Safe Speed Forums

Received a NIP, requested to view the callibration certficiate and received this. Is it true?

You are not entitled to view or have access to maintenance,calibration records or photographs before you comply with the S172 notice to nominate the driver at the time of the offence, accept the offer of fixed penalty or 7 days before your case is heard in court however all of our calibration certificates are contained on the documents stored at the link provided. You will find that there are no devices that are out of calibration on the website at the time of your offence so there are no calibration certificates on the website that would undermine the case against you or serve to assist in your defence.

I can't find a certificate for the van / camera on the date of my alleged offence. Do I not have any rights to see this?

Note it says "the offence", not "the alleged offence".

Copied word for word from an email (my bold). Is it just me or does the bit in bold not make sense?

Suggest you enquire over at Pepipoo, but I think it's basically right as the S172 request is at this stage to require the registered keeper to identify the driver.

You are quite right to point out they said "the offence" not "the alleged offence". Who the hell do these people think they are - they can only talk about "the offence" if you accept a fixed penalty ie "plead guilty" or are convicted by a court. The scammers really should watch their language.

BTW this is Cumbria scammers isn't it? Do you have the name of the person who wrote the letter? Personally I would write to the Chief Constable making a complaint against the author, making it clear that should the matter proceed to court, you will call the author IN PERSON to explain why they feel they are empowered to circumvent due legal process.

Probably wont affect the outcome, but I would enjoy my day in court...

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).

Not only that, it says your offence, so not only have they decided that an offence was committed prior to that being proven, they have decided that you're the guilty party! I wonder whether a decent solicitor could make something of that?

IANAL but AIUI, at this point they are merely exercising their right under S172 to require the registered keeper of a vehicle to disclose the identity of the driver at a particular time and place. At this point, you (personally) are not accused of speeding. Even though there is an allegation that a speeding offence was committed, until you respond to the S172 the alleged offender is a "person unknown". Thus, you have no right to see the evidence against the alleged offender until you 'fess up to being the driver.

However, if there is any doubt as to who was driving you can request a copy of the photographic evidence to help you identify the driver. Of course, if the photos can't help identification, they could refuse - in which case, you'd probably have a good para 4 defence (being unable to identify the driver having taken all reasonable steps).

You really should get over to PePiPoo.

HTH,

_________________
Will

If and when you have accepted you are the driver ask for a copy of all the evidence under the Data Protection Act, particularly if it is an LTI 20.20 video, as it is then personal data held by the police about your movements.

For this you write to say something like, “I am now making a Subject Access Request under section 7(1) of the 1998 Data Protection Act that you provide me with a copy of all the data you are holding with respect to the speeding allegation you have made against me”.

It is important that you do this as soon as possible after getting the NIP if you want to see the evidence before the expiry of the Fixed Penalty Offer.

The police may try to claim exemption from the Data Protection Act because it is evidence for criminal proceedings, but that claim by them was not upheld by the Information Commissioner's Office, so let me know if that happens.

As pointed out by Anton, it would also seem that under the Data Protection Act 1998, Chapter 29, Part IV, Exemptions,
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm
Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.: Section 35.

(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions (i.e. not exempt from disclosure) where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions (i.e. not exempt from disclosure) where the disclosure is necessary, (a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or (b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

Would like to see what a legal eagle makes of this.

At work , it is a requirement that all test equipment holds a calibration certificate. On that cert are listed the equipment ,c/w serial no's and calibration details of the test equipment used for the test.These details can be traced back to a National Standard, showing and proving that all test equipment complies with a standard and is accurate.
If the trail is broken etc then that calibration certificate is null and void.
How much work would it cause to request to see the chain of calibration for eg a Gatso.And how long would it take them to produce proof that such a chain exists, and the expense .............................more than £60 i'll bet.
And if proved once that the chain could not be confirmed --- every Gatso is suspect till proved otherwise ??

_________________
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

But without an offence they cannot use S172

I was recently caught out by a mobile speed camera van on the A249 between Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey. I ended up in court contesting the case. Unfortunately I couldn't afford a solicitor. I argued that the LTI 2020 camera was not properly calibrated because the photograph did not show the camera serial number and that I was clocked at a distance of 203m and the calibration certificate only measured up to 100m. The magistrate dismissed this out of hand as it boiled down to my word against the camera operator. It would seem that a grainy photo with what amount to some meaningless numbers is sufficient to convict.

botach

Unfortunately you are confusing rational engineering and science with the legal process, where it seems they can ignore reality and common sense providing it is the law.

Hold on a minute What does the wording of S172 actually say about this?

If it's wooly enough (e.g. the police can on reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed require the registered keeper to disclose the identity of the driver), then all you need is an alleged offence and the scammers really should watch their language. Their stating that an offence has been committed and that it is "your offence" must be unreasonable.

If, however, the wording of S172 only requires the RK to disclose the identity of the driver where an offence has been committed, then surely the onus is on the scameratsi to prove that an offence has been committed before they can require the RK to disclose under S172. Quite how they could prove that without having a defendant escapes me. At "worst", they'd have a hard job making S172 charges stick because it would not be proven at the time the S172 NIP was issued that an offence had been committed, and so the S172 NIP would be invalid

Just a thought ...

_________________
Will

The full text is available online.

So, an allegation is all that is necessary to invoke S172 and the scameratsi in the OP's case are well out of order. ... before it was proved either that an offence had been committed and so were jumping the gun a little

_________________
Will

JonhF

Can you please give the email address

What i am looking at is the requierment for the equipment to be proved to be calibrated - legal requirement -is it not or at least one of the boasts of the SCP.
For that statement to be true , then all equipment used to calibrate must be capable of being proved to be calibrated, otherwise doubt exists on its calibration status and the quoted speed of 36 could well be 33 or 29.9

_________________
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

I take it you meant the web site address

There are two bits you need - the 1988 Act which is the original, and the 1991 Act which contains a truckload of amendments, in particular S21 which expands S172 of the original.

JohnF

Yes of course, sorry for my confusion and many thanks for the information.