Failing to Provide Details

esuhl

Retrogamer wrote: »

If you were to state you never received the NIP, you would need to provide evidence, beyond reasonable doubt that this is likely to be true.

So... guilty until proven innocent? :eek:

patman99

If you have the buyer's name and phone number then you can use BT directory enquires online (it is free) to search for the name in the area of Blackpool (where the buyer lives). Then, you can go down the list until you find a match for the phone number and Bingo!!!, you now have the name AND address of the new owner.

When you appear in Court, you can tell the Judge that on a specific date you sold the car to Mr (whoever the buyer is) of (buyer's address).

When the Judge asks why you didn't provide this info earlier, you cant tell him that you did not originally take his details (other than his name and phone number), but have since managed to track him down.

ChumLee

patman99 wrote: »

If you have the buyer's name and phone number then you can use BT directory enquires online (it is free) to search for the name in the area of Blackpool (where the buyer lives). Then, you can go down the list until you find a match for the phone number and Bingo!!!, you now have the name AND address of the new owner.

When you appear in Court, you can tell the Judge that on a specific date you sold the car to Mr (whoever the buyer is) of (buyer's address).

When the Judge asks why you didn't provide this info earlier, you cant tell him that you did not originally take his details (other than his name and phone number), but have since managed to track him down.

With most using mobiles these days how would that work?

molerat

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But someone who has sold the car and recorded the change of keeper correctly, as appears to have happened here, doesn't "have it in his power" to give any information that he hasn't already given - ie: the name and address of the new keeper, so that doesn't apply in this case.

I can't see an exclusion for already having given the information to DVLA.

Joe_Horner

molerat wrote: »

I can't see an exclusion for already having given the information to DVLA.

He'd also given it to the ticket office for the first NIP.

Courts can interpret legislation according to the intent of Parliament and it's clear that the intent of that section is not for the authorities to demand information from any random person who's not associated with the car.

If it was interpreted as people here are suggesting then they could send out random NIPs to the whole population for every speeding offence committed and collect fines from all of the undoubtedly millions of people who would have better things to do than reply to these spurious approaches. At £100 a time that'd put a big dent in the deficit pretty fast

The intent is obviously to require people with a reasonable connection to the car - such as passengers at the time, or people nominated by the RK as possible drivers - to furnish information. Interpreting the section as meaning more than that leads to the absurdity above.

There's also no requirement in the section for other people to tell them they have no information if they have no information in their power to give - only to give any information they do have. In this case, the OP didn't have any information, having disposed of the new keeper details after providing it as required.

Stresshead2014

Thank you all for your help and advice. I have spoken to a solicitor who has advised me to stand my ground and present the defence I have in front of the judge. He says he would be very surprised if there was anything harsher than a small fine for being an idiot. I will let you know how it goes


If anyone's interested that is

ChumLee

Stresshead2014 wrote: »

Thank you all for your help and advice. I have spoken to a solicitor who has advised me to stand my ground and present the defence I have in front of the judge. He says he would be very surprised if there was anything harsher than a small fine for being an idiot. I will let you know how it goes


If anyone's interested that is

Small fine of about £500 and six points. Maybe your solicitor knows best or £500 is a small fine to him.

Iceweasel

Stresshead2014 wrote: »

Thank you all for your help and advice. I have spoken to a solicitor who has advised me to stand my ground and present the defence I have in front of the judge. He says he would be very surprised if there was anything harsher than a small fine for being an idiot. I will let you know how it goes


If anyone's interested that is

Good luck, mate.

Yes, please do come back and tell us how it went.

Car_54

Stresshead2014 wrote: »

Thank you all for your help and advice. I have spoken to a solicitor who has advised me to stand my ground and present the defence I have in front of the judge. He says he would be very surprised if there was anything harsher than a small fine for being an idiot. I will let you know how it goes


If anyone's interested that is

You haven't been charged with being an idiot, so the magistrates (probably not a judge) can't fine you for that.

If they find you guilty, it's six points (or a ban) and an income-related fine plus costs and victim surcharge.

If they find you NG, then no fine, no points, no costs.

Stresshead2014

Car_54 wrote: »

You haven't been charged with being an idiot, so the magistrates (probably not a judge) can't fine you for that.

If they find you guilty, it's six points (or a ban) and an income-related fine plus costs and victim surcharge.

If they find you NG, then no fine, no points, no costs.

According to the solicitor they don't have to impose the maximum punishment and it depends on the leniency of the judge/magistrate/prosecutor and whether or not they can see that a mistake was made or they believe that I was intentionally trying to not provide details.


He also advised that if a harsh punishment is passed down I should appeal.