Notice Of Intended Prosecution

[The Hooded C law]

Has any body here had one of these for an alleged speeding offence?

I got one the other day. Somebody driving my car apparantly did 36MPH in a 30MPH zone. (Dual carriageway if I'm right about the location).

Basically one of these NOIP's requires you to incriminate yourself by naming the Driver of the vehicle - if you fail to indentify the driver you fall foul of Section 172 of the Road Traffic ACt 1988. So alleged speeding motorists have less rights than murderers and rapists.

Fortunately Plod as usual doesn't know their **** from their elbow as the NOIP fell at the first hurdle - namely it was out of time. They have to serve the NOIP within 14 days of the purported offence. In my case the f@cktards were trying it on at 28 days later (maybe they'd been watching the film?).

Anyway I've written a letter back to Plod pointing out their schoolboy error and requesting confirmation in writting that they do not intend to continue with the prosecution.

What suprised me was that the NOIP is sent unrecorded by ordinary post. So if they do try and enforce a speeding ticket via the courts how do they prove service???

It's also galling that the NOIP is designed to frighten and intimidate the ordinary citizen. It claims the form has to be completed (it doesn't - the act doesn't contain any reference to any specific form) and that the form has to be signed (again no mention of this in the act that I can see).

What really annoyed me was the "FALSE HOOD OR PREVARICATION IN RESPECT OF DRIVER IDENTIFICATION IN THIS CASE WILL LEAD TO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION. This is in BOLD and designed to cow you into submission but it's bullsh!t - how can they know in advance they will prosecute before they have even investigated?

Anybody else had any similar experiences?

[Injin]

Has any body here had one of these for an alleged speeding offence?

I got one the other day. Somebody driving my car apparantly did 36MPH in a 30MPH zone. (Dual carriageway if I'm right about the location).

Basically one of these NOIP's requires you to incriminate yourself by naming the Driver of the vehicle - if you fail to indentify the driver you fall foul of Section 172 of the Road Traffic ACt 1988. So alleged speeding motorists have less rights than murderers and rapists.

Fortunately Plod as usual doesn't know their **** from their elbow as the NOIP fell at the first hurdle - namely it was out of time. They have to serve the NOIP within 14 days of the purported offence. In my case the f@cktards were trying it on at 28 days later (maybe they'd been watching the film?).

Anyway I've written a letter back to Plod pointing out their schoolboy error and requesting confirmation in writting that they do not intend to continue with the prosecution.

What suprised me was that the NOIP is sent unrecorded by ordinary post. So if they do try and enforce a speeding ticket via the courts how do they prove service???

It's also galling that the NOIP is designed to frighten and intimidate the ordinary citizen. It claims the form has to be completed (it doesn't - the act doesn't contain any reference to any specific form) and that the form has to be signed (again no mention of this in the act that I can see).

What really annoyed me was the "FALSE HOOD OR PREVARICATION IN RESPECT OF DRIVER IDENTIFICATION IN THIS CASE WILL LEAD TO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION. This is in BOLD and designed to cow you into submission but it's bullsh!t - how can they know in advance they will prosecute before they have even investigated?

Anybody else had any similar experiences?

Yes. Here is what I do when faced with our lovely statists.

1) Presume myself innocent of everything*.

2) Ask them to prove whatever it is they are on about

3) Ask questions and make no assumptions.

4) Send letters with time limits on them as they do. i.e. My understanding is this, you have 14 days to get back to me or you are admitting blah blah blah

Not legal advice** for entertainment purposes only, my personal experiences etc.

*Yes, everything. As far as I am concerned I can drive at 200 miles an hour, why wouldn't I be able to?

** You can't give legal advice. Think about that for a bit.

[frozen_out]

Fortunately Plod as usual doesn't know their **** from their elbow as the NOIP fell at the first hurdle - namely it was out of time. They have to serve the NOIP within 14 days of the purported offence. In my case the f@cktards were trying it on at 28 days later (maybe they'd been watching the film?).

