I'm not normally this stupid but need help with a speeding ticket

[andie_303]

OK please do not think I am always this naive and stupid, although in this instance it's true.

 

Basically in 2008 I was caught by a speed camera doing 49 in a 40 zone - I have no previous points on my licence and was a bit miffed that I didn't think the signage was enough to show you left a 60 zone to a 40.

 

I told a friend about it and thought I would do some reasearch into what distance and how prominant the signs should be if you are entering a 'speed trap' - my friend then told me about some solicitor that he knew that specialised in getting people off tickets on 'technicalities' he said this friend had successfully got him off 4 tickets in the past. I was told it would cost me £200 - this seems extreme but my job requires me to have a clean driving licence. So I paid the £200 and sent the speeding ticket notification to the solicitor as requested and was told that would be the last of it unless something else came up.

 

So i thank my lucky stars and forget about it, until today when I'm contacted by the police - apparently the 'solicitor' was in fact someone that has been running a [problem] and from what I gather has been attributing these tickets to 'phantom drivers' and sending the notifications back to the police saying the named driver was not driving and that this phantom driver at a phantom address was driving. I'm told this [problem] involves approx 600 tickets and he is now under arrest.

 

The police man has said he's gonna come and talk to me about my ticket so my question really is can I get in trouble for this even though I didn't know what was going on? Will I now have the speeding ticket and points and fine reinstated to me and as I have passed the 28 days you have to accept this will I now have to go to court and poss get more than 3 points and £60 fine???

 

Can anyone help?

[MrShed]

If the police are aware of the [problem], it would be harsh at best to actually pursue any issue pertaining to the expiry of 28 days. You certainly are not to blame or at fault for anything to do with the [problem] itself.

[andie_303]

thanks - am i likely to get the original fine and points then?

[MrShed]

IMO (not a lawyer!!) - yes.

[andie_303]

Damn it thanks

[MrShed]

Andie - if you come out of it with only 3 points and a fine, count yourself lucky!

 

Ultimately, it will be down to the discretion of the police person I would of thought. So be nice to him!

[andie_303]

I know - I will even make him a cup of tea if he comes to me - and if it helps i'll throw in a chocolate hob nob

[david1605red]

... The police man has said he's gonna come and talk to me about my ticket so my question really is can I get in trouble for this even though I didn't know what was going on? Will I now have the speeding ticket and points and fine reinstated to me and as I have passed the 28 days you have to accept this will I now have to go to court and poss get more than 3 points and £60 fine??? ...

The speeding charge will be the least of your worries.

 

By passing on your NIP for someone else to fill in with a false driver, you may be charged with Failure to Furnish Information under s172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act. This carries a 6 point penalty and up to £1,000 fine.

 

That's if they are feeling lenient.

 

They could, instead, charge you with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, which has unlimited fine levels and can include a custodial sentence.

 

Better get several packets of chocolate hobnobs in.

[MrShed]

Hang on.

 

There is no conspiracy to pervert - he was not party to the "plan" that was being carried out. Furthermore, if the police have arrested this man, they will also be aware that the "clients" were not involved in the [problem].

 

Also, I fail to see how providing your NIP to your legal representative constitutes failure to furnish.

 

I am however a layman!! But what you suggest would seem grossly unfair considering that the OP is, himself, a victim of this crime.

[andie_303]

ok thanks for the advice perhaps I should go and see a real solicitor about this as I certainly never meant to do anything wrong or illegal I've never broken the law in my life. thanks for the help

[MrShed]

I think andie that you shouldnt jump the gun. Ultimately everything currently is supposition. I would advise you speak to the policeman when he comes and see what he says, then decide at this point whether you need expert legal advice.

[lamma]

a real solicitor this time ! (Just joking) You seem to be a victim here. with 600 odd people potentially fighting this the SCP may take a quick 60 quid and 3 points payoff rather than clog the courts with hundreds of similar cases.

[david1605red]

Also, I fail to see how providing your NIP to your legal representative constitutes failure to furnish.

The NIP form clearly states that the person to whom it is addressed, must complete and sign the information. He may not pass it on to anyone else, including a legal representative, whether bogus or not.

 

There is settled case law which confirms this point. Getting someone else to complete and return the form, becomes Failure to Furnish, because a NIP completed and signed by someone other than the person it is addressed to, cannot be used in evidence.

 

Giving a bogus driver name definitely comes under the scope of perverting the course of justice, one can only hope that they won't pursue this avenue as the OP was unwittingly complicit in this.

 

As for being unfair, the s172 requirement is in itself unfair, as drivers are compelled (under pain of greater criminal penalty) to provide the police with half the evidence they need to secure a conviction. Not even Harold Shipman or Fred Best had to do that, but that's how the law stands.

