Speed ticket 3 months old?!

Rolandtheroadie · 6 November 2009 at 9:45PM

anewman wrote: »

How can you be expected to accept committing the offence without being provided with the evidence against you?

Think you have to admit it was you first. Data protection rings a bell for an excuse they use to get out of supplying the picture.

Paradigm · 7 November 2009 at 11:26AM

Herbster wrote: »

Have just recieved an NIP yesterday, however the alleged offence was dated 6/8/09 as it is now 06/11/09 I was wondering if it was worth contesting. It says I was doing 37 in a 30 zone. And to be honest as it was soo long ago i can not be sure if it was myself or my partner driving at the time. Any help would be appreciated thanks.

Lots more info needed here!

Is it your car? Are you the registered keeper? Have you recently moved house?

You can write to them asking for a copy of any foto to "help identify the driver" DO NOT ask for evidence, they have no need to supply evidence & won't!!

Chippy_Minton_2 · 7 November 2009 at 11:37AM

Paradigm wrote: »

Lots more info needed here!

Is it your car? Are you the registered keeper? Have you recently moved house?

You can write to them asking for a copy of any foto to "help identify the driver" DO NOT ask for evidence, they have no need to supply evidence & won't!!

Think we've covered that but the OP has gone.

Wig · 7 November 2009 at 11:53AM

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

You can ask but they do not need to provide it until you elect to go to trial.

I think it would depend on what evidence you are referring to. If you mean the evidence that shows it was posted within 14 days than you could be right, plod may only have to provide that if you take the case to court.

But if you are talking about the photographic evidence of the vehicle speeding, then plod have to provide this evidence when a driver requests it because it has been decided in a court case that "due dilligence" would include requesting from the police the photo evidence so that the RK can determine who was driving. It would not be for the police to decide that the pictures could not help the RK to determine who was driving and thus withold them.

Often there is no posting date on NIPs and no dates indicated inside the letter either (something which should be addressed by legislation) . If plod argues " 'postal strike' not our fault it was late"...... "Nick whatever his name is" (motoring lawyer for celebrities) has said that in the case of a postal strike the plod should make alternative arrangements for delivery of NIPs and there could be a case for the defendant to argue.

Paradigm · 7 November 2009 at 12:12PM

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

but the OP has gone.

Don't you love it when they do that

obviously it's not that urgent!

Mind you it's only been a day since the OP so maybe the fat lady ain't singing yet

hollie.weimeraner · 7 November 2009 at 1:31PM

skintbuthappy81 wrote: »

The time limit they have for sending out a speeding ticket is 3 months so that's about right.

As already quoted it's 14 days for the NIP unless there are circumstances that it couldn't be served (as already covered). It is the summons itself that can be served later and the statute barred date will be 6 months from the date of the offence. That is the date by which time an information needs to be laid. (Summons issued).

Chippy_Minton_2 · 7 November 2009 at 1:39PM

Wig wrote: »

But if you are talking about the photographic evidence of the vehicle speeding, then plod have to provide this evidence when a driver requests it because it has been decided in a court case that "due dilligence" would include requesting from the police the photo evidence so that the RK can determine who was driving. It would not be for the police to decide that the pictures could not help the RK to determine who was driving and thus withold them.

The police do not have to provide the photos as any form of evidence of the offence with the NIP or until the matter is set for trial when disclosure kicks in.

It is up to the RK to provide driver details. The photos are not to identify the driver but to merely show the vehicle at the time the alleged offence was committed. Plenty of this on www.pepipoo.com.

Wig · 7 November 2009 at 4:22PM

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

The police do not have to provide the photos as any form of evidence of the offence with the NIP or until the matter is set for trial when disclosure kicks in.

It is up to the RK to provide driver details. The photos are not to identify the driver but to merely show the vehicle at the time the alleged offence was committed. Plenty of this on www.pepipoo.com.

I believe you are incorrect. Not wishing to be pedantic, and I'm sure you don't want to be either, but I'm not talking about 'evidence of an offence' (not directly anyway IYSWIM) I'm talking about aiding the RK to identify the driver. So I'm hoping that you are disagreeing with me on the issue of the RK using all due diligence to identify the driver and not about any evidence that proves/or not that the offence was committed. Two very different things, as I'm sure you agree.

I'm sure a high court case ruled that the police had to allow a RK to view the photographs if requested to do so by the RK, otherwise a charge of 'failing to identify the driver' would not stand up in court. It is all part of the due dilligence of the RK and the police are not to obstruct that process.

Unfortunately I can't find the case.

Chippy_Minton_2 · 7 November 2009 at 5:04PM

The photos can be viewed yes, however often it is only one photo of the vehicle, used to assist the identity of the driver.

It would therefore not be evidence of the speed offence as this could not be verified from one photo. So therfore the police don't need to provide evidence of the speed offence only photos that may assist in the identity of the driver.

As you said they are two very different things and the quaility of photos vary. Some it is very clear who is driving others aren't so, however both are suitable to prove the identity of the vehicle ans it's speed.

I am yet to know of a case where the whole of the evidence is supplied when someone struggles to recall who the driver was and don't believe there is anything that actually states the police have to provide it.

EssexHebridean · 7 November 2009 at 10:48PM

We got stung coming back from holiday a few years back. The car is registered to me, but we'd both been driving it on the way back and worse, we had changed drivers somewhere within a couple of miles of the camera, so genuinely had not idea of who was driving. We contacted the police (Can;t remember which force but the one that covers Pitlochry in Scotland anyway) and explained, and they sent several more photos, one of which clearly showed a nice tall driver at the wheel.....so that let me off the hook! I guess willingness to provide photos to aid with identification depends on the circumstances and the police force involved.