Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: moonshine23 on July 25, 2024, 03:30:02 pm
-
A photograph would be very useful if the substance of the defence is “not my car”.
Or potentially damning!
-
The area is on the other side of town that I do not visit. So there is no way I was there..
The issue isn't about where you usually visit or do not visit. You told us your daughter is the person keeping the vehicle and is the main driver.
There seems to be lots of conflation between between you, "we" and your daughter. You are the one charged with this offence. And my question in post #17 remains. The police are very likely to produce a photograph of (what they say is) your (or perhaps your daughter's) car at the time and place alleged. How will you deal with that? Simply saying it wasn't is unlikely to cut the mustard.
Will that ever happen?
There is no evidence that the OP was driving, and he can't "do the deal". So the speeding charge should be dropped and only the FTF charge proceed to trial.
A photograph would be very useful if the substance of the defence is “not my car”.
-
The area is on the other side of town that I do not visit. So there is no way I was there..
The issue isn't about where you usually visit or do not visit. You told us your daughter is the person keeping the vehicle and is the main driver.
There seems to be lots of conflation between between you, "we" and your daughter. You are the one charged with this offence. And my question in post #17 remains. The police are very likely to produce a photograph of (what they say is) your (or perhaps your daughter's) car at the time and place alleged. How will you deal with that? Simply saying it wasn't is unlikely to cut the mustard.
Will that ever happen?
There is no evidence that the OP was driving, and he can't "do the deal". So the speeding charge should be dropped and only the FTF charge proceed to trial.
-
The area is on the other side of town that I do not visit. So there is no way I was there..
The issue isn't about where you usually visit or do not visit. You told us your daughter is the person keeping the vehicle and is the main driver.
There seems to be lots of conflation between between you, "we" and your daughter. You are the one charged with this offence. And my question in post #17 remains. The police are very likely to produce a photograph of (what they say is) your (or perhaps your daughter's) car at the time and place alleged. How will you deal with that? Simply saying it wasn't is unlikely to cut the mustard.
-
To go through the information you provided a line at a time
I am disputing this as the vehicle XXX was most definitely not in this area, let alone being driven at this time.
This could have been worded more constructively.
The vehicle was infact parked at XXX at the time of the alleged offence. This address is the home of my daughter the main driver of this vehicle.
Again, a bit confrontational, it also says your daughter is the main driver, but should have said keeper, I can't see that you provided any details of 'my daughter', also you haven't named all plausibly possible drivers, unless your daughter lives alone and no-one else routinely has access?
The vehicle was driven the first time on this date when my daughter left the
house in the afternoon to attend her 8 week postnatal check at the GP at 13:48. am including a screenshot of the following as evidence:
My daughters Google Maps Location Timeline history on history. The first journey is recorded as leaving her house at 13:48 showing her travel
When it later moved is largely irrelevant and your daughters timeline doesn't prove no-one else was driving at the relevant time. (you called her 'main driver' not 'only usual driver').
- A screenshot from the video Eufy doorbell. This doorbell only captures and records moments where movement is detected rather than continuous recording. The first recording on XXX shows her leaving the property to enter the vehicle in the afternoon. The vehicle is parked the driveway. There are no recordings earlier than 01:34PM as movement was detected.
-Photo of front and rear as the car was at the time of the alleged offence (parked on driveway)
The camera 'evidence' is irrelevant as only 'you' (your daughter in reality I presume) can verbally attest that there was no earlier photo, so it doesn't add any credibility to your version of events that it wasn't moved earlier unless it shows a timeline of movement detected?.
-Photo of front and rear as the car was at the time of the alleged offence (parked on driveway)
Unless they don't tally with the photos of the car detected I'm not sure what help that is - perhaps share the Police and your photos and see if anyone can spot anything. The description is also 'strange' stating it was as it was at the time of the offence (implying something has no changed?) also where you photographed it is meaningless.
I am not certain whether there are any continuous recording Council CCTV cameras at my daughter's location with a view of her driveway. I would request Police to investigate this
Your job, not theirs, they don't need to do anything of the sort, you could have requested the council look at footage under a SAR.
