[IanS100]

I’ve just received an NIP from the local Police ie

Notice of Intended Prosecution

In accordance with the requirements of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988, I hereby give you notice that as keeper of a motor vehicle xx60xxx it is intended to institute proceedings against you for the following:

Offence: Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
Driving without due care & attention / reasonable consideration

It went on to give the date & time & location.

On the form I was obliged to complete & return, Section 1 asks:

Were you the driver of the Above Vehicle at the time of the collision? (Please Indicate) Yes No

There's no other option on the form, either I was driving & was involved in the accident or someone else was driving & I must give details, it implies & assumes guilt

I rang the local police immediately because I haven’t been involved in any accident or collision and have no damage to my car. Unfortunately, the first policeman wasn’t any help and would only tell me that failing to complete & return the enquiry form is an offence - and apparently people often have accidents without any resulting damage. It seems that having no damage means nothing and is no defence!

The second policeman I spoke to was more helpful, it appears that the NIP was sent because my registration number was picked on ANPR within 2 minutes of an accident, and I have a car of similar make/colour – I’m guessing anyone picked up by ANPR during that timescale and driving a similar car also received an NIP. I have no idea where the accident occurred, who was involved or what happened – it certainly didn’t happen at the location on the NIP because that is where the camera noted my registration and there was a traffic a policeman sat by the side of the road when I drove past. There was certainly no accident there!

I have returned the form with a covering letter protesting my innocence but I think it’s a bit OTT to send such strongly worded letter on what must be a fishing expedition to try to catch the offender

[m@rk]

You MUST provide your details but there is no legal obligation for you to complete the form they have sent

So sending a letter back to them with all the details they have asked for meets your legal obligation but does not incriminate you which itself is one of your human rights.

[IanS100]

Cheers m@rk, that's interesting to know, I completed the form but noted on it that I had attached a letter where I stated all the facts and that I had not been involved in any collision

[225_AB]

Originally Posted by m@rk

You MUST provide your details but there is no legal obligation for you to complete the form they have sent

So sending a letter back to them with all the details they have asked for meets your legal obligation but does not incriminate you which itself is one of your human rights.

You might think this should be the case but I am afraid it isn't in speeding cases, may be different in collisions.


"ECHR "Right to Silence" Verdict
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has rejected the combined appeals of Gerard O'Halloran and Idris Francis against the United Kingdom by a majority of 15 to 2.

This verdict enables the British Government's to continue to force motorists to incriminate themselves using S172 of the Road Traffic Act, which is almost always the only evidence of the driver's identity in speed camera cases - a denial of the right to silence that applies if you are charged with almost any other criminal offence. In both of the cases appealed to the ECHR, as in hundreds of others every day in the UK, S172 was used or threatened in order to force a confession:

Mr*O'Halloran was compelled to name himself as the driver of a car at the time of an alleged offence under threat of criminal sanction under S172, and that was used to convict him of the criminal offence of speeding.
Mr*Francis refused to incriminate himself and sent a letter to the police to the effect that he was asserting his rights under Article*6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He was convicted of failing to provide the driver's details."

[IanS100]

Nowhere, on any of these forms, does it ask me if I was involved in a colision or give me the opportunity to state that I wasn't involved. Everything simply assumes my guilt & directs me to provide details of my guilt, which is a bit much considering the only thing I'm guilty of is driving past an ANPR camera, which was, I assume, being operated from the parked traffic car

[m@rk]

Originally Posted by doc_ab

You might think this should be the case but I am afraid it isn't in speeding cases, may be different in collisions.


"ECHR "Right to Silence" Verdict
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has rejected the combined appeals of Gerard O'Halloran and Idris Francis against the United Kingdom by a majority of 15 to 2.

