not witnessed nor signed by me."

Finally wrt to s.172 offence, I have responded I just haven't given details of the driver. Could I be found guilty of s.172 offence for that? We are now past the 28 days but to be fair I DID write to them, they just haven't received my letter even though I have proof of signature for 2nd letter.

When I've spoken to them on the phone they seem quite reasonable. The lady I spoke to yesterday said once they receive my letter they'll contact the garage, I presume at that point they'll ask garage to produce documentation stating I was driver same as me.

Any advice be much appreciated.

[patdavies]

The quoted legislation is, AFAIK, with reference to parking tickets and the like - offences/contraventions where the RK is held liable

This offence can only be the liability of the driver and s.172(2) of the RTA 1988 imposes a duty as follows:

(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies— (a)
the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and

(b)
any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

The garage's computer printout is sufficient under s,172(b) to identify you as the driver and consequently get your own NIP/s,172 request. If the garage have knowingly supplied false information than they would be liable for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. At this stage, you would have to prove that their information is false - your chances appear very slim. You cannot disprove their assertion; at this stage, s.172 is merely gathering information

As you now have the information from the garage, you should complete the s.172 naming the driver - if indeed it was you. You should not be prosecuted for failing to supply as s.172 (7)(b)

(7) A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made— (a)
it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and

(b)
the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.

Again, you may have acted too hastily, if you have been unable to supply this information before 25th August, you would probably got away scot free.

[breakanegg]

Originally Posted by patdavies

The quoted legislation is, AFAIK, with reference to parking tickets and the like - offences/contraventions where the RK is held liable

I don't understand the legislation myself and am a complete amateur but looking at the 1st link provided by BogsDollocks it says requirements for document is required to comply with Section 66 of RTOA 1988. So I've had a squinty at that http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+ Legislation&Year=1988&sea rchEnacted=0&extentMatchO nly=0&confersPower=0&blan ketAmendment=0&sortAlpha= 0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=2&Na vFrom=0&parentActiveTextD ocId=3185254&ActiveTextDo cId=3185345&filesize=7665
and it's gobledegook to me but would I be correct in reading that it applies to this case as 1a and 1b applies?

Originally Posted by patdavies

This offence can only be the liability of the driver and s.172(2) of the RTA 1988 imposes a duty as follows:

Originally Posted by patdavies

The garage's computer printout is sufficient under s,172(b) to identify you as the driver and consequently get your own NIP/s,172 request. If the garage have knowingly supplied false information than they would be liable for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. At this stage, you would have to prove that their information is false - your chances appear very slim. You cannot disprove their assertion; at this stage, s.172 is merely gathering information

Doesn't 2a) apply to them and not 2b? Isn't there any requirement for nature of information an RK must keep in order to identify driver?


Do I have to strictly prove their information to be false though? I don't see that it's reasonable I should name myself as the driver based upon a computer printout from the garage that I cannot verify accuracy of. They have nothing signed which identifies me as the driver and I have no records as I'm not the RK of the vehicle. I'm not saying they've deliberately falsified documentation (although it's not outwith realms of possiblity), however I cannot be sure of accuracy of this table, I have no informtion on when this data was entered into the computer, who entered it, whether it has been altered or even if it was entered accurately, mistakes do happen.

I still feel like I'm being forced to name myself as the driver under duress.

I'm even less convinced now this is the vehicle I had because of the nature of the documentation I've been provided and the whole 'cloak and dagger' approach.

I wish I had a scanner to show you but it's basically a table (looks like it's been produced on Microsoft Access). it has vehicle registration, dates, my name and licence number, that's it.

Originally Posted by patdavies

As you now have the information from the garage, you should complete the s.172 naming the driver - if indeed it was you. You should not be prosecuted for failing to supply as s.172 (7)(b)

Originally Posted by patdavies

Again, you may have acted too hastily, if you have been unable to supply this information before 25th August, you would probably got away scot free.

Yes but is that not their information? What I'm trying to say is it's basically their database, scantily completed, the accuracy of which I cannot ascertain. I’ve asked for something that demonstrates to ME that this is the vehicle I was issued, what they’ve supplied is something that demonstrates it to them. They've produced nothing signed to show who the driver was but have basically produced something that could've been compiled yesterday for all I know or input incorrectly in the 1st place.

Not even necessarily saying they falsified anything but I am questioning the accuracy of completeness of their records and suggesting they could have made a mistake. I'd hoped for something more conclusive from them.

