HELP - Notice of Intended Prosecution

brat

RS2000. wrote: »

Section 3 would, if there wasn't an accident.

Mmm.. But there was an accident, wasn't there?

RS2000.

brat wrote: »

Mmm.. But there was an accident, wasn't there?

So what's your point?

brat

RS2000. wrote: »

So what's your point?

The point I made in post 30. This is not a matter that requires an NIP.

The form received by the son will be a request under S172 RTA to provide driver details. It is unlikely to be a S1RTOA Notice of intended prosecution because it is unnecessary in the circumstances.

bod1467

The point is that YOU raised section 3 when it wasn't relevant to the case in hand. So you argued against the point being made using an irrelevant argument.

Edit: That's @ post #33.

RS2000.

bod1467 wrote: »

The point is that YOU raised section 3 when it wasn't relevant to the case in hand. So you argued against the point being made using an irrelevant argument.

Edit: That's @ post #33.

Section 3 is on the original paperwork so how can you say it's not relevant.

#19 has already said no nip is required.

Astronaughtwannabe

No NIP needed as there was a collision.

S172 requires your son to name the driver. Simples.

brat

RS2000. wrote: »

Section 3 is on the original paperwork so how can you say it's not relevant.

The S3 will have been at the time or immediately prior to the collision, therefore NIP not required. If there is a separate report of S3 for a separate incident then an NIP is required.

RS2000. wrote: »

#19 has already said no nip is required.

By you as it happens which is why it's odd you would suggest otherwise. Others have continued to discuss the NIP, which is why I reinforced the point that it was not required in the circumstances.

RS2000.

brat wrote: »

The S3 will have been at the time or immediately prior to the collision, therefore NIP not required. If there is a separate report of S3 for a separate incident then an NIP is required.


By you as it happens which is why it's odd you would suggest otherwise. Others have continued to discuss the NIP, which is why I reinforced the point that it was not required in the circumstances.

I've never suggested otherwise.

You said none of the offences require a nip section 3 does it's only the accident that stops the need for it.

brat

RS2000. wrote: »

I've never suggested otherwise.

You said none of the offences require a nip section 3 does it's only the accident that stops the need for it.

Exactly!
That's what I said. This is not a matter that requires an NIP. If there's evidence that sonny was driving carelessly on another occasion then the NIP would be required. But if the sec3 was what caused the accident, then no requirement for an NIP.

I know that. You know that.

So please stop creating disagreement when there is none.

verybigchris

Someone must have got a very clear view of the incident if they were able to get the reg number correct and to get the police interested in chasing it up.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they also got a clear description of the driver, which could make things "interesting" if the owner can't provide a name.