NIP/S172 Are the Police being fair? URGENT HELP

[sash2012]

I have a scenario and seriously do not know how to respond to a NIP/sec 172 notice that I had received in October 2011.

 

As the registered keeper I had provided the identity of the driver, unfortunately the driver has not responded back to any of the notices, so the police authority have written back to me to state the following:

 

a) why i did not indicate on the form why the driver was in possession of my car

b)Provide further details of the driver to accept him as a nomination such as date of birth, address as they can not find a trace of him at the address i provided

c) They want me to re-consider my decision and get me to accept liability as the driver based on their brief view of the images that the driver may be a female and very well be me!!!

 

I would really appreciate your comment and views although this is my response in draft:

 

Dear

 

"not for use as evidence under PACE ACT"

 

I refer to your letter dated 16th January 2012 and respond accordingly.

 

Firstly, I am fully aware that the NIP itself specified severe penalties for “providing false information”, in which case it is not my statutory duty to trace the driver, but to supply you with the identity i.e name and address of the alleged person or information which could lead you to the identification of the driver at the time of the alleged offence:-

 

 

The Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, subsection 2 (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

 

Your reiteration of the severity and consequences in your letter informing me of providing false details and enticing me to reconsider my decision to confess liability, is not only deemed to me as oppressive but actually attempting me to pervert the course of justice.

 

Irrespective of the above, in terms why I did not indicate on the form reasons for Mr Smith being in possession of my car, this was just a genuine oversight; I had lent the vehicle to Mr Smith from 15-20th October 2011, the only time I was aware that the offence had taken place was when I was in receipt of the NIP notice in October.

 

In relation to me providing you with Mr Smith's date of birth, I am unable to provide such ‘personal’ details, I’m certain that he would be able to disclose such information himself, from my understanding Mr Smith was a visitor at the address last known to me where he was living which I provided.

 

I also feel that I am being enticed into a confession for an offence under S172, to make such allegations and presumption based on your subjective impression of images from the speed camera, to me is unfair and since you have made such a allegation, I would now like to see the supported photographic evidence, whilst asserting my right under the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act.

 

Lastly, I do not believe that I have committed an offence as Under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act, I have provided the name and address of the person who I believe to the best of my knowledge was the driver of my vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence.

 

I will attempt to seek a telephone number and/or forward further details of any other person who could be asked to give information and may lead to the identification of Mr Smith.

 

Do you think im being to harsh??

Am I right in my response?

Anything else I should consider?

Do I have to respond?

[dx100uk]

sadly its a wee bit quiet on the w/end

the guys will pop along soon or on monday

 

dx

[Old Snowy]

Firstly, if you maintain your stance and send the letter you have shown in draft above you will almost certainly be summonsed for the s.172 offence - as a minimum. Potentially, you may be arrested for attempting to pervert the course of justice. If you were convicted ultimately of this offence then you would face a term of imprisonment. This is not a matter to be trifled with.

 

It is extremely unusual for the police to return to a previous recipient of a s.172 requirement and ask him to clarify the information he supplied in the way that you have. Although it is clear that a sizeable part of the full story is missing it is obvious that the police believe that you either have more information to give or are possibly being dishonest. The letter is by way of an opportunity to provide as much information as you have regarding the mysterious Mr Smith or to simply come clean.

 

My best advice would be: a) to give them as much information as you can. Telling them that you have nothing more to tell is not going to wash at this stage and if you have known someone for any length of time is unlikely to be true. Why? Can you describe him? (keep in mind that5 they may have video footage/photographs of the car driver). What does he do for a living? Where does he work? How do you know him? How long have you known him? Where and when did you first meet? Is he married? Where does his wife/partner live/ What is his wife's/partner's name/ etc etc etc. b) Check your diary closely and be absolutely sure that it was you driving (if that was the case). Fulfilling this may necessitate your giving more than the law strictly requires but this is not a time to be pedantic.

 

Shilly-shallying at this point is going to invite trouble.

[queensclose]

sadly people have been trying to [problem] the police by nominating a fake person to escape points or driving bans.

hence the clamp down and your feeling the force

if they cant trace the driver from the information you give. then you haven't identified the driver. if you don't identify you will head for court. for failing to disclose.