Found this in RTA "
(b)
the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.

By naming the driver based upon the garages scanty and questionable computer print out am I not saying that I know their data to be accurate and true? Could it not be argued that it wasn't reasonably practicable for me to name the driver based on only that information?

Originally Posted by patdavies

Again, you may have acted too hastily, if you have been unable to supply this information before 25th August, you would probably got away scot free.

It might seem simpler just to say it was me and get 3 points for it but the Robin Hood in me is choking at the injustice. Part of me wants to fight it.

Thought if I wrote to police saying I've now received this information (exercising dilligence) but stating it is still not sufficient for me to name driver.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by breakanegg

I don't understand the legislation myself and am a complete amateur but looking at the 1st link provided by BogsDollocks it says requirements for document is required to comply with Section 66 of RTOA 1988. So I've had a squinty at that http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+ Legislation&Year=1988&sea rchEnacted=0&extentMatchO nly=0&confersPower=0&blan ketAmendment=0&sortAlpha= 0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=2&Na vFrom=0&parentActiveTextD ocId=3185254&ActiveTextDo cId=3185345&filesize=7665
and it's gobledegook to me but would I be correct in reading that it applies to this case as 1a and 1b applies?

No, it doesn't apply - see below

Doesn't 2a) apply to them and not 2b? Isn't there any requirement for nature of information an RK must keep in order to identify driver?

As above

Do I have to strictly prove their information to be false though?

yes

I don't see that it's reasonable I should name myself as the driver based upon a computer printout from the garage that I cannot verify accuracy of. They have nothing signed which identifies me as the driver and I have no records as I'm not the RK of the vehicle. I'm not saying they've deliberately falsified documentation (although it's not outwith realms of possiblity), however I cannot be sure of accuracy of this table, I have no informtion on when this data was entered into the computer, who entered it, whether it has been altered or even if it was entered accurately, mistakes do happen.

See below for how s.172 works

Yes but is that not their information? What I'm trying to say is it's basically their database, scantily completed, the accuracy of which I cannot ascertain.

Doesn't matter. S.172 only requires that a record be kept when the RK is a company

I’ve asked for something that demonstrates to ME that this is the vehicle I was issued, what they’ve supplied is something that demonstrates it to them. They've produced nothing signed to show who the driver was but have basically produced something that could've been compiled yesterday for all I know or input incorrectly in the 1st place.

Not relevant I'm afraid

Found this in RTA "
(b)
the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.

By naming the driver based upon the garages scanty and questionable computer print out am I not saying that I know their data to be accurate and true?

No

Could it not be argued that it wasn't reasonably practicable for me to name the driver based on only that information?

No

Thought if I wrote to police saying I've now received this information (exercising dilligence) but stating it is still not sufficient for me to name driver.

Won't work.

S.172

When the Police issue a NIP, they also issue a request for information under s.172 of the RTA 1988. This requires the recipient to provide the details of the driver at the time. There are effectively 2 choices; either name oneself or name somebody else if you were not driving. The RK is expected to know who was driving his car at the time; anybody else in the world can be asked but is only expected to give such information as they hold.

The garage, by whatever process, has named you as the driver at the time of the offence. This is not a passing of RK's liability that is dealt with by RTRA s.66 and subsequent regulation; this is simply a request by the Police for information. How the RK records, and recalls that information is irrelevant unless you can prove that the information given is wrong. The garage do not have to prove anything to you; it is sufficient for the process that they allege that you were driving.

Rightly or wrongly, you have been named by the garage and you have your own NIP/s.172 request. You must give such information as in your power to give. You are legally bound to respond either naming yourself or naming somebody else.

If you think that you were driving, the you must name yourself, If you do not believe that you were driving as this was not the car that you had at the time, then name the garage and attach an explanatory note to the effect that you believe the garage to be wrong in their naming of you. This will cause the Police to investigate with the garage - but they will not let it rest and if they believe that the garage is right, they will prosecute you.

The fact that you have not signed any agreement with the garage leaves them wide open to any PCNs, etc. but that is irrelevant here. There is an implied duty in s.172 where the RK is a company, that records of who was driving be kept; the garage will argue that their database meets this requirement.

[breakanegg]

Thanks Pat making much more sense now. Appreciate the patience too, I know I'm sounding quite dense.

Originally Posted by patdavies

There are effectively 2 choices; either name oneself or name somebody else if you were not driving. The RK is expected to know who was driving his car at the time; anybody else in the world can be asked but is only expected to give such information as they hold.

