We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

s172 form

124»

Comments

  • Fat_Walt wrote: »
    It's not routine.
    But it does happen, several cases on Pepipoo where the RK was not traceable via the DVLA records and the police used insurance data instead.
  • But it does happen, several cases on Pepipoo where the RK was not traceable via the DVLA records and the police used insurance data instead.

    But not several cases where they've gone direct to named drivers.
  • Car_54
    Car_54 Posts: 8,940 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Fat_Walt wrote: »
    But not several cases where they've gone direct to named drivers.

    Eh? A named driver would be the first port of call.

    Or am I missing something? Can you reveal exactly where the police/CPS and the court have gone wrong in this particular case?
  • Car_54 wrote: »
    Eh? A named driver would be the first port of call.

    Or am I missing something? Can you reveal exactly where the police/CPS and the court have gone wrong in this particular case?


    If you say so.

    Have you ever done the job?
  • HO87
    HO87 Posts: 4,296 Forumite
    I see nothing complicated here.

    Based on the report it would seem that both husband and wife have provided equivocal replies to their s.172's. The husband would seem to have been the keeper (for the purposes of s.172 - not the same as "registered keeper") at the time and so he had the more onerous duty - viz "reasonable diligence" and has still equivocated. Something like - "Maybe me. Maybe the wife" and she has then been issued quite properly with her own s.172. It seems that she has provided much the same response and unless she could demonstrate that she had no information that would lead to the identification of the driver then the offence is complete. Where is the issue here?

    It sounds as if the original NIP/s.172 may have gone to the company who have simply named the husband as the "keeper" at the time of the offence or maybe even the driver(?).

    There is no requirement that a s.172 is served within 14 days. That deadline applies to Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIP's) and then only to the first in any sequence. This is a common misapprehension due in no small part to the fact that NIP's inevitably have s.172's attached to them but there are plenty of offences (not that discussed here) for which there is no requirement for a NIP and so standalone s.172 are used (albeit in some forces the two appear on a dual purpose form).
    My very sincere apologies for those hoping to request off-board assistance but I am now so inundated with requests that in order to do justice to those "already in the system" I am no longer accepting PM's and am unlikely to do so for the foreseeable future (August 2016). :(

    For those seeking more detailed advice and guidance regarding small claims cases arising from private parking issues I recommend that you visit the Private Parking forum on PePiPoo.com
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.