This verdict enables the British Government's to continue to force motorists to incriminate themselves using S172 of the Road Traffic Act, which is almost always the only evidence of the driver's identity in speed camera cases - a denial of the right to silence that applies if you are charged with almost any other criminal offence. In both of the cases appealed to the ECHR, as in hundreds of others every day in the UK, S172 was used or threatened in order to force a confession:

Mr*O'Halloran was compelled to name himself as the driver of a car at the time of an alleged offence under threat of criminal sanction under S172, and that was used to convict him of the criminal offence of speeding.
Mr*Francis refused to incriminate himself and sent a letter to the police to the effect that he was asserting his rights under Article*6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He was convicted of failing to provide the driver's details."

That's different. I am not talking about your right to silence here.

You MUST provide your details. The above backs that up.

But you don't have to provide them using the form provided. By providing all the information asked for meets your legal obligation and so you cannot be charged with failing to provide details because very clearly you did provide those details, just on a piece of paper rather than on a form that is worded such that you can't win.

In this case you are 100% compliant with the request being made

[zltm089]

wow!...some very good info on here guys!...

[Kerr]

We had this thread not so long ago. Not sure of the outcome.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=694425

Seems a few people in the area got NIP but all denied any offence.

[ihpj]

The NIPD you have received is just that, it is just a notice of INTENDED prosecution.

It does not follow that you yourself will definitely face prosecution as, with the offence identified under the RTA, it is the DRIVER who is responsible for the infringement. So, from the lines of enquiry available to the Police, your vehicle has been identified as a possible party to what has been reported.

At this time it's simple about identifying the driver at the time and hence why you have been written to. I have posted previously that. Have used this avenue myself to deal with relatively minor road traffic infringements that, for whatever reason, I could not deal with there and then.

As for any 'advice' as to how to reply, you will need to seek proper legal advice. However you have an obligation to provide the required information of that there is no dispute.

[IanS100]

The letter itself is ambiguous to say the least, in large text ist states:

"it is intended to institute proceedings against you for the following:"

That sounds very clear however, lower down, in smaller text, it adds:

The fact that this notice has been sent to you does not necessarily indicate that proceedings will follow.

very confusing & contradictory

The date states Tuesday 18th, (the 18th was a Wednesday)

Location: the location given must be that of the police car with ANPR camera as no collision took place there, I have no idea where the collision took place only that it was within 2 minutes of this location, which is at the end of a dual carriageway. The collision could have taken place over a mile away

[m@rk]

I might be wrong but I think you have to inform your insurance company about this too.

Certainly when you take out a policy you have to declare any prosecutions pending and I suspect this may be classed as a "material change of risk" so again is notifiable.

Personally I think this looks like lazy policing

Send out the NIP first and ask questions later.

Innocent till proven guilty my arse!

[ihpj]

Originally Posted by m@rk

Personally I think this looks like lazy policing

Send out the NIP first and ask questions.

With respect, this is about identifying the driver (i.e. personal responsible) and nothing more. The whole point of this exercise is to find and identify the responsible party (driver) to move the lines of enquiry forward.

It's a two edged sword Policing, whereby instances like these get reported people's reactions are 'the police never do anything' - yet when we are being proactive, it elicits the above sentiments and comments.

As I've said already, I've used this process myself many times to deal with infringements that I couldn't deal with at the time. I don't see that as being lazy, but actually proactive in that I am able to deal with more than just one thing at the same time ;o)

[IanS100]

Originally Posted by m@rk

I might be wrong but I think you have to inform your insurance company about this too.

Certainly when you take out a policy you have to declare any prosecutions pending and I suspect this may be classed as a "material change of risk" so again is notifiable.

You may well be right but I'm not going to rock the boat unless I have to, the effect on my premiums was the first thing I considered about when I received it.

Originally Posted by m@rk

Personally I think this looks like lazy policing

Send out the NIP first and ask questions later.

Innocent till proven guilty my arse!

My thoughts exactly, a lot of people would find this letter very distressing, it certainly caused me more than a little anxiety, not to mention the hours wasted on the phone & writing letters. I think it's disgraceful that the police can send these out with absolutely no evidence of involvement never mind guilt!

[IanS100]

Originally Posted by ihpj

With respect, this is about identifying the driver (i.e. personal responsible) and nothing more. The whole point of this exercise is to find and identify the responsible party (driver) to move the lines of enquiry forward.

