NIP Rules - Notice of Intended Prosecution
Long shot!
I have recently received a NIP from the Camera Processing Unit xl alleging that I exceeded the 70 mph speed limit
Wording;
On x/2010 at x >> x the driver of motor vehicle x did exceed 70 mph speed limit on dual carriageway (manual detection) contrary to S89(1) RTRA 84 Sch 2 RTOA 88. The recorded speed was 83mph.
The car is not an SL - it is an S Class - a completely different car - two more doors for a start (however in mitigation mine is a long wheelbase version - which could account for the 'L')
The car is not registered to me and the registered keeper has already sent back a similar form naming me as the 'assigned'.
The NIP is not signed by any person or body. It is from the Camera Processing Unit crest on it.
Within the text of the note are the words: 'This notice is issued for and on behalf of the Chief Constable of the x' - however no managers name or any other details - in other words this NIP is not signed and it is not from a Police Authority.
Questions:
Am I liable to prosecution under S 172 if I don't send it back as I am not the registered keeper and that person has already complied by sending my details?
If I ignore it - what might happen next? Will they go back to the registered keeper?
Is the wording of the NIP legal? It could have come from anyone.
Whilst x Police appear to offer 'safe speed' courses as an option to prosecution (and I am within ACPO guidelines at 83) the Safety camera Partnership element only offers these to people caught exceeding the 30 mph limit by up to 9 mph - which seems not only discriminatory (we are all equal under the law) but stupid as such offenders stand a much greater chance of killing or injuring someone than those of us on dual carriageways!
This is a pity as I was looking forward to attending one of these courses - can I negotiate with them??!
The points issue is not a big deal - my last were in 1993 - it's as always the principle - especially as the Conservatives said they'd raise the national limit to 80 if elected - I'd have been alright then !
Your advice and opinions welcomed.
If you have a court hearing date call 01626 359800
A new client came to us after being banned by the Magistrates for 6 months. He had accumulated 12 points within 3 years and the Magistrates court banned him for 6 months. The client tried to argue exceptional hardship on his own and the court rejected his argument.
Our client instructed us to represent him at court when he was charged with overloading a hired minibus. He had hired the minibus as he had his extended family visiting for a holiday. At the same time builders were refurbishing his house and asked him if he could help them collect some extra sand and cement. Our client agreed and they went with him to the DIY shop to collect the materials.
Our client was stopped on the way back home for overloading. He was devasted by the charge and the subsequent court proceedings, due to the fact that it was an innocent mistake and he was in the process of applying for an indefinite leave to remain in the UK visa.
He approached many so called motoring lawyers before us who told him to plead guilty and take the fine and points. We acted on his behalf and made a special reasons argument and also an argument under s.48 RTOA 88. The court agreed not to give any points and to impose an absolute discharge meaning that the conviction was imediately spent.
At Patterson Law we think outside of the box and we go the extra mile to try and achieve the results you need. Contact us now on 01626 359800 or email e.patterson@pattersonlaw.co.uk if you want lawyers who represent an island of excellence in a sea of mediocrity!
Police attempt to clamp down on suspected street racing !