So as 'anybody else' can I say I cant name a driver as I don't have details on the vehicle? Again the garages print out is not my records and I guess you're right, I am denying the accuracy of these.

Originally Posted by patdavies

If you think that you were driving, the you must name yourself, If you do not believe that you were driving as this was not the car that you had at the time, then name the garage and attach an explanatory note to the effect that you believe the garage to be wrong in their naming of you. This will cause the Police to investigate with the garage - but they will not let it rest and if they believe that the garage is right, they will prosecute you.

Ths is where I'm unsure again. If they prosecute, will it be for the s.172 or the offence? I mean if they investigate they are going to look for documentation to determine who the driver was. If they determine that based upon additional information that they discover that I wasn't furnished with.... trying to write this right...

Lets say the garage produce another document, something that better proves I was the driver. The police would then I imagine say I was the driver and come after me for the offence. However in terms of the s.172, I didn't have that information at the time when I responded so is it reasonable to prosecute me for s.172 offence because I didn't act upon informaton I did not have? That make sense?

Also in this case is there any likelihood of garage being prosecuted for perversion of justice for not producing this earlier upon request?

I have after all requested details of all and any documentation they have that led them to identify me as the driver. The copies of job card, invoice and computer printout is what they produced.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by breakanegg

So as 'anybody else' can I say I cant name a driver as I don't have details on the vehicle?

Yes, you can claim no knowledge of driving that particular vehicle

Again the garages print out is not my records and I guess you're right, I am denying the accuracy of these.

The garage have named you on their s.172 and the allegation has now been passed to you by the Police.

Testing the veracity of their information would be a matter for a Court

Ths is where I'm unsure again. If they prosecute, will it be for the s.172 or the offence?

s.172. They can't prosecute the red light offence without evidence (a signed s.172 'confession' by the driver) of who was driving.

There are 2 discrete elements to a conviction; (1) evidence of the offence - camera photographs from an approved device and (2)evidence as to the identity of the driver (signed personal s.172 request/NIP usually)

I mean if they investigate they are going to look for documentation to determine who the driver was. If they determine that based upon additional information that they discover that I wasn't furnished with.... trying to write this right...

Finding such additional evidence would only prove that the garage were correct in naming you. Once the garage had done that, the onus is entirely on you.

Lets say the garage produce another document, something that better proves I was the driver. The police would then I imagine say I was the driver and come after me for the offence. However in terms of the s.172, I didn't have that information at the time when I responded so is it reasonable to prosecute me for s.172 offence because I didn't act upon informaton I did not have? That make sense?

It makes sense, but is nonsense. As a non-keeper, you can only give information that is in your possession; anything that surfaces later was obviously not in your possession at the time. Anything produced later is a matter of reinforcing the garage's position; not providing proof to change it.

Also in this case is there any likelihood of garage being prosecuted for perversion of justice for not producing this earlier upon request?

None at all. They were required to name the driver and have done so - in their opinion.

I have after all requested details of all and any documentation they have that led them to identify me as the driver. The copies of job card, invoice and computer printout is what they produced.

Not relevant. To escape a failure to name (yourself) you will have to show reasonable diligence in trying to ascertain who was driving - the garage's statement counts against you here and is something you would need to overcome - by proving their statement wrong. IOW, because of the existence of their printout, you have a higher mountain to climb

[breakanegg]

Originally Posted by patdavies

s.172. They can't prosecute the red light offence without evidence (a signed s.172 'confession' by the driver) of who was driving.

There are 2 discrete elements to a conviction; (1) evidence of the offence - camera photographs from an approved device and (2)evidence as to the identity of the driver (signed personal s.172 request/NIP usually)

And this is where I'm stuck Putting aside garage's compliance with s.172 coz it seems they've done that (albeit perhaps naming wrong driver) and looking at my compliance only...... all I have in way of evidence of offence is that piece of paper from the garage, no photographs (I've asked police twice and thus far they say they've received none of my correspondence although I have a signature as proof of delivery), I have nothing signed for a courtesy car from the garage; nothing but an a4 piece of paper.

So I don't think it's reasonable to give a signed s.172 confession based upon that. I've assumed this piece of paper comes from a computer database, it could've been produced in Word for all know. It's a piece of paper with a large grey box and in it is the car licence plate, my name, licence number and dates received/returned vehicle. I've been provided with no explanation as to what it is or where it has come from.

