Speeding fine

Car_54

facade wrote: »

In that case, the registered keeper would sit on the original NIP for 14 days from the correct date, to prevent them issuing a corrected one in time, and then send it back with a letter stating that the car was not at that location on the day named in the NIP.

Once a driver has been nominated by the reg. keeper it is going to be very difficult to get the case dropped without going to court.

Not quite. The RK can send it back with a letter as suggested, but he/she must still nominate the driver, regardless of whether he/she was at the scene of the alleged offence.

AdrianC

Car_54 wrote: »

Not quite. The RK can send it back with a letter as suggested, but he/she must still nominate...

...who they believe was in charge of the vehicle at the time.

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

...who they believe was in charge of the vehicle at the time.

The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 172 (2(a)) says ".. 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 ..."

Have I missed something?

RS2000.

Car_54 wrote: »

The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 172 (2(a)) says ".. 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 ..."

Have I missed something?

You're correct, however if the vehicle is in the possession of a third party and the registered keeper isn't present. How do they know it's not been driven at the relevant time?

Car_54

RS2000. wrote: »

You're correct, however if the vehicle is in the possession of a third party and the registered keeper isn't present. How do they know it's not been driven at the relevant time?

Good question. But I don't make the laws!

RS2000.

Car_54 wrote: »

Good question. But I don't make the laws!

Hence why Adrian is correct.

Richard53

Nasqueron wrote: »

The "fewer not less for countable values" is not actually a rule in English, it's just one pedants love to quote as it's become part of the armoury of the grammar obsessive.

A language is the ultimate democracy, and it is whatever its users say it is. No argument from me there. But complaining about fewer/less (and uninterested/disinterested, bring/take, discreet/discrete, have/of and a host of others) is what keeps me occupied in my dotage, and I am not giving it up.


But I wouldn't criticise someone's spelling or grammar on a public forum, unless what they wrote was completely unintelligible*. That's bad manners and unkind.


*Or to puncture the balloon of a grammar pedant who got it wrong, like those posters in America who wrote 'Speak English, your in America now'.

AdrianC

Car_54 wrote: »

The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 172 (2(a)) says ".. 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 ..."

Have I missed something?

The key there is "such information as to". You might not know who was driving - and it'd be easy to just let it die there - but if you have to give the next person in the chain of who's-most-likely, then it can be followed until somebody does know who was driving.