Contravening Red Traffic Light (camera) -

[robert_harper_2000]

My friend has just received a letter regarding (see title) he says it wasn't his fault as he had to for his own safety. I don't drive but he said something about another van that was parked something I'll find out.

 

However, he didn't particulary mind the fine too much but doesn't like the points. Is there anything he could possibly do? He won't do it again lol - he promises!

 

Letter says evidence to support the allegation is provided by photograph or other approved speed detection device.

 

Is there anything he can do?

 

Thanks everyone.

[buzby]

One goes with the other - and the points are usually the more severe part of the punishment as it has to be disclosed to insurers, who then stiff you at the next renewal. Did he admit to driving the vehicle at the time? It can be a useful ploy to request a copy of the picture being used as evidence to identify who might have been at the wheel, and he can use this to see what was 'on the ground' at the time of the offence.

[robert_harper_2000]

Did he admit to driving the vehicle at the time?

 

He has only received the letter and has been told to reply within 28 days. I'll call him and tell him to request the picture, Thanks for the reply.

 

I'll let you know what happens

[bazak1]

going through a red light is an offence that the regulators of the fine and points system dont take kindly to, but if it was because an emergency vehicle needed him to move etc then he has a chance. if it's because something was parked and he couldnt see the lights etc then he must have that picture and hope that it shows it as it was. we do need slightly more information robert when you can get it.

[chesham]

Hmm, I'm a bit confused as to why jumping a red light was caused by a parked vehicle?? Perhaps some more info would be good??

 

Also, the letter he has is an Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) which needs to be sent back within 28 days, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the offence. It's not an admission of guilt, it is simply stating who the driver is. He needs to complete this and, because it's the law, identify himself as the driver. A few days after, he will receive the conditional offer of a fixed penalty.

 

It is then that contesting the allegation begins. However, an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act came into force not so long ago, which gives the Police the right to withold certain information which may interfere with any investigation. They also now state that photographs and other pieces of information requested from them will only be granted if you wish for this matter to be taken to court - well, simply if you intend to contest it, they will say this but if the allegation is supported by an acceptable defence, then it won't go to court.

 

He must write to them and ask to see the photographic information - sometimes this isn't available and *boom* - there is no evidence to support the allegation and they cannot prove it was you.

 

However, he WILL need evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he had just cause for contravening the Road Traffic Act - successful defences are driving under duress (i.e. being tailgated, road-raged etc) or due to an emergency vehicle, forcing you to take immediate action etc. So, the circumstances you mention need to be explained a bit more in detail for anyone to advise.

[Stillborn Crisps]

Also have a look around in this forum: FightBack Forums (Powered by Invision Power Board) which specializes more in motoring problems - there are many people there who have experienced the same charge.

[robert_harper_2000]

Here is his notice. Can he request proof ie photographs? or what is he entitled to

 

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/robert_harper_2000/Bulldog0007.jpg

 

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/robert_harper_2000/Bulldog0008.jpg

 

Thanks, all advice welcome. He said as far as he knows he didn't run a light - I thought it might be more to do with the speed. Also he did mention a lorry was in the way and that he was stressed due to losing his mother that day... I know that isn't an excuse but it would stress me out. Thank you

[jezzyjet]

hi there,theres a site called "pepipoo" try to find it theres loads of loopholes on there and its free,good luck

 

 

jezzy

[MrShed]

Well, if he genuinely believes that he has VALID reason to have ran a light, then he should contest it in court. But otherwise, he would be wise to accept and pay - court fine and points could(and probably will) be more, and the police would not be sending him a notice without adequate proof(99% of the time anyway). My strong opinion is to accept, pay, and move on.

[patdavies]

Here is his notice. Can he request proof ie photographs? or what is he entitled to

 

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/robert_harper_2000/Bulldog0007.jpg

 

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w197/robert_harper_2000/Bulldog0008.jpg

 

Thanks, all advice welcome. He said as far as he knows he didn't run a light - I thought it might be more to do with the speed. Also he did mention a lorry was in the way and that he was stressed due to losing his mother that day... I know that isn't an excuse but it would stress me out. Thank you

 

What you have posted here is not a NIP; it is a conditional offer of fixed penalty.

 

The only choices available now are to pay and get 3 points as well, or ignore this and await a summons which will give the chance to fight at court.

[patdavies]

hi there,theres a site called "pepipoo" try to find it theres loads of loopholes on there and its free,good luck

 

 

jezzy

 

Pepipoo are not in the business of "loopholes".

 

They merely advise that the law has to be followed by the prosecution as well and that in these days of conveyor belt justice for camera detected offences, the authorities have become too complacent and fail to follow the law to the letter.

[patdavies]

the police would not be sending him a notice without adequate proof(99% of the time anyway). My strong opinion is to accept, pay, and move on.

 

If you go over to Pepipoo, you will find examples where such offers have been sent out in the hope that the motorise will pay up quietly. If they do not in these cases, nothing more is heard because the SCP (not the Police) do not have the evidence that will stand up in Court.