-
Of course I want to plead not guilty - I cannot possibly fathom taking responsibility for an incident especially when I've done nothing wrong!
You aren't being charged with anything related to 'an incident' though, you are being charged with failing to ID the driver (or at least respond in a way that is satisfactory) and while you may not visit that part of town it's irrelevant as it's not 'your car' and perhaps your daughter or another driver does.
Arguably you are guilty of the S172 offence as you could and should have just named your daughter as the keeper. or in other words you did do 'something wrong'.
I really think you'll struggle to defend this successfully as you mishandled that original request IMO. You will need your daughter and any other potential driver as witnesses (having served compliant witness statements in advance) as you were in effect replying to the S172 request by proxy on the information provided by your daughter (who had no legal obligation on her to tell YOU the truth don't forget).
-
Yes I responded to the SJP and have been summoned to court. I'm looking for advice how to present snd structure my case
So the questions I raided in my earlier post (#17) remains. The first of those two is particularly important.
-
Of course I want to plead not guilty - I cannot possibly fathom taking responsibility for an incident especially when I've done nothing wrong!
The NIP was responded too, the police themselves when I called to report the possibility of a cloned plate had said that its possible because I couldn't nominate someone that the response went down as not received. But they were understanding that I couldn't identify a driver as I know my car was in my control so how could they expect me to?
The area is on the other side of town that I do not visit. So there is no way I was there..
-
Have you given any thought to how you might counter the evidence when the police present a photo of your car which they've used to identify it? I believe you've seen that photograph and you've said it "...looks like a similar shape to my vehicle but it isn't distinctly obvious."
I don't think you've mentioned it (apologies if you have) but is the location anywhere that you know and somewhere your car might have been driven?
-
Are you sure you want to plead not guilty?
I think your defence to the S172 charge is weak, and it would take a fair wind for you to be found not guilty. You were not really equivocal in your response and did not nominate anyone else which is your responsibility as the RK (although not apparently the keeper at the time).
A contested trial is going to cost you around double in terms of costs and a larger fine etc.
-
Yes I responded online to the SJP. I pleaded not guilty and have been summoned to court. I am seeking advise on how to conduct myself.
-
Have you responded - in the manner in which you are requested to - to the SJPN.
Whilst you are corresponding with the CTO the SJ process continues. Unless you actually deal with it as required you will eventually just get convicted in your absence. You .it struggle to get the case reopened since you are aware of it.
-
RE
Dear Central Ticket Office Team,
I have received a speeding offence which I am disputing, details below:
CTO Reference: Registration:
Make
The notice states the vehicle was driven in XXX at XX
I am disputing this as the vehicle XXX was most definitely not in this area, let alone being driven at this time.
The vehicle was infact parked at XXX at the time of the alleged offence. This address is the home of my daughter the main driver of this vehicle.
The vehicle was driven the first time on this date when my daughter left the
house in the afternoon to attend her 8 week postnatal check at the GP at 13:48. am including a screenshot of the following as evidence:
My daughters Google Maps Location Timeline history on history. The first journey is recorded as leaving her house at 13:48 showing her travel
- A screenshot from the video Eufy doorbell. This doorbell only captures and records moments where movement is detected rather than continuous recording. The first recording on XXX shows her leaving the property to enter the vehicle in the afternoon. The vehicle is parked the driveway. There are no recordings earlier than 01:34PM as movement was detected.
-Photo of front and rear as the car was at the time of the alleged offence (parked on driveway)
I am not certain whether there are any continous recording Council CCTV cameras at my daughter's location with a view of her driveway. I would request Police to investigate this as I do not have the right to access private footage due to GDPR regulations. If so, please view footage from the alleged offence to prove the vehicle was parked on the driveway. I also urge the team to check ANPR recordings from which will prove my vehicle was not driven in that area at that time.
I have provided an explanation and all the evidence available to me. Please provide written acknowledgement of my dispute and what actions have been taken.
Yours sincerely,
-
So the 'letter' seems relevant, can you share the contents?