 

you will have to try to convince a judge

[sash2012]

Thank for the advice guys,

 

This is genuine and no dishonestly. I was not the driver as I was actually working on that day.

 

In terms of trace, the named driver was a visitor, they could not trace him because they were trying to identify him through electoral register etc..In terms of being summoned for the s172, which I was as the registered keeper, but forwarded details of the alleged driver at the time.

 

I suppose my question really was: they are asking for the alleged drivers dob....i have no clue, he's not a relative friend, not as if needed to make a note of dob as I didt foresee what was going to happen.

 

Also I dont think its fair that Im being enticed into a confession, just because the driver has not sent the NIP/S172....

[sailor sam]

The police will wonder why someone would lend their car out to some other person they apparently know so little about. As previously said, you may have to convince a magistrate because its clear you have not yet convinced the police. You may wish to refer this to a solicitor who specializes in motoring offences.

[sash2012]

The driver was a family friend, not a relative, but why would I expect to know his date of birth, I hardly know my family members.

 

I have asked other members to provide me with forwarding information of the driver, and awaiting for information.

 

ut your point noted and will seek expert legal advice.

[patdavies]

Can you prove that he was insured to drive your car?

[sash2012]

He had showed me the time that he did have insurance to drive the vehicle, as he was fully comp.

[Old Snowy]

Returning to your first post I realise that there were some points I did not address.

 

As far as "photographic evidence" is concerned you are not entitled to this until such time as you enter a not guilty plea at court in respect of the offence for which the photographs may form evidence (probably speeding). As you have already stated that you were not the driver then you are unlikely to be summonsed for the substantive offence and will have no right to that evidence.

 

At the point when you received the original s.172 you had made a written request for sight of photos the police had to assist you to identify the driver then you may well have been supplied with copies. At this stage, were you to request copies of the photos you may get copies but the request could provide evidence of your having failed to comply with the original requirement. By design or otherwise you have painted yourself into something of a corner.

 

Article 6 does not enter the equation - see the ECHR case of O'Halloran & Francis v. United Kingdom which deals very specifically with the situation that registered keepers find themselves in, in respect of s.172 notices. You are not being accused of anything. The police are, in effect, simply stating that they have prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed and are seeking to identify the person responsible. The law provides them with the facility to require that registered keepers of vehicles provide them with the details of the driver. They are endeavouring to get you to comply with the duty you have and nothing more.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that you are unable to find out where Mr Smith lives and, perhaps, his date of birth - he's a friend of the family after all? The fact that you have stated that Mr Smith was a visitor (to the country, the area or the address you put forward as his home) amply demonstrates that you have further information.

 

Putting things bluntly you need to pull your finger out and provide the police with the details they are asking - and a bit more - or you are going to find yourself with an MS90 endorsement which carries 6 points and a fine - usually - in the range of £350 and £500. By the way, insurance companies really do not like the MS90 endorsement and are likely to hike your premiums. Some companies have been known to revoke insurance and that provides additional difficulties when trying to get insurance elsewhere.

 

If it transpires that Mr Smith was a visitor to the country and has now "returned home" then you can expect some particularly indepth attention from the police.

[sash2012]

Many thanks Old Snowy,

 

I am furnishing as much details to my knowledge that I have, your points noted, but based on principles I seriously dont have a problem retrieving such information its just based on principle their letter is very contradicting as I found it ambiguous on a number of grounds, firstly they ask for information about the driver of the car (which i am in the process of retrieving), while at the same time alleging that I am the driver based on their subjective impression of images, thus informing me in the letter that I might face prosecution, this to me is clear breach of Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights Act. is it not?

[Aretnap]

I would suggest asking for the photos; you may or may not receive them, but if you do they may help clarify things. If the image did clearly show a female driver after you'd named a male you would have a bit of explaining to do. Is there any likelihood that Mr Smith could have let someone else drive the car without your knowledge?

[honeybee13]

Is there any likelihood that Mr Smith could have let someone else drive the car without your knowledge?

 

Hello guys. Would the above cause insurance problems?

