Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 22:28

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:28 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:08
Posts: 4
I have received a NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION for travelling at 40mph in a 30mph speed limit. I was not driving. The paragraph giving instructions on what to do if I was not driving contains a grammatical mistake which makes it nonsense:

"IF YOU WERE NOT THE DRIVER of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence and you are required to give any information in your power which may lead to the driver's identification by completing AND SIGNING Section B as appropriate overleaf."

I suspect it should read: "IF YOU WERE NOT THE DRIVER of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence then you are required to give any information in your power which may lead to the driver's identification by completing AND SIGNING Section B as appropriate overleaf." or perhaps the word "and" after “offence” should not be there. Then again it could also be that a crucial part of the sentence is missing.

Does this make the notice legally invalid? I am tempted to reply pointing out the the notice is invalid because the very instruction I need contains a grammatical mistake rendering it useless. By the time they are able to respond the 14 days will be over and they will not have sent me a valid notice within the allotted timeframe. Opinions and advice please.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:06 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
PePiPoo would be a good place to ask this question.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 14:35 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:08
Posts: 4
Steve wrote:
PePiPoo would be a good place to ask this question.


I tried and was asked for £22.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 15:00 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Bob Llewelyn wrote:
Steve wrote:
PePiPoo would be a good place to ask this question.


I tried and was asked for £22.

Oh, I am not aware they started charging for their services. Is that for 'membership' to get you into the Bad Boys And Girls (BB&G) area? Are they refusing to help you at all until you pay that membership?

Can anyone confirm that PePiPoo are now charging, and for what exactly?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 15:45 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:08
Posts: 4
Steve wrote:
Bob Llewelyn wrote:
Steve wrote:
PePiPoo would be a good place to ask this question.


I tried and was asked for £22.

Oh, I am not aware they started charging for their services. Is that for 'membership' to get you into the Bad Boys And Girls (BB&G) area? Are they refusing to help you at all until you pay that membership?

Can anyone confirm that PePiPoo are now charging, and for what exactly?



I was routed into an area with 4 solicitors online. I typed in my question and was then asked how much I was willing to pay for the advice with a suggested price of £22. I back out immediately.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 18:19 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
That's not my understanding of Pepipoo :?

I don't check-in there very often but I think they carry sponsors, who could possibly/potentially rip you off, so are you absolutely sure this is Pepipoo and not a sponsor?

I'm not sure what you mean by "routed"?

BTW, I like your style. ;)

:welcome:

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 20:44 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:08
Posts: 4
I went back to Pepipoo to see what I did. I had typed my query into the box titled "ASK AN ONLINE SOLICITOR" on their homepage without realising that wasn't actually Pepipoo. I see now that there is a forum on there so I'll register and have another go.

But does anybody on this forum have an opinion on whether my plan holds water?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 21:14 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Bob Llewelyn wrote:
I went back to Pepipoo to see what I did. I had typed my query into the box titled "ASK AN ONLINE SOLICITOR" on their homepage without realising that wasn't actually Pepipoo. I see now that there is a forum on there so I'll register and have another go.

But does anybody on this forum have an opinion on whether my plan holds water?

No - but you could try ( after removing all/any personal content so as not to be able to be identified,as certain SCP persons do troll these sites),
post a question ,in general terms on PH, IN "speed,plod & the law"

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 16:09 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
The penalty for not returning a correctly filled out s172 is 6 points. Even if the original offence is dropped.

You are free to challenge this in court. The test would be whether or not the wording was so obscure that a reasonable person would fail to understand the true meaning.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 19:29 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
fisherman wrote:
The penalty for not returning a correctly filled out s172 is 6 points. Even if the original offence is dropped.

You are free to challenge this in court. The test would be whether or not the wording was so obscure that a reasonable person would fail to understand the true meaning.

So if Engslush wusnt my fist language? :roll:

Mr Tone Imgaby

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 20:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
:welcome: Bob Llewelyn

You need to take proper legal advise, pepipoo is a good place for that - they have a NIP advice section and as you have already found a good forum to ask this question there.
I am not a lawyer and cannot advise you. The following are a few of my own thoughts on the matter only.

As suggested the precise (potentially inappropriate) wording may not relinquish you of the required responsibility to respond. I cannot see that this will negate you, or the driver too, of the alleged offence.
The Court will expect you respond as Fisherman has so advised already. The 14 day rule is that they need to provide you with the NIP which has been done to you. It is your responsibility as I understand it, to notify the appropriate authority, as to who you consider the driver may be. I would also notify the person to whom I think was driving too so that they have the earliest notification of the alleged offence.

Bob Llewelyn wrote:
I have received a NOTICE OF INTENDED PROSECUTION for travelling at 40mph in a 30mph speed limit. I was not driving. The paragraph giving instructions on what to do if I was not driving contains a grammatical mistake which makes it nonsense:
"IF YOU WERE NOT THE DRIVER of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence and you are required to give any information in your power which may lead to the driver's identification by completing AND SIGNING Section B as appropriate overleaf."
I agree that this is very odd wording. It will be about precision in Law and whether it is sufficient to provide alleged Notification, I believe.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.282s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]