Help with speeding ticket on stollen vehicle

Grumpy_chap

facade said:

In support of the OP, it was a 'bike. Mine could have been stolen at any point between November 2019 and June this year and I wouldn't have noticed.

Mine lives in a shed all locked up, (from Nov to June it was inside The World's Most Expensive Polythene Bag) and I have no reason to go inside unless I want to ride the 'bike or mess with it, in fact it could be stolen right now, the last time I looked in there was July.

Presumably, if someone entered the shed and removed the 'bike, you would notice the damage / forced entry to the shed.  I assume people that steal motorbikes from sheds do not ensure the scene is nicely tidied up afterwards so no-one notices for months, but just get away as quick as they can.

Herzlos

Grumpy_chap said:

facade said:

In support of the OP, it was a 'bike. Mine could have been stolen at any point between November 2019 and June this year and I wouldn't have noticed.

Mine lives in a shed all locked up, (from Nov to June it was inside The World's Most Expensive Polythene Bag) and I have no reason to go inside unless I want to ride the 'bike or mess with it, in fact it could be stolen right now, the last time I looked in there was July.

Presumably, if someone entered the shed and removed the 'bike, you would notice the damage / forced entry to the shed.  I assume people that steal motorbikes from sheds do not ensure the scene is nicely tidied up afterwards so no-one notices for months, but just get away as quick as they can.

It's not that unlikely a thief would try to make it look like it was undisturbed - means there's longer before it's reported stolen.
The bike may also have been in a lock up or a barn or something the OP can't easily see from their house.

OP - since you reported it stolen *before* the NIP, then presumably the best thing to do is to reply with the crime reference number for the theft, as well as contacting the officer who recorded the theft / recovered the vehicle as the speeding camera may provide some information about the theft.

It may be worth having a call with a solicitor specializing in road traffic law though, rather than asking the internet.

waamo

facade said:

In support of the OP, it was a 'bike. Mine could have been stolen at any point between November 2019 and June this year and I wouldn't have noticed.

Mine lives in a shed all locked up, (from Nov to June it was inside The World's Most Expensive Polythene Bag) and I have no reason to go inside unless I want to ride the 'bike or mess with it, in fact it could be stolen right now, the last time I looked in there was July.

I'm not convinced that is such a big problem. The real issue is the op has gone for a technical defence rather than continuing with "the bike was nicked" line. It looks a little suspicious when you mix and match defences to say the least.

AdrianC

Herzlos said:

OP - since you reported it stolen *before* the NIP...

Minor detail...
They reported it stolen before the s172 that arrived with them, but a month after the original s172 should have been received at the address on the V5C... and the OP/RK doesn't know if that address was the current one, or post sent to it would have reached them.

Aretnap

waamo said:

facade said:

In support of the OP, it was a 'bike. Mine could have been stolen at any point between November 2019 and June this year and I wouldn't have noticed.

Mine lives in a shed all locked up, (from Nov to June it was inside The World's Most Expensive Polythene Bag) and I have no reason to go inside unless I want to ride the 'bike or mess with it, in fact it could be stolen right now, the last time I looked in there was July.

I'm not convinced that is such a big problem. The real issue is the op has gone for a technical defence rather than continuing with "the bike was nicked" line. It looks a little suspicious when you mix and match defences to say the least.

The Stefan Kiszko defence - "I didn't kill her, but if I did it was because of the medication I was taking". It didn't work very well for him...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed

Aretnap

Mickey666 said:

That’s an interesting point - what’s the legal responsibility of the registered keeper with respect to knowing where it is at any one time?   I’ve have friends with motorbikes that are only used in the summer months and I doubt they check them every week, so they could easily be stolen for many weeks or months without being noticed.
So, it’s perfectly feasible that someone might not know when a vehicle was stolen and that it could have been 2-3 months before being reported.  I know the registered keeper has a legal duty to do everything reasonable to disclose who was driving the vehicle at anyone time what happens if they honestly cannot because they have not had sight of a vehicle in temporary storage?

In Atkinson v DPP a woman allowed a prospective buyer to test ride her bike without taking his name. When he was caught speeding she was therefore unable to provide his details. The High Court overturned her conviction for failing to provide them, ruling that reasonable diligence is to be assessed in terms of what she did after she received the s172 requirement - she did not have a responsibility to keep a record of people who rode the vehicle on the off-chance that she might receive an s172 at some pojnt in the future.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/3363.html
By the same token, if the OP didn't check on the bike for several months that might have been unwise, but it does not prevent him using a reasonable diligence defence. If the police and/or a court believe his story that it was stolen without his realising, he should bit be charged or convicted. If. 