That isn't actually true. 14 days is supposedly the limit but it (like everything else) is very vague. If you have a hire car for instance they get extra time to chase, although the exact amount of extra time isn't laid down.

[The Hooded C law]

That isn't actually true. 14 days is supposedly the limit but it (like everything else) is very vague. If you have a hire car for instance they get extra time to chase, although the exact amount of extra time isn't laid down.

Are you sure?The act reads pretty clearly as far as I can see...

1 Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences (1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—

(a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or

( within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or

© within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—

(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,

(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)© above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.

(3) The requirement of subsection (1) above shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.

(4) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which this section applies.

2 Requirement of warning etc: supplementary (1) The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence if, at the time of the offence or immediately after it, an accident occurs owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed.

(2) The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence in respect of which—

(a) a fixed penalty notice (within the meaning of Part III of this Act) has been given or fixed under any provision of that Part, or

( a notice has been given under section 54(4) of this Act.

(3) Failure to comply with the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act is not a bar to the conviction of the accused in a case where the court is satisfied—

(a) that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for a summons or, as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement, or

( that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.

(4) Where a person is prosecuted on indictment in England and Wales—

(a) for an offence to which section 1 of this Act does not apply, or

( for an offence to which that section does apply, but as respects which the requirement of subsection (1) of that section has been satisfied,

that subsection does not prejudice any power of the jury on the charge for that offence, if they find him not guilty of it, to find him guilty of an offence under section 2 or 3 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (reckless driving or careless or inconsiderate driving).

(5) In Scotland a person may be convicted of an offence under section 2 of that Act by virtue of section 23(1) or (2) of this Act notwithstanding that the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act has not been satisfied as respects that offence.

(6) A person may be convicted of an offence under section 3 or 29 of that Act (careless and inconsiderate driving or careless and inconsiderate cycling) notwithstanding that the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act has not been satisfied as respects that offence where—

(a) the charge for the offence has been preferred against him by virtue of section 24(3) of this Act, and

( that requirement has been satisfied as respects the alleged offence under section 2 or, as the case may be, 28 of that Act (reckless driving or reckless cycling).

Am I missing something?

[frozen_out]

The NIP must arrive with 14 days unless there is a valid reason for it not to. Time taken to chase up a hire car driver is a valid reason. Apparently.

[The Hooded C law]

The NIP must arrive with 14 days unless there is a valid reason for it not to. Time taken to chase up a hire car driver is a valid reason. Apparently.

Yep but this isn't a hire car. Open and shut case as far as I can see.

[southsea13]

Yep but this isn't a hire car. Open and shut case as far as I can see.

Also, if they do insist on going forward with this, write to your local newspaper - local papers love stories about the small guy being pushed around by Big Brother. The embarrassment will probably make them back down; or better still go all the way to court and make these swine look like the bullies they are.

Alternatively, join the police and watch your tickets go up in smoke!

[The Hooded C law]

Also, if they do insist on going forward with this, write to your local newspaper - local papers love stories about the small guy being pushed around by Big Brother. The embarrassment will probably make them back down; or better still go all the way to court and make these swine look like the bullies they are.

Alternatively, join the police and watch your tickets go up in smoke!

I strongly suspect they won't go any further with it. However I am prepared in case they do try it on. In fact in some ways I hope they do - my day in court might prove entertaining.

[frozen_out]

Yep but this isn't a hire car. Open and shut case as far as I can see.

Never said it was, just illustrating that the supposed 14 day time limit isn't always strictly applicable. It will be interesting to see what they come back with as a valid reason for it being 14 days late.

[The Hooded C law]

Never said it was, just illustrating that the supposed 14 day time limit isn't always strictly applicable. It will be interesting to see what they come back with as a valid reason for it being 14 days late.

Yes I'm itching to see how they'll respond. If they drop it I'm tempted to frame the letter.