It's a two edged sword Policing, whereby instances like these get reported people's reactions are 'the police never do anything' - yet when we are being proactive, it elicits the above sentiments and comments.

As I've said already, I've used this process myself many times to deal with infringements that I couldn't deal with at the time. I don't see that as being lazy, but actually proactive in that I am able to deal with more than just one thing at the same time ;o)

If there's no other option but to send this NIP include a covering letter explaining exactly what it is, these must cause unnecessary stress & anxiety to dozens of innocent people

[xs2man]

Originally Posted by ihpj

With respect, this is about identifying the driver (i.e. personal responsible) and nothing more. The whole point of this exercise is to find and identify the responsible party (driver) to move the lines of enquiry forward.

It's a two edged sword Policing, whereby instances like these get reported people's reactions are 'the police never do anything' - yet when we are being proactive, it elicits the above sentiments and comments.

As I've said already, I've used this process myself many times to deal with infringements that I couldn't deal with at the time. I don't see that as being lazy, but actually proactive in that I am able to deal with more than just one thing at the same time ;o)

Yes, but what is happening here is identifying the driver of a particular make/model/colour of car. Not identifying the person responsible for the incident. In this case, its just the OP's bad luck he happens to drive a similar vehicle, within a certain radius of an incident.

I guess the language used shouldn't be so strong so as not to offend innocent parties, but on the other hand, if you were the victim of a hit & run, and, for example, 2 or 3 vehicle matching the description of the offender were in the vicinity at the time, and the police had recorded these cars, you would want them to find the offender.

I suspect innocent parties, such as yourself, would do as you did, and attach a cover letter detailing your innocence, while providing the information you are legally obliged to give. A guilty party, on the other hand, may react differently.

[pjs]

If they didn't send it registered/recorded post you ought to ignore it for now. This method has saved me quite a few points over the years

[IanS100]

They didn't send it recorded & the postman delivered if next door, fortunately my neighbour brought it round instead of dumping it.

As far as I'm aware it is deemed to be delivered once posted by the police & claiming non-delivery isn't a valid excuse for not returning

[pjs]

The post office lose millions of letters a week. Your call, all i'm saying is it worked for me and it is one of your options.

[dxb335d]

Could you have caused an accident without realising?

Someone ended up in a hedge due to something you did but you were unaware of?

It could happen?

[ihpj]

Originally Posted by IanS100

As far as I'm aware it is deemed to be delivered once posted by the police & claiming non-delivery isn't a valid excuse for not returning

Been discussed before, as long as it can be shown it was/has been sent, thats evidence enough for a Court. There is NO requirement to prove it was actually sent (and thereby received). Its like Court orders (Summons) and letters from your Mortgage Lender - all deemed to have been sent and received; its written into Law.

I'd love to know which instances the other poster has been successful in arguing they didn't receive a particular letter.

[ihpj]

Originally Posted by IanS100

My thoughts exactly, a lot of people would find this letter very distressing, it certainly caused me more than a little anxiety, not to mention the hours wasted on the phone & writing letters. I think it's disgraceful that the police can send these out with absolutely no evidence of involvement never mind guilt!

The wording and format is legally approved. its not down to the Police to modify it. Its actually prescribed wording that is used and has been tested in Court successfully. As for your latter comment on evidence, its about finding the evidence, thats why its asking for the driver details ;o)

And if you think about, people only really come into contact with the Police when things have gone wrong :P

[m@rk]

I understand why things are done this way but regardless of the words being approved or not, it causes unnecessary anguish to the innocent party

There ARE other ways to gain the same information.

Yes these are more resource intensive and in a world where police resources are stretched can understand the pressure to "do more with less" but that is no excuse for causing worry and upset to somebody who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Some people on the receipt of a letter like this will literally worry themselves into an early grave.

Did I really cause an accident?

Maybe I killed somebody?

Some people (especially the elderly) are natural worriers and the receipt of a letter like this is plain wrong.

So I stand by my comment. Lazy!