Notice of Intended Prosecution for speeding

tonylmiles

Our car was clocked doing 40mph in a 30mph area on Nov 26th 2010. We received the NIP today, with the post date of 11th Jan 2011. That of course is way beyond the statutory 14 days but there is an issue that may affect us still.

1 - Due to mistake at the DLVA we've found out that another vehicle has the same reg number and therefore the DLVA do not know the registered keeper. We obviously have to correct this anomaly at some point soon.

2 - I am the registered keeper according to the registration document (received after buying the car some two years ago). However the NIP was addressed to my wife, presumably because the authorities checked against insurance records as it is insured in her name.

3 - The NIP says there is photographic evidence even though there is no camera on the stretch of road in question. Therefore it must have been a mobile camera and most likely front-facing.

4 - As it was some time ago neither my wife or I can genuinely remember who used it that day (we tend to share it frequently).

I'm aware that exceptions can be made for prosecution where the authorities could not reasonably track down the keeper within the statutory period

In short, should we ask for a photo to determine who drove the care that during the 28 day period we have to respond?

Also, does anyone think this is a case worth defending?

Many thanks in advance for any helpful replies.

Lum

The 14 day rule only applies to the "1st NIP", i.e. the one sent to the registered keeper's address as provided by the DVLA.

If it applied to all NIPs then company car drivers would always get off scott free.


You could try the husband&wife defence, but if it was a front facing camera then they will pull your driving licence photos (if you have a photocard) or failing that just compare the photo to your faces in court if it gets that far.

Gene_Hunt_2

I'd post this on www.pepipoo.com there are a number of things that don't stack up here.

lowbrim

I would definatly challenge stating all the facts especially given the delays along with asking for the photographic evidence. This does not cost you anything and after getting their response you can decide which way you want to proceed.

Gene_Hunt_2

lowbrim wrote: »

I would definatly challenge stating all the facts especially given the delays along with asking for the photographic evidence. This does not cost you anything and after getting thier response you can decide which way you want to proceed.

The OP has nothing to challenge from what he's posted.;)

hubert_cumberdale

just pay the fine flip a coin or something or have a thumb war

you said in your first line that it was your car so it was obviously you and not this other mysterious car with the same plate

bring that up and you may loose you car all together and then get locked up for ringing lol

Oldfatgrumpy

I don't know how readily the police give out the photographic evidence, when I was done by what I suspect was a faulty camera 3 years ago and wanted to see the photos, I was told by the police that the only way I could get to see them was by refusing to admit the offence, so it would go to court, the photos would then be brought to court where I could see them. Going to court without seeing the evidence beforehand would render me a hostage to fortune: I didn't fancy my chances standing in the dock with a calculator and a couple of pictures trying to prove my speed, and if found guilty, having to pay a fine plus costs etc., so I just admitted the offence and paid up to cut my possible losses. As I was checking my speedometer entering a 30 zone from a 40 zone, and was doing 33 and still decelerating when the camera flashed and apparently recorded me doing 46, I was a bit gutted though!

Gene_Hunt_2

Oldfatgrumpy wrote: »

I don't know how readily the police give out the photographic evidence, when I was done by what I suspect was a faulty camera 3 years ago and wanted to see the photos, I was told by the police that the only way I could get to see them was by refusing to admit the offence, so it would go to court, the photos would then be brought to court where I could see them. Going to court without seeing the evidence beforehand would render me a hostage to fortune: I didn't fancy my chances standing in the dock with a calculator and a couple of pictures trying to prove my speed, and if found guilty, having to pay a fine plus costs etc., so I just admitted the offence and paid up to cut my possible losses. As I was checking my speedometer entering a 30 zone from a 40 zone, and was doing 33 and still decelerating when the camera flashed and apparently recorded me doing 46, I was a bit gutted though!

So you were speeding then?

Invalidation

Lot of high horses here today ?

clever_username

Invalidation wrote: »

Lot of high horses here today ?

Hard to break the speed limit on a horse.

Oldfatgrumpy

Well that worked, got precisely the reaction I expected from G.H. Why bother to state the blooming obvious? Not why I posted though, and yes I was speeding, I said so, and I try to obey the spirit of the law which is which I paid the fine even though I thought the evidence wrong- that and not wishing all the aggro of a court appearance and associated risk of costs.