I've applied common sense to reach a 'best guess' of where it came from but currently it's nothing but a piece of paper with no explanation of where it comes from and how it proves I was the driver.

The garage say they believe I was driving based upon their information, I get that.

However I can't reasonably say I was driving based upon nothing but that piece of paper that I've guessed comes from a database, and I can't really accuse anyone else, unless I give the garages name and say my reasons is I believe they have made an error in naming me?

[patdavies]

I would respond in writing (as a letter attaching their uncompleted form) as follows:-

Dear Sir

NIP ref XXXXX

I have received the attached NIP and note that I have been named as the driver at the time of the alleged offence by NNNNN Garage.

However, I believe that they are incorrect in their assertion. I do not recall ever driving this particular vehicle. As a person other than the keeper, I have no information in my power to give regarding this offence.

My details are as follows, but I insist that I believe that I was not the driver at the time. You have not assisted me in this by failing to reply to either of my letters asking for any pictures to help identify the driver. I know these to have been received as one was sent by signed for delivery and has been fully tracked by Royal Mail to the delivery point.

Insert here all the details asked for in the s.172 request.

Yours faithfully,

Breakanegg

Send by special delivery, but be assured that this is unlikely to be an end to the matter; both you and the garage may get Police visits to further investigate. OTOH, they may just be too busy and let it drop as too much trouble.

[breakanegg]

Originally Posted by patdavies

I would respond in writing (as a letter attaching their uncompleted form) as follows:-

Dear Sir

NIP ref XXXXX

I have received the attached NIP and note that I have been named as the driver at the time of the alleged offence by NNNNN Garage.

However, I believe that they are incorrect in their assertion. I do not recall ever driving this particular vehicle. As a person other than the keeper, I have no information in my power to give regarding this offence.

My details are as follows, but I insist that I believe that I was not the driver at the time. You have not assisted me in this by failing to reply to either of my letters asking for any pictures to help identify the driver. I know these to have been received as one was sent by signed for delivery and has been fully tracked by Royal Mail to the delivery point.

Insert here all the details asked for in the s.172 request.

Yours faithfully,

Breakanegg

Send by special delivery, but be assured that this is unlikely to be an end to the matter; both you and the garage may get Police visits to further investigate. OTOH, they may just be too busy and let it drop as too much trouble.

Urgh, so I've written to them as advised and today received through the post the following:

"You were sent a notice requiring you to provide the name and address of the driver of the motor vehicle bearing the registration mark xxxxxxx on 25/03/2009. On this date, the driver of the vehicle was recorded on photographic evidence as having committed a traffic offence.

You were given 28 days to provide the information requested. However, to date, no driver details have been received.

Failing to provide driver details is an offence, for which the maximum penalty is a fine of £1000.00 plus 6 penalty points.

Court proceedings are now being instigated for this offence.

Yours sincerely

Unsigned,
Safety Safety Camera Partnership"

Still no acknowledgement of any of my letters and so I rang them.

Conversation ended up going around in circles with woman adamant that the law requires me to complete their form. I said no it doesn't, I'm only required to write to you, signed giving details of driver or other information I am reasonable able to give. I've done that.

Woman replied that I must complete their form naming a driver or it goes to court and basically they won't accept any other form of correspondence.

She says I must complete the form with the driver details. We argued this point and she insisted that I would be taken to court for failing to complete their form, I said that's ludicrous, their form would then need to be stipulated in law, s.172 b requires me to give what information I reasonably can and I have done that but woman was adamant "we need our form". At this point I said there's no point in continuing conversation as was getting nowhere.

Unsure what to do now. Do I complete their form and put the garage as the driver?

She says if I want I can write to their manager with my concerns, whose name she gave me. So maybe if I write again, as above, with copies of previous letters and this time address it to their manager.

My concern with the form is that it doesn't allow for this situation and requires me to name a driver which I can't, unless I put the garages name down but might that not be an offence?

It seems silly that they won't accept any form of communication other than their official forms that do not allow for this situation. My letters do.

Also, STILL no photographic evidence. All I have to date is that print out from the garage which I have now scanned.

Unsure how to upload pictures but will upload when (if) I do

[katedog]

hello

Just a few questions/obsevations for breakanegg.

When did you drop your car off at the garage, was it the same day as the offence and if so what time did you drop it off?

The alleged offence occured at 08.52 hrs according to NIP, is that enough time for you to get from the garage to the offence location, and is the car heading towrad the garage or towatd where you would have been going ie home school work or what ever. Could this have been a member of the garage staff heading into work?

