Really need advice - partner's speeding tickets

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

No, it isn't.

It is, but it's hellishly difficult to prove.

ilikewatch

whitewing wrote: »

He wouldn't necessarily lose his job if he got banned (eg for a short while), if he could get someone else - relative/friend - to take him everywhere. It happened at our work once and the chap got his wife to drive him around for a few weeks and took some holiday. His wife wasn't best pleased and I think the company decided he'd been punished enough!

Might cause a few raised eyebrows if a trade plate driver turned up to work with a chauffeur...

dacouch

ilikewatch wrote: »

Might cause a few raised eyebrows if a trade plate driver turned up to work with a chauffeur...

Would that make the OP a Delivery Delivery Driver?

AdrianC

Car_54 wrote: »

It is, but it's hellishly difficult to prove.

It' something which CAN be used as a defence to a failure-to-provide, IF you can PROVE that you didn't receive the NIP, and IF you then complied with it as soon as you were made aware of it.

Given how vanishingly unlikely it is that somebody employed to deliver vehicles would be the registered keeper of them, it's fairly clear that our pepipoo-enthusiast is suggesting it as a possible loophole to escape prosecution for the actual speeding offence, rather than a failure-to-provide.

jaydeeuk1

puddleduck12 wrote: »

It's just with the unfamiliar cars (often very new and powerful) he may have been going quicker than he realised.

Familiar or not, I thought most cars come with speedo's nowadays?

Sounds like he's in the wrong job then. I'm a javascript/asp specialist so if I wanted a new job I wouldn't be applying for 'PHP expert wanted' ads, and then moaning that I couldn't do it properly.

GabbaGabbaHey

AdrianC wrote: »

No, it isn't.

You really do need to stop peddling your incorrect views on the forum. It does nobody any favours - it misleads the OP and makes you look like a fool.

You seem to be very antagonistic to Pepipoo. Perhaps if you spend some time reading the forums over there - written by people who actually know what they are talking about - you might stop sprouting the nonsense that you do.

AdrianC

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

You really do need to stop peddling your incorrect views on the forum. It does nobody any favours - it misleads the OP and makes you look like a fool.

Sorry, but there's only one person who appears to be clueless in their responses to the OP here.

You seem to be very antagonistic to Pepipoo. Perhaps if you spend some time reading the forums over there - written by people who actually know what they are talking about - you might stop sprouting the nonsense that you do.

Thanks, but there will never be enough hours in the day to read the pseudo-legal wibble written there by people barely a step ahead of FotL-loons in their reliance on "magic wording", and all based upon an utter inability to actually take responsibility for their own errors.

The OP's husband is bang to rights, it WILL take time - perfectly correctly - for the NIP to filter through to him, and claiming that the NIP didn't get received will NEVER be any kind of a defence whatsoever to a speeding ticket. If you can't tell the difference between a statutory defence to a speeding ticket and a possible defence argument to a failure-to-provide where every step has been taken to provide as soon as possible, that's not my problem.

Spicy_McHaggis

AdrianC wrote: »

Sorry, but there's only one person who appears to be clueless in their responses to the OP here.


The OP's husband is bang to rights, it WILL take time - perfectly correctly - for the NIP to filter through to him, and claiming that the NIP didn't get received will NEVER be any kind of a defence whatsoever to a speeding ticket. If you can't tell the difference between a statutory defence to a speeding ticket and a possible defence argument to a failure-to-provide where every step has been taken to provide as soon as possible, that's not my problem.

Are you trying to say that not getting an nip, which is a lawful requirement for some offences is NEVER a defence?

AdrianC

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Are you trying to say that not getting an nip, which is a lawful requirement for some offences is NEVER a defence?

If you can prove that the NIP wasn't originally sent, the speeding ticket is void. Good luck with that, because it WILL have been.

If you didn't respond to the NIP, and can PROVE that you never received it, but did respond as soon as you were made aware, then you may have a defence to an s172 failure-to-provide, but it's down to the magistrate who you're up in front of.

If you claim you didn't receive the NIP, and so shouldn't have the speeding ticket? No. Never. Hell will freeze over first.

I'm really not sure how much clearer I can spell it out. Not that it makes the slightest difference to the OP's other half, of course.

Spicy_McHaggis

AdrianC wrote: »

If you can prove that the NIP wasn't originally sent, the speeding ticket is void. Good luck with that, because it WILL have been.

If you didn't respond to the NIP, and can PROVE that you never received it, but did respond as soon as you were made aware, then you may have a defence to an s172 failure-to-provide, but it's down to the magistrate who you're up in front of.

If you claim you didn't receive the NIP, and so shouldn't have the speeding ticket? No. Never. Hell will freeze over first.

I'm really not sure how much clearer I can spell it out. Not that it makes the slightest difference to the OP's other half, of course.

So you're backpeddling now.

You don't have to prove anything as the accused only cast reasonable doubt.