Here is the letter I've erased the sensitive info. I understand that the Google Timeline isn't much proof but it's all she had and isn't it better to show something rather than nothing? It's a picture:
-
So the 'letter' seems relevant, can you share the contents?
-
Your daughter was effectively the keeper. You should have nominated her.
I hope you are not suggesting you've been 'fronting' = your account looks dangerously like that might be what has been occurring. You don't seem to have any reason for being the registered keeper at all?
Your email response is potentially your get out here - you cannot be found guilty of the speeding offence as no driver nomination was made (apparently); so it falls to the Failure to Provide charge, and what you wrote in the email is going to be of key importance and whether you can prove it was delivered (the same applies to your written response, but it appears that was not received).
This was the word for word response I sent as the body of the email:
Hi,
Attaching a copy of my letter disputing my vehicle was at the location on the date of offence per my notice letter.
I've included a printed copy sent in the post however wanted to include a digital copy of the letter for the image quality.
My subject line was my reg and CTO Ref from the NIP.
Also no - please don't assume "fronting". My daughter has insurance with herself as the first driver and her own address. I am only the keeper because I bought the car as a grad. present and the finance term has only just ended. On her insurance paperwork the registered keeper is myself - I'm sure this is allowed?
-
So, just to be clear, as well as getting the time and date wrong in the NIP (and incorporated s. 172 requirement), the vehicle was parked up and not being driven at the revised time - meaning that either it was a different car (misread or cloned plate) or they got the time/date wrong twice?
Are there any photos of the offence included in the bundle?
Yes the bundle has a timestamped picture of the reg. The vehicle was parked up at this time.
-
I was once prosecuted for an alleged s. 172 offence, where the police did not like my response. The witness statement stated that no response had been received as the tubby had clicked the wrong box (the other box was "no acceptable response has been received"). Beyond that, when cross examined, the tubby then lost the ability to understand any awkward questions in English, but that's by the by.
If the required/relevant information has been provided by email, and received/responded to by a relevant person then I would suggest that that would satisfy the substance of the requirement. Where the s. 172 response constitutes a confession to being the driver, it needs to be in writing and signed by the accused to be admissible - and in such cases failure to respond in writing or sign the response has been held by the Divisional Court to constitute a failure to comply with a lawfully made reasonable [necessary] requirement as to the manner.
-
Your daughter was effectively the keeper. You should have nominated her.
I hope you are not suggesting you've been 'fronting' = your account looks dangerously like that might be what has been occurring. You don't seem to have any reason for being the registered keeper at all?
Your email response is potentially your get out here - you cannot be found guilty of the speeding offence as no driver nomination was made (apparently); so it falls to the Failure to Provide charge, and what you wrote in the email is going to be of key importance and whether you can prove it was delivered (the same applies to your written response, but it appears that was not received).
-
So, just to be clear, as well as getting the time and date wrong in the NIP (and incorporated s. 172 requirement), the vehicle was parked up and not being driven at the revised time - meaning that either it was a different car (misread or cloned plate) or they got the time/date wrong twice?
Are there any photos of the offence included in the bundle?
-
Did you give them your daughter's details?
-
So the incorrect road name is now irrelevant it would seem (and probably never would have helped anyway if the road it referred to was 'obvious').
The S172 request didn't ask if it was you, it asks you who was driving and that is what you needed to tell them.
If all you said was that it wasn't you driving you appear to have committed the offence of failing to furnish driver's details. You have to either ID the driver or (summarising) give them information that would help identify the driver (even if that is 'it wasn't my car, my car was on the drive under my control at the time' as an example).
Perhaps tell us what you meant/should have said and see if we can help you dig yourself out of the hole you are now in.
Could it have been your car there? (the road name you seem to think it was) at any time.?
If so who could have been driving?
Or do you think they misidentified the car?
I did explain in my response that I couldn't identify the driver as my car was on the driveway of my daughters house at the time of the alleged offence and she hadn't drove. I thought it must be a clerical error until the SJP paperwork received months later showed the reg on a vehicle. I am still unable to identify the driver as I have no idea who it is
-
Sorry i will try and be more clear. In response to the questions:
What exactly did you say in your s. 172 response?