[patdavies]

The NIP form clearly states that the person to whom it is addressed, must complete and sign the information.

 

You don't even need to use their form. Case law (Jones v DPP) dictates that all that is required is that the response be in writing and signed.

 

Fred Best

 

Who?

[Fair-Parking]

On behalf of one of our clients we received an S172 for alleged speeding last October. It was a company vehicle but because the police had got hold of the clients personal details from the Motor Insurance Database and not the DVLA which would have showed a company name, we refused to send it on to the client for the following reasons cited to the police.

 

1) The MID is there for insurance related queries and is not a bypass for any other reason.

2) Because a senior enforcement official at the MID vehermently confirmed the above to be true and refused to accept that such a thing could have happened.

3) Because the police confirmed by letter that this is exactly how they obtained the clients personal details

4) The police then made assumptions that a policyholder is an 'owner/keeper' which the law does not allow them to do as prosecutions should be based on evidence and not assumptions.

5) Because the use of the MID to obtain details of drivers sets a precedent in allowing an easy but illegal method that the police might come to assume is 'normal and acceptable' if unchecked.

6) What purpose would DVLA records be to the police if they continued to use the convenient loophole of the MID?

 

Suitably angered by this arrogance and further erosion of civil liberties, when writing to the police we added that there is nothing in law that requires an intermediary to pass on an S172 and that the police would need to obtain a court order to progress this any further.

 

That was in early December. We have heard nothing more except from the MID and that doesn't directly relate to this case.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Fair-Parking

[pin1onu]

Was the Police force who played fast and loose with the rules GMP by any chance?

[Fair-Parking]

No - this was Bedfordshire and it's not a one off, Northamptonshire did the same to a friend of mine last week.

 

Looks like this nasty piece of questionable bureaucracy has already taken a toehold before anybody noticed.

[lamma]

one to keep an eye on for sure. DVLA database is full of errors but it has a statutory presumption of being held to be correct - one of the reasons they should use it. No such assumption about MID. PLUS the points you have made so well.

I wonder if MID access is cheaper than DVLA access for the police ?

[Fair-Parking]

Lamma - As such a link doesn't officially exist, the cost is probably..........

 

Nor is the police assumption that a policyholder is always an owner likely to be made clear to the unfortunates who do not realise that they have been caught by this illegal practice. Of course all coppers could be insurance experts and fully able to discuss the merits of the requirements for insurable interest to be proven.

 

You are right about the accuracy of the MID as it is merely a storage facility for information supplied to them by all the motor insurance companies. Right or wrong.

[lamma]

Exactly ! there should be a sticky about this in my opinion.

[Fair-Parking]

I agree, especially as this is now beginning to divert quite solidly from the OP question - and it's such a bloody important, devious and illegal revelation of fact.

[david1605red]

You don't even need to use their form. Case law (Jones v DPP) dictates that all that is required is that the response be in writing and signed.

Yes I know you don't have to use their form, I was just trying to keep it simple. Jones v DPP established that a signed letter, giving all the required info, will do just as well. But it must be signed by the person the NIP was addressed to.

 

Fred Best? Doh, I meant Fred West, the serial murderer.

[pin1onu]

You are right about the accuracy of the MID as it is merely a storage facility for information supplied to them by all the motor insurance companies. Right or wrong.

The scary thing is that the database has been shown time and again to be inaccurate. I posted this up last night as a warning.

[patdavies]

4) The police then made assumptions that a policyholder is an 'owner/keeper' which the law does not allow them to do as prosecutions should be based on evidence and not assumptions.

 

You are on dodgy ground with this one.

 

At the point of issuing s.172, the Police are 'information gathering' and not prosecuting. and s.172 form only becomes evidence for a prosecution when signed by the driver pro tem

 

S.172 allows the Police to ask anybody for details of the driver - there is no restriction to the registered keeper. The only difference is that in order to obtain a conviction for failure to furnish, for someone other then the keeper, they have to prove to a criminal standard that the person asked had the necessary knowledge of who the driver was.

[Fair-Parking]

No Pat. I'm not on dodgy ground on this having spent 11 years in insurance, part of which was as a branch manager for a firm of specialist motor insurance brokers.

 

The post I made stated that the police had already made an assumption that the policyholder and the keeper/registered keeper were one and the same. This is nothing to do with S172, but a crass uneducated wild guess the benefit which is not available to the police in law.

 

I have every confidence that the police are indeed allowed to ask anybody for details under S172, but that is well short of any obligation we have as intermediaries to provide it, particularly as we would have to fall foul of the Data Protection Act 1998 in order to do so.

 

If the police had felt that they had grounds to pursue this, then they have had over two months to do so.