What gets me is how on earth they send out NOIP's so out of date... they MUST know they're out of time???

Still I suspect most people just pay up eh?

[dubsie]

Has any body here had one of these for an alleged speeding offence?

I got one the other day. Somebody driving my car apparantly did 36MPH in a 30MPH zone. (Dual carriageway if I'm right about the location).

Basically one of these NOIP's requires you to incriminate yourself by naming the Driver of the vehicle - if you fail to indentify the driver you fall foul of Section 172 of the Road Traffic ACt 1988. So alleged speeding motorists have less rights than murderers and rapists.

Fortunately Plod as usual doesn't know their **** from their elbow as the NOIP fell at the first hurdle - namely it was out of time. They have to serve the NOIP within 14 days of the purported offence. In my case the f@cktards were trying it on at 28 days later (maybe they'd been watching the film?).

Anyway I've written a letter back to Plod pointing out their schoolboy error and requesting confirmation in writting that they do not intend to continue with the prosecution.

What suprised me was that the NOIP is sent unrecorded by ordinary post. So if they do try and enforce a speeding ticket via the courts how do they prove service???

It's also galling that the NOIP is designed to frighten and intimidate the ordinary citizen. It claims the form has to be completed (it doesn't - the act doesn't contain any reference to any specific form) and that the form has to be signed (again no mention of this in the act that I can see).

What really annoyed me was the "FALSE HOOD OR PREVARICATION IN RESPECT OF DRIVER IDENTIFICATION IN THIS CASE WILL LEAD TO A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION. This is in BOLD and designed to cow you into submission but it's bullsh!t - how can they know in advance they will prosecute before they have even investigated?

Anybody else had any similar experiences?

I've had a few of those, I feel sorry for you. There is not a lot you can do to be honest and if you refuse to pay then they'll drag you before the courts kicking and screaming as they did me. Worse still you will end up with a huge bill and if you don't pay that in come the baliffs.

My last run in with a Baliff resulted in a punch up at my front door and it wasn't even my bill, but that's another story. Baliffs have more powers than the police these days and are best avoided...unless you like trouble.

You could say that you are selling your car and the driver was a person who was test driving it....but they have very good cameras these days that can pick out your face.

My advice to you and is the same advice I took from my solicitor is to request a photo of the driver or picture of the car in question. If they ask for a reason just explain that it could of been a number of people at the wheel that day. When the photo arrives see if they can see your face, if they can't then use the argument that your car was being test driven by someone interested in buying it.

[The Hooded C law]

I've had a few of those, I feel sorry for you. There is not a lot you can do to be honest and if you refuse to pay then they'll drag you before the courts kicking and screaming as they did me. Worse still you will end up with a huge bill and if you don't pay that in come the baliffs.

My last run in with a Baliff resulted in a punch up at my front door and it wasn't even my bill, but that's another story. Baliffs have more powers than the police these days and are best avoided...unless you like trouble.

You could say that you are selling your car and the driver was a person who was test driving it....but they have very good cameras these days that can pick out your face.

My advice to you and is the same advice I took from my solicitor is to request a photo of the driver or picture of the car in question. If they ask for a reason just explain that it could of been a number of people at the wheel that day. When the photo arrives see if they can see your face, if they can't then use the argument that your car was being test driven by someone interested in buying it.

Cheers Dubsie. Having researched my position I'm now very confident that the police don't have any case against me. They haven't complied with the act and in that event it clearly states that I am not to be convicted.

In any event I've sent my response off to Plod and eagerly await his response... fingers crossed eh?

[southsea13]

Cheers Dubsie. Having researched my position I'm now very confident that the police don't have any case against me. They haven't complied with the act and in that event it clearly states that I am not to be convicted.

In any event I've sent my response off to Plod and eagerly await his response... fingers crossed eh?

Good luck with the Plod. Put someone in a uniform and they think they own the world! BTW - if 5-0 do act unreasonably then take it to the Police Complaints Commission and generate even more paperwork for them!