 

My best, HB

[sash2012]

Aretnap, I am thinking of doing that too, but I dont think they will provide it to me and it could possibly be that he may have allowed someone else to borrow the car. in the first instance my responsibility would be to answer their questions such as:

 

 

Dear xxx

 

 

"not for use as evidence under PACE ACT

 

I acknowledge receipt of your letter-dated 16th January 2012 and respond accordingly.

 

Having read your letter I found it ambiguous on a number of grounds, firstly you ask for information about the driver of the car, while at the same time alleging that I am the driver based on your subjective impression of images, thus informing me in the letter that I might face prosecution, this to me is clear breach of Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights Act.

 

It is also arguably a breach of my human rights in that I am being subjected to unreasonable and possibly unlawful pressure by being placed into a 'accept the offence now” and save yourself ‘harassment later' position. I regard your allegation with the utmost concern as I am being asked to make a very important decision, which could very seriously affect my future quality of life.

 

Nevertheless, I respond to your queries accordingly:

 

• I did not indicate on the form reasons for Mr smith being in possession of my car, this was just a genuine oversight

• I lent the car to Mr Smith on the 18th October 2011

• Mr Smith was a lodger/visitor at the address that I supplied

• With regards to Mr Smiths date of birth, this is a little difficult to retrieve as it is somewhat personal, but I am trying to retrieve this and will forward as soon as I have this information

 

I will help assist you and attempt to seek a telephone number and/or forward further details of any other person who could be asked to give information and may lead to the identification of Mr Mr Smith.

 

I am willing to cooperate and help assist you in identifying the driver and if there is anything else that I can do please contact me.

 

Regards

 

This is the best I can do so far..any other suggestions, points for me to consider are welcomed.

[Old Snowy]

Many thanks Old Snowy,

 

I am furnishing as much details to my knowledge that I have, your points noted, but based on principles I seriously dont have a problem retrieving such information its just based on principle their letter is very contradicting as I found it ambiguous on a number of grounds, firstly they ask for information about the driver of the car (which i am in the process of retrieving), while at the same time alleging that I am the driver based on their subjective impression of images, thus informing me in the letter that I might face prosecution, this to me is clear breach of Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights Act. is it not?

By all means stand by your principle but that will see you prosecuted. There is no Article 6 issue to be made here. See the case I have quoted which very specifically deals with the human rights impact of s.172 notices. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled on this issue and has decreed that s.172 notices and the requirements they make do not breach Article 6. Like it or not the matter is now settled law.

 

Thank your lucky stars that you are being cut some slack and given a second chance.

 

The "Not for use under the PACE Act nonsense is completely pointless. As I have said, send that letter and you will be filling out the summons for them.

[honeybee13]

I wouldn't dream of arguing with Old Snowy, I respect his opinions. I would just add that as I understand the legal position from a family member in the business, you need to provide the information requested or take the consequences.

 

My best, HB

[queensclose]

I way I,m reading the police are giving you the option of giving them details of identifying the driver or nominating yourself. A lot of people have nominated fake drivers and got caught . At which point becomes perverting the course of justice.

Advice here is given on the basis of your post. But if your your trying to avoid points and a fine Beware pc plod has seen this so many times

 

If it was me I would give all the information they need. After all if mr smith borrowed your car and never returned You would provide all the information they needed to trace him

 

Oh your letter will ring alarm bells with them quoting the human rights act don't scare them. Making yourself more of a target for further investigation. They leave the human rights act for the courts to decide

[esmerobbo]

Too late for this incident but in future if you lend a car to someone photocopy their licence and their insurance. I have a small fleet of vans I photocopy every drivers licence 3 monthly, and I have a log book telling me who was driving which vehicle on a specific day! I sometimes get asked to lend a van to another company. If they borrow it the driver brings his licence with him and I copy it before he/she drives.

Another point you say he was insured because he had fully comp insurance, this is not always the case now some fully comp insurances don't allow DOV!

 

I would also follow the advice Old Snowy is giving !

[crem]

Another point you say he was insured because he had fully comp insurance, this is not always the case now some fully comp insurances don't allow DOV!

 

I'd probably go as far as saying most comp policies don't include it anymore.

[esmerobbo]

I'd probably go as far as saying most comp policies don't include it anymore.

 

Your probably right Crem as well as the hike in premiums they are also keen to reduce the cover!