FWIW the fact that he argued the toss over a technical point rather than just telling the truth immediately probably doesn't help his credibility, OTOH the fact that the stolen bike was recovered close to where the speeding offence was committed probably does. 

TooManyPoints

waamo said:

I'm not convinced that is such a big problem. The real issue is the op has gone for a technical defence rather than continuing with "the bike was nicked" line. It looks a little suspicious when you mix and match defences to say the least.

Well the OP has not gone for any defence yet. I imagine he will say that he did not know who was driving and despite his best efforts he could not find out (the statutory defence provide by Section 172 (4)). There's nothing technical about that.

I think he has a better chance by trying to convince the court that he was not the "person keeping the vehicle" on 7th June. This leaves him with the lesser burden of providing "... any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." But as I said earlier, he may struggle to do that. He doesn't seem to know who was the person keeping the vehicle on that date and may find it difficult to argue that it wasn't him.

waamo

TooManyPoints said:

waamo said:

I'm not convinced that is such a big problem. The real issue is the op has gone for a technical defence rather than continuing with "the bike was nicked" line. It looks a little suspicious when you mix and match defences to say the least.

Well the OP has not gone for any defence yet. I imagine he will say that he did not know who was driving and despite his best efforts he could not find out (the statutory defence provide by Section 172 (4)). There's nothing technical about that.

I think he has a better chance by trying to convince the court that he was not the "person keeping the vehicle" on 7th June. This leaves him with the lesser burden of providing "... any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." But as I said earlier, he may struggle to do that. He doesn't seem to know who was the person keeping the vehicle on that date and may find it difficult to argue that it wasn't him.

Whilst it's true he hasn't entered any defence yet he does seem to have set his stall out with "NIP is late innit guv" early on.

Assuming it goes to court that will almost certainly be shown. If what you propose is correct (and I think you may have hit upon another strand) that leaves him riding 3 horses.

Riding one horse is tricky. Jumping between Red Rum, Shergar and Black Beauty might be a juggling act to far.

AdrianC

waamo said:

TooManyPoints said:

Well the OP has not gone for any defence yet. I imagine he will say that he did not know who was driving and despite his best efforts he could not find out (the statutory defence provide by Section 172 (4)). There's nothing technical about that.

I think he has a better chance by trying to convince the court that he was not the "person keeping the vehicle" on 7th June. This leaves him with the lesser burden of providing "... any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." But as I said earlier, he may struggle to do that. He doesn't seem to know who was the person keeping the vehicle on that date and may find it difficult to argue that it wasn't him.

Whilst it's true he hasn't entered any defence yet he does seem to have set his stall out with "NIP is late innit guv" early on.

Assuming it goes to court that will almost certainly be shown. If what you propose is correct (and I think you may have hit upon another strand) that leaves him riding 3 horses.

Riding one horse is tricky. Jumping between Red Rum, Shergar and Black Beauty might be a juggling act to far.

It seems unequivocal that the OP's initial official reply to the s172 that did reach them was "Nah, too late. I don't have to play."...

bongo_boy said:

On 27th August I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP). Speeding camera - excess speed. 
Date of offence 7th June.
...
As the NIP was dated 27/8/20 for an offence on 7/06/20 rather than claim it was the thieves I asked to reject on the grounds the NIP was issued >14days since offence. 
The police reply was that the NIP was issued in time - and any subsequent issue has no time restriction.
This puzzled me as i'd received nothing. My father wondered if I hadn't updated my address with the DVLA since moving - but I have no way of checking (that I know of) as I subsequently scrapped the vehicle and so don't have the V5. Either way I have to trust the police are correct that the NIP was issued - even if lost in the post.

...and that has been officially shot down.

The OP has no choice now but to say "I have no way of knowing who it was, because the bike must have been already stolen by then. I reported the theft as soon as I was aware."

I can definitely see it going to court for a failure to furnish charge - because, as I said in my initial reply, the entire chain looks fishy as anything. It's then down to how convincing the OP is when he gives his evidence.

Dr_Crypto

Aye this is going to be an uphill battle.
He’s got to convince the court that the bike was stolen without his knowledge at some point between April (when he put it away) and July when he noticed it was gone and reported it. 

The OP says the vehicle was scrapped - when was it recovered? How was it recovered? 

I’m a little unclear as to the 14 day limit here. The OP says they didn’t receive anything until 27/8 for an offence in June. There is a potential line of defence here to a s172 if the OP can persuade the court that they didn’t receive it. However they can’t even be sure they given the DVLA their correct particulars so I can see this floundering too.