Traffic Offence Report - Parked on a road with middle double white lines

Aretnap

TooManyPoints said:

As well as that, there is the possibility that the police will issue another NIP and s172 request (with the correct details). If you leave it until after day 14 the NIP will not meet the requirements of the RTOA . But you will still be obliged to respond to an amended s172 request (they have no time limit). You will have to name yourself as driver but because of the lateness of the NIP, no prosecution should be successful.

I would be cautious on this point. The original NIP might well meet the requirements of the RTOA in spite of the incorrect time in it.

The purpose of a NIP is essentially to warn the accused of the potential prosecution at a time when the events are still reasonably fresh in his mind, and so to allow him to prepare his defence while he can still recall them. And so the courts have tended to view an error on the NIP as fatal to a prosecution only if it misleads the defendant to the point where it no longer serves this purpose. See for example Pope v Clarke (1953), summarised here

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t10511.html

In the OP's case, the fact that he had a traffic offence report attached to his car is potentially quite important. Even if it doesn't meet the requirements of the RTOA in its own right, it means that the OP knows perfectly well what he is accused of doing, and when he is accused of doing it. So an argument that he has been materially disadvantaged by the incorrect time on the NIP feels difficult to sustain.

If the OP wanted to take the path of least resistance with least hassle and lowest risk, it is probably to fill in the form as best he can, and return it with a covering letter explaining that his car was not there at midnight, but assuming they are actually referring to the incident at 2:20-ish then he was indeed the driver at that time. The likely outcome would be a fixed penalty of 3 points and £100, or possibly even the offer of an awareness course (if they're offered for double white lines offences - not sure whether they are or not).

OTOH if he wants to argue the toss over the incorrect time then a range of outcomes are possible, from the police quietly dropping the matter as soon as they realise the error (entirely plausible), to him being convicted at the magistrates court after a trial and being left paying a grand or so in fines, costs and surcharge (which I suspect is what would ultimately happen if they didn't drop it and push came to shove).

nayfeee

Aretnap said:

TooManyPoints said:

As well as that, there is the possibility that the police will issue another NIP and s172 request (with the correct details). If you leave it until after day 14 the NIP will not meet the requirements of the RTOA . But you will still be obliged to respond to an amended s172 request (they have no time limit). You will have to name yourself as driver but because of the lateness of the NIP, no prosecution should be successful.

I would be cautious on this point. The original NIP might well meet the requirements of the RTOA in spite of the incorrect time in it.

The purpose of a NIP is essentially to warn the accused of the potential prosecution at a time when the events are still reasonably fresh in his mind, and so to allow him to prepare his defence while he can still recall them. And so the courts have tended to view an error on the NIP as fatal to a prosecution only if it misleads the defendant to the point where it no longer serves this purpose. See for example Pope v Clarke (1953), summarised here

http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t10511.html

In the OP's case, the fact that he had a traffic offence report attached to his car is potentially quite important. Even if it doesn't meet the requirements of the RTOA in its own right, it means that the OP knows perfectly well what he is accused of doing, and when he is accused of doing it. So an argument that he has been materially disadvantaged by the incorrect time on the NIP feels difficult to sustain.

If the OP wanted to take the path of least resistance with least hassle and lowest risk, it is probably to fill in the form as best he can, and return it with a covering letter explaining that his car was not there at midnight, but assuming they are actually referring to the incident at 2:20-ish then he was indeed the driver at that time. The likely outcome would be a fixed penalty of 3 points and £100, or possibly even the offer of an awareness course (if they're offered for double white lines offences - not sure whether they are or not).

OTOH if he wants to argue the toss over the incorrect time then a range of outcomes are possible, from the police quietly dropping the matter as soon as they realise the error (entirely plausible), to him being convicted at the magistrates court after a trial and being left paying a grand or so in fines, costs and surcharge (which I suspect is what would ultimately happen if they didn't drop it and push came to shove).

Would you agree that sending the form back with a cover letter explaining that my car wasn't there at the alleged time after day 14 is the right plan of action?

I can't fill the form out without lying as nobody was driving the vehicle at that time.

Many thanks 😊

TooManyPoints

Yes I accept that it the NIP is not guaranteed to be found deficient. However, there is a considerable difference in the time quoted on the TOR and that on the NIP. But I feel the more important point (at least at this stage) is that the time quoted on the NIP also applies to the s172 request. The OP is being asked who was driving his car at midnight. It is not for him to guess what the police are referring to; he can only respond to the request as it stands. So my advice remains - respond to the s172 request by answering the question it asks (to which the OP can reply truthfully that nobody was driving and his vehicle was at home at the time) but ensure that it arrives so that an amended NIP, if it is served, cannot be valid.

If the police want to find out who was driving at 2:45pm they will have to issue an amended s172 request. Their system will also produce an accompanying NIP with the amended time. This NIP will not have been served in time. It is my view that when the police get this far (i.e. if they do not drop the matter when they realise their initial error) they will probably proceed to offer either a course of a fixed penalty. In that eventuality the OP will have to decide whether to fold or fight.