I said that the car was parked on the driveway at the offence time and how my daughter left the house that day only to attend a doctors apt in the afternoon which is the only recording available on the camera. I asked the camera enforcement team to check ANPR footage from the time of the incident to see that my car was no where near that area at that time. I mentioned that my daughter is the user of the car and has confirmed she didn't drive or be in that area where the offence took place.
What do the witness statements say about documents being sent and received?
Witness statement from the admin says no response received despite me sending one and emailing also. The PC statement says that the vehicle was caught with TruCam and not stopped as he was busy with another vehicle.
Is there a copy of the NIP in the bundle?
Yes there is, the date on the NIP offence and the date on the timestamp evidence are different.
Was the car parked at your address or your daughter's, at the time and the specified in the NIP and at the "new" time and date?
Both times parked at daughters as she is the main user. I am only the registered keeper as I bought the car for her.
-
I received a SJP bundle saying I had two offences. One being the original offence of speeding and another being failure to respond. In the bundle, the paperwork evidence shows a timestamp of another date and time (17/11/23 at 2:30) with a PC statement saying the car was caught with a camera but the officer was assisting elsewhere and unable to stop the vehicle.
I've been summoned to court after responding not guilty and declaring that the NIP and SJP bundle are two separate dates - neither of which are me.
There is no offence of "failing to respond", and you have told us categorically that you did respond.
Neither the NIP nor the SJPN are dates, let alone separate dates. The NIP will have an issue date and an offence date. The SJPN bundle will consist of numerous relevant documents with numerous potentially relevant dates.
If you want people to give up their free time to try to help you with your problem, I would strongly suggest providing all the relevant information, ideally in date order.
What exactly did you say in your s. 172 response?
What do the witness statements say about documents being sent and received?
Is there a copy of the NIP in the bundle?
Was the car parked at your address or your daughter's, at the time and the specified in the NIP and at the "new" time and date?
-
So the incorrect road name is now irrelevant it would seem (and probably never would have helped anyway if the road it referred to was 'obvious').
The S172 request didn't ask if it was you, it asks you who was driving and that is what you needed to tell them.
If all you said was that it wasn't you driving you appear to have committed the offence of failing to furnish driver's details. You have to either ID the driver or (summarising) give them information that would help identify the driver (even if that is 'it wasn't my car, my car was on the drive under my control at the time' as an example).
Perhaps tell us what you meant/should have said and see if we can help you dig yourself out of the hole you are now in.
Could it have been your car there? (the road name you seem to think it was) at any time.?
If so who could have been driving?
Or do you think they misidentified the car?
-
I received a NIP with a typo on the road name and a date of 10/11/23 at 06:00. This wasn't me at all so I replied back saying I wasn't the driver and attached evidence of my Google Timeline History and a request for ANPR cameras to be checked as I didn't have the authority to do this. My vehicle didn't leave my address.
I also emailed a copy of my supporting letter across to the camera enforcement team and no response was received.
I received a SJP bundle saying I had two offences. One being the original offence of speeding and another being failure to respond. In the bundle, the paperwork evidence shows a timestamp of another date and time (17/11/23 at 2:30) with a PC statement saying the car was caught with a camera but the officer was assisting elsewhere and unable to stop the vehicle.
I've been summoned to court after responding not guilty and declaring that the NIP and SJP bundle are two separate dates - neither of which are me.
Could someone assist me in how to conduct myself in court? My car was parked at my daughters address as she is the primary user of the vehicle and I've asked her to be a witness.
As the officer didn't stop the vehicle there isn't any evidence of who the real driver was. Police suggested calling 101 to report a false plate which I tried but they were unable to because there isn't a way to check the cameras that far back. I am wondering whether other actions need to be taken.
I was hoping to point out the errors to the Magistrates Court however not sure how to go about proving I did actually respond back to the NIP besides my email.
Thanks so much for your help