Help speeding problem etc 35 in 30 plus extras

[gaz2006]

Hi

In Dec was sent nip asking for driver details for 35 in 30 wrote back asking for evidence my vehicle involved they sent photos back couldnt say who was driver so asked for blow up of photo to see if male or female . .they said it was responsibility of driver to know (which I realise but wasnt 100% sure who was driving ) asked agian fo rblow upp pic and calibration details etc re alleged offence they ignored .

Sent back form saying I was driver though not 100% sure end february as correspondence still was going on the summoned me end of march re failing to provide particulars by 6th January 2011 .

 

I think thats unfair as they were blanking me and photo evidence shows large pole in way of camera so any beam would have hit that and rebounded faster etc so as I also have radar thing i my car I or whoever was driving wasnt exceeding speed limit at all .

 

Now faced with court case am told that could face £1000 fine plus 6 points instead of £60 plus 3 points .......I just feel bullied by them being law to themselves not answering my letters having form but still doing me for not sending in time thoughts advice help anywhere else that can help

regards Gaz

[Old Snowy]

I do sympathise but you have perhaps misunderstood your dilemma. The law requires that upon being so required you divulge who was driving your vehicle at the time of an alleged offence. On the occasions that this requirement is made in writing you are provided with 28 days in which to reply. You are expected to do so or to demonstrate that you have exercised reasonable diligence in ascertaining who was driving. The onus is upon you as the owner/person in charge. The prosecution are under no obligation to provide you with anything but generally - as you found - supply a copy of any photographs they have on request. Whilst you may have considered that the photographs were inconclusive in terms of proving who was driving the two things to have kept in mind were a) the police almost certainly have better quality versions and b) in any event, they do not need the photographs to prove anything other than an offence was committed.

 

The penalty for failing to furnish used to be 3 points and a fine very much along the lines of that for a lower-end speeding. Not surprisingly, those in receipt of s. 172 requirements in respect of relatively serious offences often chose to fail to furnish the details preferring to taking a £60 fine and 3 points (for failure to furnish) rather than identifying themselves as the driver and facing a ban and hefty fine for an over-the-top speeding, for example.

 

The real shame of this is that, all other things being equal, at the speed alleged you would probably have been offered a speed awareness course - which may have cost but would have had no points attached to it. However, you are where you are.

 

You have two choices. Either you plead guilty and throw yourself at the mercy of the court or you plead not guilty and seek to prove that you exercised that "reasonable diligence" - at the time - and remained unable to identify the driver. You should be aware that as far as the latter choice is concerned the bar the court will set will be high.

 

Will the mandatory 6 points affect you position in the sense that it will leave you liable to a totting ban?

 

[Edit: for sense]

[patdavies]

At the point they send a NIP, they also include a S172 request for they driver's details. As this is an information-gathering exercise, they are not required to provide any evidence whatsoever. The fact that they have sent you photographs is already beyond what is required of them.

 

Did you send the form (or a letter) back informing them of who the driver(s) could have been? If not, that you will have been charged with a completely separate offence of failure to supply.

[gaz2006]

At the point they send a NIP, they also include a S172 request for they driver's details. As this is an information-gathering exercise, they are not required to provide any evidence whatsoever. The fact that they have sent you photographs is already beyond what is required of them.

 

Did you send the form (or a letter) back informing them of who the driver(s) could have been? If not, that you will have been charged with a completely separate offence of failure to supply.

 

yes thats what im charged with now even though sent it back bu not within 28 days

[gaz2006]

last points march 2006 so think im clear what is totting up point figure for ban ?

I did send form back though but not within 28 days thats what im charged with

[Dragons Dennis]

This is simple. Did you send the completed S172 within the 28 days or not?

[Old Snowy]

I think the relevant section is:

 

Sent back form saying I was driver though not 100% sure end february as correspondence still was going on the summoned me end of march re failing to provide particulars by 6th January 2011.

A potential problem is that the reply appears to have been equivocal and was certainly out of time. Depending on the precise wording the OP used on the form (in setting out that he was unsure) then he may be able to avail himself of the defence in s.172(7)(b) - disclosed the information as soon as it was practicable (after exercise of "reasonable diligence").

[gaz2006]

This is simple. Did you send the completed S172 within the 28 days or not?

 

no as i stupidly waiting for them to reply t my letters and request which they didnt

[gaz2006]

I think the relevant section is:

 

 

A potential problem is that the reply appears to have been equivocal and was certainly out of time. Depending on the precise wording the OP used on the form (in setting out that he was unsure) then he may be able to avail himself of the defence in s.172(7)(b) - disclosed the information as soon as it was practicable (after exercise of "reasonable diligence").

 

thats worth a try and true