Speeding query
M Millar
vehicle in her name, but they all shared the driving. The car was clocked
doing 65 in a 50 by a camera. She was first contacted by the Police a week
ago asking for who was driving and containing a NIP. There is no way she
knows who was at the time, is there any get out for her? I believe the NIP
needs to arrive within 14 days, but is it different with a Hire car? I feel
its unreasonable with the time difference to request who the drivers was
after 7 months.
--
Regards
M Millar
Remove Spam Trap To Reply
R. Mark Clayton
"M Millar" <ne...@mmillarSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
news:103955764...@hurricane.noc.clara.net...
Only if it is their fault. In this case they delay is caused by going
through the hirers.
OTOH if several drivers were named as insured on the hire bill (which she
may / should still have) then this will lend credibility to the story, so it
might just wash. Probably worth a trip to the court to avoid the three
points.
Miss L.Toe
"M Millar" <ne...@mmillarSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
news:103955764...@hurricane.noc.clara.net...
I think you might find that businesses have a legal requiement to keep a
record of who is driving a vehicle at any given time, so although the
speeding offence may go away another one may follow - (I'm only a amateur).
Also I'd be carful saying other people were driving if they were not
mentioned to the hire company as drivers.
Orlando
"M Millar" <ne...@mmillarSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
news:103955764...@hurricane.noc.clara.net...
Or you were driving and you thought this was a good story to tell the plod!!
If there were 'other people' driving the car, they should have all signed
the forms at the Hire office for the insurance.
M Millar
agreement part. I'll let her know what has been said.
--
Regards
M Millar
Remove Spam Trap To Reply
"Orlando" <gospamy...@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:at77ko$11918a$1...@ID-108917.news.dfncis.de...
Ken
Ken
pol
Ken <tilbury36...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:at7lvm$ijv$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> Well,one of you was speeding. What ever happened to 'fair cop Guv'?.
>
> Ken
So if this was you, Ken and your two buddies, and you thought it wasn't you
who was caught speeding would you volunteer your drivers licence and wallet
and take the "fair cop"?
pol
Am I the only one to mention that if the offence was in April, then they
cannot prosecute for the speeding offence now anyway as it has been more
than six months from the date of the offence.
I don't know if there is a special condition here because the NiP has only
recently arrived, but I doubt it. The only thing they can "do" her for
presumably is not reponding to the NIP within 28 days, but will even this
stand after such a long time since the date of offence.
My advice is that if you do know or have an idea who was driving on that
particular part of the journey, then fill in the NIP correctly send it off,
they will then send you a conditional offer fixed penalty, IGNORE IT, and
you will hear nothing further from them, because the offence was more than
six months ago.
M Millar
be shared!!!
--
Regards
M Millar
Remove Spam Trap To Reply
"pol" <p...@lop.not> wrote in message
news:1SJJ9.5044$Yz6.123268@newsfep2-gui...
M Millar
From http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm
Company and Rental Cars. If you were caught by a Gatso or other speed trap
and were NOT stopped at the time then the authorities must still inform the
registered owner, under the 14 day rule. If they do this then no time limit
exists for them to track down who was driving the vehicle at the time of the
incident. The law surrounding is contained in s1 and s2(3) Road Traffic
Offenders Act 1988 ("RTOA") and the decided case of Haughton -v- Harrison.
The statute at s1 RTOA provides that within 14 days of the date of the
alleged offence an NIP (or a summons) must be served on the registered
keeper of the vehicle. Note though that where a driver has been stopped and
cautioned that he will be reported for an offence there is no need for a
written NIP to be served.
--
Regards
M Millar
Remove Spam Trap To Reply
"pol" <p...@lop.not> wrote in message
news:J_JJ9.5081$Yz6.127026@newsfep2-gui...
JohnJo
"pol" <p...@lop.not> wrote in message
news:J_JJ9.5081$Yz6.127026@newsfep2-gui...
>
> news:103955764...@hurricane.noc.clara.net...
> > Friend was on a business trip in April, with three colleagues. Hired a
> > vehicle in her name, but they all shared the driving. The car was
clocked
> > doing 65 in a 50 by a camera. She was first contacted by the Police a
> week
> > ago asking for who was driving and containing a NIP. There is no way
she
> > knows who was at the time, is there any get out for her? I believe the
> NIP
> > needs to arrive within 14 days, but is it different with a Hire car? I
> feel
> > its unreasonable with the time difference to request who the drivers was
> > after 7 months.
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> >
> > M Millar
> > Remove Spam Trap To Reply
>
this is done the police have up to 6 months from the date of the offence to
issue a summons against the driver.
The second step is that the police serve an NIP on the hirer. If she
genuinely doesn't know who was driving because they changed drivers at some
point she may well get away with it.
I have a case on now where the drivers swapped over at a lay-by. Without
knowing exactly where the camera is and which lay by they swapped over at we
can't be sure. We have asked the police to send us a plan showing all
lay-bys on the stretch of road and the exact location of the camera. So far
heard nothing.
MRc
as hell know if it does....
"M Millar" <ne...@mmillarSPAMTRAP.co.uk> wrote in message
news:103963302...@hurricane.noc.clara.net...
pol
> It doesn't look good for her.
>
> From http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm
>
> Company and Rental Cars. If you were caught by a Gatso or other speed trap
> and were NOT stopped at the time then the authorities must still inform
the
> registered owner, under the 14 day rule. If they do this then no time
limit
> exists for them to track down who was driving the vehicle at the time of
the
> incident. The law surrounding is contained in s1 and s2(3) Road Traffic
> Offenders Act 1988 ("RTOA") and the decided case of Haughton -v- Harrison.