The photographic evidence probably wont tell you very much and is likely to be a poor quality shot from the rear and not good enough to ID the driver.

Is there any local authority CCTV near to the garage or the ATS which might ID the driver? And dont foreget that could work for or against you!

[patdavies]

If you want to have some fun with the harridan at the SCP, you can always call back and ask her on what grounds they can insist that their form is completed - bearing in mind the case law set down in Jones v DPP?

Jones v DPP made it very clear that a signed written response supplying the required information is sufficient to meet the requirements of s.172.

This sentence is also patent;y nonsensical

"You were sent a notice requiring you to provide the name and address of the driver of the motor vehicle bearing the registration mark LJ58UBW on 25/03/2009. On this date, the driver of the vehicle was recorded on photographic evidence as having committed a traffic offence.

You were not sent any notice on 25/3/09 - the initial notice went to the RK

Unsure what to do now. Do I complete their form and put the garage as the driver?

Nope. for two reasons

1) you have complied with your duty under s.172 in supplying such information as is in you knowledge, and
2) you cannot name the garage as the driver - a garage cannot drive a vehicle; it requires a person

[breakanegg]

Originally Posted by katedog

hello

Just a few questions/obsevations for breakanegg.

When did you drop your car off at the garage, was it the same day as the offence and if so what time did you drop it off?

The alleged offence occured at 08.52 hrs according to NIP, is that enough time for you to get from the garage to the offence location, and is the car heading towrad the garage or towatd where you would have been going ie home school work or what ever. Could this have been a member of the garage staff heading into work?

The photographic evidence probably wont tell you very much and is likely to be a poor quality shot from the rear and not good enough to ID the driver.

Is there any local authority CCTV near to the garage or the ATS which might ID the driver? And dont foreget that could work for or against you!

Not the same day I'm afraid. It was a workday and I would have been at work at that time, usually arrived around 08.30 am. Also I walked to work because no parking at office. Only time I would take car was if not at office and was say at a meeting elsewhere or offsite where was parking. Checked diary and can't see anything on there.

My work at time was contracting in area and few weeks ago we were all paid off and premises shut down, so I can't check with employer what time I arrived at work that day.

Unsure if there is any CCTV but to be honest I don't see how I could get access to that. If police did the fairynuff, they would I'm thinking only be able to prove that I was driving and prosecute for offence. For s.172 I think it's about providing information that I'm reasonably able to provide and I don't think I'd be able to provide CCTV?

[katedog]

Can you remember what make/model/color of car you were lent?

[breakanegg]

Originally Posted by patdavies

If you want to have some fun with the harridan at the SCP, you can always call back and ask her on what grounds they can insist that their form is completed - bearing in mind the case law set down in Jones v DPP?

Jones v DPP made it very clear that a signed written response supplying the required information is sufficient to meet the requirements of s.172.

I just rang again and asked her if she would be so kind to write quoting where in law I am required to complete their form because I am really confused Response was "write to Mr Thompson with your concerns".

Originally Posted by patdavies

This sentence is also patent;y nonsensical You were not sent any notice on 25/3/09 - the initial notice went to the RK.

Good, thought I was dense because it had me scratching my head. I read it as notice was sent 25/3/09 but that's date of offence but that's exact wording of letter. Also they at no point make reference to what date they issued ME the NIP. So I'm not clear on when the 28 days passed.

Originally Posted by patdavies

Nope. for two reasons

1) you have complied with your duty under s.172 in supplying such information as is in you knowledge, and
2) you cannot name the garage as the driver - a garage cannot drive a vehicle; it requires a person

Sweet, so I'm just going to write to Mr Thompson with a copy of my previous letters along with the signature for the signed for letter they received.

Also, the statement 'failing to provide driver details is an offence', is that strictly true? Doesn't s.172 say it's an offence not to provide information as to my knowledge?

They've said in closing that they've instigated court proceedings for that offence, but that wouldn't be strictly true would it? I imagine summons would say something like "failing to supply information in accordance with s.172" which doesn't say "provide driver details".

[breakanegg]

Originally Posted by katedog

Can you remember what make/model/color of car you were lent?

I remember it was a Volvo and as say, put that in letter to them along with confirmation I had a courtesy vehicle on that date but that I do not have any other vehicle details and I do not recall the offence. I think this is complying with s.172 in that it's all information I have to my knowledge.

The garage have more than one similiar Volvo courtesy car.