Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Got a NIP the other day, not me, wifey, but car reg'd in my name.

Sprog destroyed the form with crayons & indelible marker (bless ) so I wrote a letter stating that I was fulfilling Section 172 RTA 1988 & naming my wife as the driver at the time stated & signed it.

I've just had a letter asking me to fill out the form & send it back.

WTF? I've done what they ask & dibbed my wife but they want me to fill out their poxy form (which has been binned anyway).

Do I have to? AFAIAC I have fulfilled my requirements under the Act as required. I haven't got time to far t about with this rubbish.

fatherpierre

Yeah you do. It's for continuity purposes if it goes to court.

GC8

You dibbed your wife in? Oh dear; would you like to borrow (for the next three months...) this original first issue of Razzle?

fatherpierre

Quality reply. Made me chuckle, anyway LOL

DAVE-W

he has the internet....wat on earth does he need razzle for?

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Why? They ask me to say who was driving, I have. That is "continuity".

I've fulfilled the requirements. There was nothing that I could decipher from what was left of the form to imply that I was not fulfilling their request. As far as I am concerned, I have.

Besides, they haven't included an SAE

We were expecting the next missive from Norfolk plod (SCP) to be their kind offer of 3pts & a fine.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Wife has been patronising enough over my previous driving record that she deserves every salacious moment of windup coming to her & she knows it


Besides - wife & sex? Fat chance

Dave T-S

Puff
LOL - every dog has its day mate, she's had it coming

PS - any more bunny hunting on the cards? I should be moving to Ashley on the 16 Dec - fingers crossed - so will be on the doorstep

fatherpierre

All down to legal stuff.

You spoilt the original form (or your nipperdid) and if it went to court it could/would be inaddmissable, meaning you'd walk away without the fine and points.

I once spelled something wrong because it was the German spelling of the word and it was thrown out....

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Dave

I've had a .22 for almost the time since you were last here but not seen any frigging bunnies Seen a bloody hare though but no gun in hand



FP

So, sprog has spoilt the form - so bloody what? Not my problem. I have fulfilled the requirements of Section 172 RTA 1988 as requested. Its not about the form its about whether my missus was speeding or not. There was nothing I could see on the form that forces me (under pain of death/fine/whatever) to use that form to dib on my wife. Norfolk plod have evidence in the form of a letter from me saying that my wife was driving, so what is the difference? We're not denying it. What's the problem & what's the options if I refuse to fill the form in? Not like I'm "obstructing" or refusing to supply details.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Also, its not me up for the fine/points & there's no "duty of care" on a form.

fatherpierre

Courts convict on refusals to complete forms.

It's only an issue if you are planning to contest the action.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

I'm not - I've already said who was driving & signed it.

MattW

Puff

I don't believe you have to send the form in. There was a case that established that fact in court (Jones). Here is a link to the legislation http://www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/vi...=1073&start=63

If you have the *****, you may want to just sit tight, go to court quote jones and get it thrown out.

Might be worth talking to a specialist solicitor as well.

Dave T-S

Puff
You need to be out at dawn or dusk with a lamp. You'll see more frigging bunnies than Watership Down

I don't shoot hares, in fact they are the only thing on the legitimate quarry list I don't. Wonderful creatures, there's a mystical thing about them (doesn't stop Lesley's lab Morph chasing them though )..

hedgehog

As I recall there is an interesting situation here whereby if you fill out the NIP and say that your wife was driving she will then be sent an NIP. When it arrives she fills it out to say that you were driving.

Now, I don't remember the precise details but believe that her word can't be used against you in court and your word can't be used against her so under these circumstances you have both fulfulled s172 but it is impossible to convict either in court and you are both in the clear.

You would need to check the full details but in these circumstances I believe that there is a simple and fairly watertight loophole that you can both walk through.

Daryl

You are correct that you have fulfilled your obligation under S172. Ignore their letter and see what happens. If they send your wife an offer of points/penalty, then all well and good, but if they try and prosecute you under S172 so much the better. Turning up at Court with a copy of your original letter would result in 'case dismissed'.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

There's also a not so mystical thing about them being a PITA in your garden.

Already found a dead-un that the stoats got under my logs. Just haven't worked out where the live one is burrowing again ("bricked up" one burrow).

When you move in, give us a shout & come over mob-handed for a drink.

Dave T-S

You're on

Diesel

Try this one instead maybe...

WITNESS STATEMENT
(C.J. Act 1967, s9 MC Act 1980, ss. 5A (3a) and 5B. M.C. Rules 1981, r70)

Name:........................... Occupation:................

D.o.B:........................... Over 18
__________________________________________________ ___________________
This statement consisting of 1 page and attached NIP/ S 172 Notice is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

Dated....................... Signed................................
__________________________________________________ ___________________

Their Ref: NIP reference number
Vehicle registration number

Dear Chief Constable,

Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution: I confirm that the following individual was driving the above vehicle at the time of the alleged motoring offence:

ALL OF THE DETAILS REQUIRED ON THE NIP – name, address, date of birth, driver number etc. etc.

I have not received the caution required by paragraph 10.1 of PACE Code C [Mawdesley -v- the Chief Constable of Cheshire [2004] 1 All E.R. 58]. Therefore, it is my understanding that, and this statement and the information in it is submitted subject to the condition that, it may not and will not "be given in evidence to a court in a prosecution".

Yours sincerely,

Signature of driver

Name of Driver