[MrShed]

Fair point, but I still reckon 99% of motorists would be chased after...I personally would not want to run the risk.

[jezzyjet]

the threads on pepipoo advise people how to delay and hinder the police in the enforcement of the laws (ie out of time) the police are more interested in making a quick buck out of every oppertunity they can, this country is fast becoming a camera ridden taxed to death hole that provides more to outsiders than the people that have helped to build it over the years and worked and paid taxes,whilst i do not agree that dangerous driving should not be delt with vigourously, common sense seems to have flown the nest and good luck to anyone who feels like s********g the system now and again ,where does the money go anyway?probably on more cameras and other fund generating equipement,when i tried to report a potential pedo or perv following my wife and kids home from the park last summer i gave up after holding on the phone for around 45 mins,so the cash doesnt seem to be making any difference where possibly it should be!!

[MrShed]

Well, the age old debate all I will say on it, and all I will ever say, is that you would never get a fine from a camera if you didnt speed...

[patdavies]

Well, the age old debate all I will say on it, and all I will ever say, is that you would never get a fine from a camera if you didnt speed...

 

Have you looked at the title of this thread:D:o

 

This fine is from a camera and not for speeding

[Josie8]

What you have posted here is not a NIP; it is a conditional offer of fixed penalty.

 

The only choices available now are to pay and get 3 points as well, or ignore this and await a summons which will give the chance to fight at court.

 

If the driver wasn't stopped by police at the time (which appears to be the case) then the next stage would be an NIP as there is no way they could correctly identify the driver without one.......then a summons.

[MrShed]

Have you looked at the title of this thread:D:o

 

This fine is from a camera and not for speeding

 

True....ignore me

[Josie8]

Have you looked at the title of this thread:D:o

 

This fine is from a camera and not for speeding

 

 

Think you were a bit harsh here.....I believe the writer you have scolded actually read the earlier post where the writer said "thought it was more to do with speed" - maybe you missed that one...............

[patdavies]

the threads on pepipoo advise people how to delay and hinder the police in the enforcement of the laws (ie out of time)

 

Some threads do admittedly.

 

Most however, do not and deal with the facts of how the prosecution must conduct and prove its case.

 

Others deal with the iniquity of forced self-incrimination and the current case about this that is with the European courts

 

Still more provide quasi-legal advice to enable a motorist to defend him/herself in court. Without Pepipoo would you know about 14 days and first class post limitations on first NIP; vague locus on NIPs; 7 day disclosure requirements; that a defence statement is not required for a summary offence until actual trial.

 

Nobody on Pepipoo condones speeding per se, although sometimes it looks that way. Normally the advice to someone who has been caught by real policemen is that there is no loophole. What we need is less cameras and more TrafPol.

[patdavies]

If the driver wasn't stopped by police at the time (which appears to be the case) then the next stage would be an NIP as there is no way they could correctly identify the driver without one.......then a summons.

 

If you look at what has been posted in post #7, it's a CoPF, not a NIP.

 

I suggest that the NIP has been received and the S172 request has been completed and returned - thus the OP's mate is now at the CoPF stage.

 

From this stage, he can either accept the CoFP or go to court.

[Josie8]

Did he admit to driving the vehicle at the time?

 

He has only received the letter and has been told to reply within 28 days. I'll call him and tell him to request the picture, Thanks for the reply.

 

I'll let you know what happens

 

 

Did your friend receive a NIP first & if so did he complete it naming himself as driver?

[jezzyjet]

Some threads do admittedly.

 

Most however, do not and deal with the facts of how the prosecution must conduct and prove its case.

 

Others deal with the iniquity of forced self-incrimination and the current case about this that is with the European courts

 

Still more provide quasi-legal advice to enable a motorist to defend him/herself in court. Without Pepipoo would you know about 14 days and first class post limitations on first NIP; vague locus on NIPs; 7 day disclosure requirements; that a defence statement is not required for a summary offence until actual trial.

 

Nobody on Pepipoo condones speeding per se, although sometimes it looks that way. Normally the advice to someone who has been caught by real policemen is that there is no loophole. What we need is less cameras and more TrafPol.

 

agreed !!!

[robert_harper_2000]

Wow, what a response! lol He received a letter asking for the driver and as advised he put his own name down which was the nip?

 

Lots to read through the Pepipoo what another excellent site. Each experts in your own fields! Hmm... lots to read though, guess he needs to fill in a PACE Witness Statement

[patdavies]

Wow, what a response! lol He received a letter asking for the driver and as advised he put his own name down which was the nip?

 

Lots to read through the Pepipoo what another excellent site. Each experts in your own fields! Hmm... lots to read though, guess he needs to fill in a PACE Witness Statement

 

PACE statement is a complete waste of time in this case.

 

If he has got a CoPF - which is what you have posted, then he has already responded to the NIP/S.172 with his details. The idea of the PACE statement is that it provides those details in a form unusable for prosecution but that satisfy S.172. IOW, it is too late for him to use PACE.