If you have a look at my profile picture, that`s PC2224 (Portsmouth) getting p*ssed off because I took a photo of him being quite aggressive towards a couple of senior citizens holding a peaceful legitimate protest (he accused them of being `troublemakers` and threatened to do them for a `breach of the peace`). I complained and sent the picture and other peoples` statements and - according to DC Howard - PC2224 would be getting called into someone`s office about this matter. Quite a bit of time has passed since then, but his regular `beat` is in Southsea, and he still gives me evils every time he sees me!

When I think about the evil, vile and hideous murder of Gary Newlove I find it staggering that the police are not out doing their job.

If they do take this matter further they`re going to look very very stupid

[dubsie]

Good luck with the Plod. Put someone in a uniform and they think they own the world! BTW - if 5-0 do act unreasonably then take it to the Police Complaints Commission and generate even more paperwork for them!

If you have a look at my profile picture, that`s PC2224 (Portsmouth) getting p*ssed off because I took a photo of him being quite aggressive towards a couple of senior citizens holding a peaceful legitimate protest (he accused them of being `troublemakers` and threatened to do them for a `breach of the peace`). I complained and sent the picture and other peoples` statements and - according to DC Howard - PC2224 would be getting called into someone`s office about this matter. Quite a bit of time has passed since then, but his regular `beat` is in Southsea, and he still gives me evils every time he sees me!

When I think about the evil, vile and hideous murder of Gary Newlove I find it staggering that the police are not out doing their job.

If they do take this matter further they`re going to look very very stupid

Most of the vans that issue speeding fines at not real police, they are run by the police camera partnership which is in fact a private network of companies. The police hate the cameras as much as we do.

[dubsie]

Cheers Dubsie. Having researched my position I'm now very confident that the police don't have any case against me. They haven't complied with the act and in that event it clearly states that I am not to be convicted.

In any event I've sent my response off to Plod and eagerly await his response... fingers crossed eh?

Don't try and get them on legal loop holes, it won't work. Request the photo and take it to your solicitor, this is going to cost you about £500.00 so it might be worth just paying it.

Remember that if you do refuse to pay they will send the Baliffs around. I'm six feet tall 16 stone and trained in close combat and spent 20 years in the Royal Marines, yet I still struggled to remove the baliff from my house. The guy was huge....don't mess with these people....they are scum.

[boynamedsue]

You shouldn't have been speeding, it's a shame they didn't get you this time.

Hopefully you'll get nicked before you kill someone.

P.S

Is Hooded C. Law Jim Davidson? He's certainly unfunny enough...

[The Hooded C law]

You shouldn't have been speeding, it's a shame they didn't get you this time.

Hopefully you'll get nicked before you kill someone.

P.S

Is Hooded C. Law Jim Davidson? He's certainly unfunny enough...

Doing 36mph on a dual carriageway? Are you mad?

20 years of driving - zero accidents - 2 speeding tickets inc this one - yeah I'm a real danger

I'm not convinced I was speeding as of yet I've seen no evidence. I know the road well and don't speed anyway. The only thing I can think of is that I was trying to put some distance between myself and a tailgater.

[Guest Skint Academic]

The only thing I can think of is that I was trying to put some distance between myself and a tailgater.

Which means they have won and will just do it again. Much better to slow down and peeve them off (which also means you drive more safely). If everyone did this, these idiots would realise that tail gating doesn't achieve anything. It's also more satisfying

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Yes, but it can also involve putting yourself at risk. I have repeatedly been tailgated, beeped and flashed at for obeying the speed limit, and if I'd needed to stop suddenly, would certainly have been rear-ended. Even if there's no accident it adds to the stress of driving. It really annoys me that in many circumstances if you break the speed limit you'll get done by a camera, but if you obey it you'll be endangered by these tailgating morons, who the police make no meaningful attempt to stop.

