Free Traffic Legal Advice

Received NTP for 35 in a 20.

Car owner did not recognise being in that location at that time. Questioned and subsequently provided photo of car elsewhere. Police refusing to accept as evidence and now passing on for prosecution.

Is it still feasible to complete the S172? Was given until late February to complete as extension.

Received NTP for 35 in a 20.

If you must invent your own acronyms, please provide the full version. But mostly, please don't invent your own acronyms.

Car owner did not recognise being in that location at that time. Questioned and subsequently provided photo of car elsewhere. Police refusing to accept as evidence and now passing on for prosecution.

Is it still feasible to complete the S172? Was given until late February to complete as extension.

What information has been provided in response to the s. 172 requirement so far?
What form did this questioning take?
Was the car elsewhere at the material time, or did the car owner take legal advice from some bloke down the pub?

Otherwise, if he had until late Feb to provide the information, he might struggle to provide the information in time.

The owner of the vehicle provided photos of the car and then an image of CCTV showing the car elsewhere.

Presumably the police do not consider that to be a satisfactory response to the request for driver's details.

Matter "has now been sent through to prosecutions for court proceedings". Can this process be stopped or is it now inevitable? Do prosecutions always decide to actually prosecute?

You need to tell us some dates, what has been received, what responses were made and by whom before that can be answered.

You mention "the owner", though don't say whether he is he person who received the request. What is your involvement in this?

This is all so vague that no proper advice can be given.

No wish to be cyrptic, trying to be direct.

The original ticket was received around October.

The car owner did not believe the car was in that location at the time of the alleged offence. A letter was posted to police explaining that. The police wrote back around December asking for photos of the car from all angles. This was emailed to the police.

The police then wrote back saying that although a small difference had been identified on the number plate, they believed the car was in the time of the alleged offence.

They emailed a photo of the front of the car and a photo of the owner from their driving license. It is not possible to identify the driver from the photo of the car.

An email conversation followed. The owner then sent a printed photo of the car on CCTV elsewhere. The police emailed to say they could not see the car properly so an email photo was sent. The police then wrote to say that CCTV can be manipulated and this is not admissable as proof. As of around two days ago, the police stated the matter had now been sent for prosecution.

Another speeding ticket was received two weeks prior to this by a different police force. The same process was followed but that police force accepted that it was 50/50 as to whether or not the car had been cloned and said no further action would be taken. The owner has not let the police force with the current alleged offence about the prior matter.

The owner takes the view they would rather possibly now complete the s172 and accept they may be mistaken than to take the matter to court. Is it now too late to do this?

I am the brother of the owner of the car and trying my very best to help.

The alleged offence was in October, the deadline for reply was extended until 27.02.2025 due to ongoing communications.

... An email conversation followed. The owner then sent a printed photo of the car on CCTV elsewhere. The police emailed to say they could not see the car properly so an email photo was sent. The police then wrote to say that CCTV can be manipulated and this is not admissable as proof. As of around two days ago, the police stated the matter had now been sent for prosecution...

... The owner takes the view they would rather possibly now complete the s172 and accept they may be mistaken than to take the matter to court. Is it now too late to do this?...

[Edit:  cross-posted with @disgruntchelt post #9]

If your brother has genuine and accurately timestamped CCTV images showing his car to be somewhere entirely different from the location on the NIP, why would he want to identify himself as the driver at the NIP location?

The police might be correct in saying that CCTV can be manipulated, but presumably your brother got the CCTV images from a source that can verify that the images are authentic and have not been tampered with, and can provide a sworn statement to that effect?  I'm sure not everybody is able to provide CCTV images disproving a NIP so why not make the most of it.

Also if this is the second occasion that his car has been wrongly identified - suggesting that it might have been cloned - wouldn't it be more sensible to ty to get to the bottom of it now rather than wait for a third time.

Might seem a bit suspicious to change his mind now...

If your brother was given until 27 Feb (9 days ago) and the police have already said it's going to prosecution I'd have thought it might be a bit late to try to retrieve the situation now.  What have the police actually told him and what was the date of that?

What is FTF?

The investigating officer has basically put the fear of god into him and are claiming that CCTV can be manipulated and is not admissible.

Failure to furnish.

CCTV can be manipulated but it would be for the court to decide whether it had been or not. Like all evidence, if it is relevant it is prima facie admissible. Don’t take legal advice from the police. They’re the morons who think they can and should exhibit pages from their pocket notebooks.

I think its ok to post here on the existing thread? (3rd time lucky)

Looking for advice on possible legal representation. If you used someone, please let me know what they cost, did they win and which company or barrister you used?

Thanks all.