New Template Letter (free to Members)
I’ve got a new template letter for you (in blue below), but first let me explain what it’s for...
I had a social catch up with our chief Solicitor, Matthew, yesterday.
One of Matthew’s pet hates is how the Speed Camera Partnerships mislead members of the public who don’t know the Law.
When you receive a ticket and you don’t know who was driving, you are legally obliged to tell the Police who could have been driving.
So that could be your partner, daughter, friend ...whoever.
You should then put the names and addresses of all people who could have been driving on a piece of paper, staple it to the NIP, sign the NIP, and send it back.
Note: Make sure you always write on the NIP “REFER TO ATTACHED DOCUMENT” so if they ‘lose’ the attachment it can be referenced at Court.
Now what is supposed to happen according to the Law is that an NIP is issued to each of the individuals named.
They can then respond to say whether they were driving or not.
However, what is ACTUALLY happening is that the Camera Partnerships are writing back and misleading the registered keeper.
They say (paraphrasing) “Dear Fred Bloggs, May we remind you that you are obliged to name ONE driver and not the four" (or however many) "that you have named. We will give you 28 days to reply to this notice”.
This is absolutely misleading!
Under the Law, you must name the person or people who could have been driving at the time of the alleged offence after making the appropriate enquiries.
There is no Law stating that you should nominate only one person, or limiting the number of people you can nominate.
So, if they try this one on you, then just send a letter back saying:
(if you are a DriveProtect Member then of course this will all be done for you)
Dear (NAME)
Thank you for your letter dated (DATE).
I have taken advice and can confirm that your assertion that I am obliged to supply the name of just one possible driver is legally incorrect.
By doing so I would be lying and so would be perverting the course of justice.
I have supplied you with the names and addresses of the people who could have been driving at the time of the alleged offence, as is my responsibility under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act.
Yours sincerely,
(SIGNED)
(YOUR NAME)
Feel free to save this letter and share it with your friends and family.
Happy motoring,
Adam
http://www.driveprotect.co.uk/
I had a social catch up with our chief Solicitor, Matthew, yesterday.
One of Matthew’s pet hates is how the Speed Camera Partnerships mislead members of the public who don’t know the Law.
When you receive a ticket and you don’t know who was driving, you are legally obliged to tell the Police who could have been driving.
So that could be your partner, daughter, friend ...whoever.
You should then put the names and addresses of all people who could have been driving on a piece of paper, staple it to the NIP, sign the NIP, and send it back.
Note: Make sure you always write on the NIP “REFER TO ATTACHED DOCUMENT” so if they ‘lose’ the attachment it can be referenced at Court.
Now what is supposed to happen according to the Law is that an NIP is issued to each of the individuals named.
They can then respond to say whether they were driving or not.
However, what is ACTUALLY happening is that the Camera Partnerships are writing back and misleading the registered keeper.
They say (paraphrasing) “Dear Fred Bloggs, May we remind you that you are obliged to name ONE driver and not the four" (or however many) "that you have named. We will give you 28 days to reply to this notice”.
This is absolutely misleading!
Under the Law, you must name the person or people who could have been driving at the time of the alleged offence after making the appropriate enquiries.
There is no Law stating that you should nominate only one person, or limiting the number of people you can nominate.
So, if they try this one on you, then just send a letter back saying:
(if you are a DriveProtect Member then of course this will all be done for you)
Dear (NAME)
Thank you for your letter dated (DATE).
I have taken advice and can confirm that your assertion that I am obliged to supply the name of just one possible driver is legally incorrect.
By doing so I would be lying and so would be perverting the course of justice.
I have supplied you with the names and addresses of the people who could have been driving at the time of the alleged offence, as is my responsibility under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act.
Yours sincerely,
(SIGNED)
(YOUR NAME)
Feel free to save this letter and share it with your friends and family.
Happy motoring,
Adam
http://www.driveprotect.co.uk/
posted by Adam Blair at
11:36 AM