One of these days I'm going to to teach the moron behind a lesson: do a full emergency stop in front of a tailgater from 30 to zero (in second or third gear in order to improve the braking performance), and claim that I was stopping because a child on the pavement showed signs of being about to run into the road. I'm going to wait until I'm about to get rid of my third-hand car and it's practically worthless, and the idiot behind me is in a flashy new sports or luxury car, though, in order to maximise the impact (literally!) on his or her no-claims bonus.

[The Hooded C law]

Which means they have won and will just do it again. Much better to slow down and peeve them off (which also means you drive more safely). If everyone did this, these idiots would realise that tail gating doesn't achieve anything. It's also more satisfying

As I said it's all I can think of I really can't remember anything unusual happening TBH

Still if Plod pursues it I'll ask for the picture which might throw some light on the matter.

[dubsie]

You shouldn't have been speeding, it's a shame they didn't get you this time.

Hopefully you'll get nicked before you kill someone.

P.S

Is Hooded C. Law Jim Davidson? He's certainly unfunny enough...

Mhhhhhhhhhh if doing 36 on a dual carriage way is dangerous then I'll eat my shoe. Also if someone decides to cross a dual carriage way without looking then they deserve to be killed by a car....it's called natural selection. I teach my kids to cross using crossings and to use the green cross code.

Last year a kid aged 6 was killed on the M1 near me, the father let this child out to play at 8 pm. While I feel gutted for the father who has lost his son I also feel sorry for the poor drivers that ran over this kid doing 70 + mph. What on earth was the father thinking letting a young child out to play so late when they lived so close to a motorway.

Yes we hate those that speed in residential areas but this debate is not about safety it is about tax.

[RichB]

One of these days I'm going to to teach the moron behind a lesson: do a full emergency stop in front of a tailgater from 30 to zero (in second or third gear in order to improve the braking performance), and claim that I was stopping because a child on the pavement showed signs of being about to run into the road. I'm going to wait until I'm about to get rid of my third-hand car and it's practically worthless, and the idiot behind me is in a flashy new sports or luxury car, though, in order to maximise the impact (literally!) on his or her no-claims bonus.

Make sure you have a towbar fitted. They make a real mess. For added effect put a comedy pink condom over it.

[Mark5290]

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=17697

[Guest anorthosite]

Yes, but it can also involve putting yourself at risk.

Get it down to 20mph and there's no risk. Its also a lot of fun

One of these days I'm going to to teach the moron behind a lesson: do a full emergency stop in front of a tailgater from 30 to zero (in second or third gear in order to improve the braking performance), and claim that I was stopping because a child on the pavement showed signs of being about to run into the road. I'm going to wait until I'm about to get rid of my third-hand car and it's practically worthless, and the idiot behind me is in a flashy new sports or luxury car, though, in order to maximise the impact (literally!) on his or her no-claims bonus.

If you do this, please send us a full report, I won't stop laughing for a week.

[The Hooded C law]

Mhhhhhhhhhh if doing 36 on a dual carriage way is dangerous then I'll eat my shoe. Also if someone decides to cross a dual carriage way without looking then they deserve to be killed by a car....it's called natural selection. I teach my kids to cross using crossings and to use the green cross code.

Last year a kid aged 6 was killed on the M1 near me, the father let this child out to play at 8 pm. While I feel gutted for the father who has lost his son I also feel sorry for the poor drivers that ran over this kid doing 70 + mph. What on earth was the father thinking letting a young child out to play so late when they lived so close to a motorway.

Yes we hate those that speed in residential areas but this debate is not about safety it is about tax.

The area where the camera is sited is one with no housing on eitherside of the road.

The pavement is fenced off so any pedestrian would have to hurdle the barrier and there is a pedestrian crossing with lights some distance away.

I've no objection to speed cameras outside schools, playgrounds and genuine accident blackspots such as humpback bridges etc. The injustice is that you have to incriminate yourself under duress but murderers and rapists don't.