> The statute at s1 RTOA provides that within 14 days of the date of the
> alleged offence an NIP (or a summons) must be served on the registered
> keeper of the vehicle. Note though that where a driver has been stopped
and
> cautioned that he will be reported for an offence there is no need for a
> written NIP to be served.
>
> --
> Regards
>
> M Millar
Hi please see the response to me from Johnjo, and my response to him for
further information about this six months rule.
Has your friend asked the police for the photographs so she might be able to
more easily identify the driver? They usually comply with this sort of
request. The photos might show your friend in the back seat or in the
passenger seat, and she would then be able to say absolutely that it was not
her who was driving. And vice versa the other two people will be in the
photo so it will be her who was driving.
Also I checked the link you provided and found the FAQ you pasted above,
that FAQ is only reffering to the 14 day NiP rule. However if you go back
to that FAQ page and go down a bit more you will come to this FAQ........and
I am waiting for Johnjo's response to this.....
What is the time limit, within which you can be prosecuted? The police have
to serve a summons on the defendant within 6 months of the date on which the
prosecutor (normally the CPS) certify that they have collated enough
evidence to bring a charge. This does not mean that the police have 6 months
from the date of the offence to charge the accused. My advice to anyone who
has received a summons more than 6 months after the alleged offence is to
request a copy of the signed and dated certificate of prosecution from the
Police/CPS. For a normal common or garden speeding offence with no
complications I can think of absolutely no reason why the prosecution should
not issue a summons within 6 months of the offence. Notwithstanding the
above, the Prosecution must bring proceedings within 3 years of the alleged
offence. The NIP 14 day rule still applies for Gatso and other devices,
where you are not stopped and warned of proscecution at the time of the
offence.
pol
JohnJo <john...@nospamnetscape.net> wrote in message
news:at8dft$58b$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Johnjo,
that is what I thought, 6 months etc... but this case the offence was 7
months ago. I looked on the site that M Millar posted a link to
speed-trap.co.uk FAQ and there was this relating to the 6 months rule:
********************
What is the time limit, within which you can be prosecuted? The police have
to serve a summons on the defendant within 6 months of the date on which the
prosecutor (normally the CPS) certify that they have collated enough
evidence to bring a charge. This does not mean that the police have 6 months
from the date of the offence to charge the accused. My advice to anyone who
has received a summons more than 6 months after the alleged offence is to
request a copy of the signed and dated certificate of prosecution from the
Police/CPS. For a normal common or garden speeding offence with no
complications I can think of absolutely no reason why the prosecution should
not issue a summons within 6 months of the offence. Notwithstanding the
above, the Prosecution must bring proceedings within 3 years of the alleged
offence. The NIP 14 day rule still applies for Gatso and other devices,
where you are not stopped and warned of proscecution at the time of the
offence.
*********************
Could you comment on that please Johnjo, because I rely on the "six months
rule", and I am now a little bit worried that it is not as clear as it I
used to think it was..
JohnJo
"pol" <p...@lop.not> wrote in message
>
> JohnJo <john...@nospamnetscape.net> wrote in message
> news:at8dft$58b$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "pol" <p...@lop.not> wrote in message
> > news:J_JJ9.5081$Yz6.127026@newsfep2-gui...
> > >
> > this is done the police have up to 6 months from the date of the offence
> to
> > issue a summons against the driver.
>
>
> Johnjo,
>
> that is what I thought, 6 months etc... but this case the offence was 7
> months ago. I looked on the site that M Millar posted a link to
> speed-trap.co.uk FAQ and there was this relating to the 6 months rule:
> ********************
> What is the time limit, within which you can be prosecuted? The police
have
the date
NO
> Could you comment on that please Johnjo, because I rely on the "six months
> rule", and I am now a little bit worried that it is not as clear as it I
> used to think it was..
>
Sorry but you've got it wrong. The police must ISSUE a summons within 6
months of the date of the offence. It may not be served till later.
>
pol
> Sorry but you've got it wrong. The police must ISSUE a summons within 6
> months of the date of the offence. It may not be served till later.
Is there anyway of knowing if the police have issued a summons other than
it arriving on your doorstep?
Does "Issue a summons" mean in other words apply to the court for a date?
Thanks.
pol
>
> Sorry but you've got it wrong. The police must ISSUE a summons within 6
> months of the date of the offence. It may not be served till later.
> >
Oh and how long after it is "issued" can they take to "serve" it? what is
the procedure?
JohnJo
"pol" <p...@lop.not> wrote in message
complaint or an information. It is merely an administrative process.
>
JohnJo
"pol" <p...@lop.not> wrote in message
So far as I know there is no set time limit but when an information is laid
by the police the Court issues a summons to a specific date. The summons in
motoring cases is usually sent by post but can be delivered personally. If
the summons has not been served by the date of the first court appearance it
can be endorsed not served and reissued.
Blackstone says:
In providing that a justice may issue a summons ‘upon’ an information being
laid before him, the MCA 1980, s. 1, does not imply that the issue of a
summons must follow immediately upon the consideration of the information by
the justice or clerk (Fairford Justices, ex parte Brewster [1976] QB 600).
It is open to the prosecutor to lay his information and then suggest that a
summons should not immediately be issued (e.g., because the accused is out
of the country and service could not be effected for a considerable time).
However, if the delay between the laying of the information and issue of the
summons is so great as to be unreasonable and to cause prejudice, then the
High Court has a discretion to intervene and quash the summons.
Moreover, an information should be laid with the intention of having the
consequent
summons served as soon as reasonably possible. Therefore, if the prosecutor
has not in fact made his mind up whether to proceed at the time of laying
his information but is concerned merely that any possible prosecution should
not be out of time, then his conduct amounts to an abuse of the process of
the court and the magistrates should stay the proceedings if ultimately he
does decide to proceed (Brentford Justices, ex parte Wong [1981] QB 445).