NIP farms

Semple · 2 Jul 2022 at 08:21

Posting here rather than motors as I feel it's more general discussion related.

Came across an article about NIP farms (https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ter-manchester-borough-became-centre-24360342) where basically if a driver gets sent a NIP they respond saying they weren't the driver, and then provide the name and address of a "ghost driver" who the police then create a record for and pursue through the courts - and being convicted in absence.

I thought the idea was rather clever and certainly reveals some loopholes in the process. Had they not had so many drivers use the same name and addresses many times they might have gotten away with it.

Diddums · 2 Jul 2022 at 08:43

Dammit here I was thinking you were going to tell us about blokes who farm norks

Semple · 2 Jul 2022 at 09:13

Diddums said:
Dammit here I was thinking you were going to tell us about blokes who farm norks

Sorry Diddums I'll save that one for you next time.

peterwalkley · 2 Jul 2022 at 09:37

I'm sure Oldham featured heavily as the source of a lot of crash-for-cash fraud a few years back. I wonder if the same crims showed some entrepreneurial diversification in their activities.

GGizmo · 2 Jul 2022 at 12:04

The problem in a lot of these cases they won't be able to identify who is driving the car from the camera footage. If this is the situation then they should just drop the case.

I'm not sure why its legal for the police to write to the registered keeper asking them to self incriminate. I thought that was against the law?

Private vehicles aren't required to carry a log book of whos driven the car and when. So if its a non-business vehicle and can't identify the driver from the camera then its wasting tax payers money to take them to the court.

One More Solo · 2 Jul 2022 at 16:39

Is deliberately misleading the police/courts a loophole?

TheVoice · 2 Jul 2022 at 18:01

BowdonUK said:
I'm not sure why its legal for the police to write to the registered keeper asking them to self incriminate. I thought that was against the law?

It's in the Road Traffic Act. Why would it be against the law for the police to require the registered keeper to provide details of who was driving their vehicle?

Werewolf · 2 Jul 2022 at 18:33

One More Solo said:
Is deliberately misleading the police/courts a loophole?

Only in so much that it's a loophole that turns a fine/points into a nice relaxing all inclusive stay at one of Her Majesties famed holiday camps with such exciting activities as spending 20 hours in your room, your choice of slop, slop or more slop to eat, and a great chance to meet new people with interesting and exciting stories.

Werewolf · 2 Jul 2022 at 18:35

TheVoice said:
It's in the Road Traffic Act. Why would it be against the law for the police to require the registered keeper to provide details of who was driving their vehicle?

It's also basically one of things you are deemed to have agreed to when you use your driving licence.

People love to forget that when you are a driver, or registered keeper of a vehicle it's entirely voluntary and by doing so you're agreeing to abide by the responsibilities that come with it.

GGizmo · 3 Jul 2022 at 11:49

TheVoice said:
It's in the Road Traffic Act. Why would it be against the law for the police to require the registered keeper to provide details of who was driving their vehicle?

If its you who as driven the car yet they don't have any evidence its you i.e. no identifying camera shot to see you, then you'd be incriminating yourself.

They are only writing to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle, not because they are accusing you have doing it.

Edit: Ok, I was reading some more information. They can compel you to name a driver. But they still have to prove it was them.

Do I Have To Incriminate Myself? - Patterson Law

Patterson Law UK Motoring Solicitors - Frequently Asked Questions - Section 172 Offences - Do I Have To Incriminate Myself?

www.pattersonlaw.co.uk

Surveyor · 3 Jul 2022 at 12:17

BowdonUK said:
If its you who as driven the car yet they don't have any evidence its you i.e. no identifying camera shot to see you, then you'd be incriminating yourself.

They are only writing to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle, not because they are accusing you have doing it.

Edit: Ok, I was reading some more information. They can compel you to name a driver. But they still have to prove it was them.

Do I Have To Incriminate Myself? - Patterson Law

Patterson Law UK Motoring Solicitors - Frequently Asked Questions - Section 172 Offences - Do I Have To Incriminate Myself?

www.pattersonlaw.co.uk

The naming of the driver by the registered keeper will be offered as proof of who was driving. The link you've provided refers to still having to prove the other elements of the offence such as the vehicle was being driven on a road at a speed exceeding the limit.

GGizmo · 3 Jul 2022 at 12:43

Surveyor said:
The naming of the driver by the registered keeper will be offered as proof of who was driving. The link you've provided refers to still having to prove the other elements of the offence such as the vehicle was being driven on a road at a speed exceeding the limit.

Yes. But as the registered owner of the vehicle you're asked to say who was driving at the time of the offense.

It can be up to 2 weeks ago that the offense happened. If you don't say who is driving then the police can bring a case against you for failing to name the driver.

Surveyor · 3 Jul 2022 at 12:57

BowdonUK said:
Yes. But as the registered ~~owner~~ keeper of the vehicle you're ~~asked~~ required to say who was driving at the time of the offense.

It can be up to 2 weeks ago that the offense happened. If you don't say who is driving then the police can bring a case against you for failing to name the driver.

That is the law and is covered in the link you posted and earlier in the thread. BTW, it's offence.

GGizmo · 3 Jul 2022 at 13:07

Surveyor said:
That is the law and is covered in the link you posted and earlier in the thread. BTW, it's offence.

Yes, I think its a different law.

But its still hard for the police to prove as they have to accuse the person of lying i.e. a motive to lie.

Surveyor · 3 Jul 2022 at 13:18

BowdonUK said:
Yes, I think its a different law.

But its still hard for the police to prove as they have to accuse the person of lying i.e. a motive to lie.

Who would the police be accusing of lying?

GGizmo · 3 Jul 2022 at 18:56

Surveyor said:
Who would the police be accusing of lying?

I mean if you were the registered keeper of a vehicle and said you don't remember who was driving, they could then take you to court for failing to hand over details.

So they would indirectly be accusing you of lying, i.e. you knew who was driving but wasn't disclosing it.

I've had an experience of this in the past. 3 people could have legally drove my car at the time and the incident was nearly 2 weeks previous.

I requested to see the footage from the camera at the police station. It didn't show who was driving. So I said I don't know who was driving.

The police could have left it there. But decided to take me to court for refusing to provide the information.

It was thrown out of court.

Surveyor · 3 Jul 2022 at 19:11

BowdonUK said:
I mean if you were the registered keeper of a vehicle and said you don't remember who was driving, they could then take you to court for failing to hand over details.

So they would indirectly be accusing you of lying, i.e. you knew who was driving but wasn't disclosing it.

I've had an experience of this in the past. 3 people could have legally drove my car at the time and the incident was nearly 2 weeks previous.

I requested to see the footage from the camera at the police station. It didn't show who was driving. So I said I don't know who was driving.

The police could have left it there. But decided to take me to court for refusing to provide the information.

It was thrown out of court.

They probably have experience of registered keepers who do lie to avoid naming the driver while trying not to get prosecuted for failing to do so.

Werewolf · 3 Jul 2022 at 19:14

You as the registered keeper should be able to name the driver, it's fairly simple generally, and for everyone who genuinely cannot remember who was driving the vehicle they own and insure, there are likely dozens more who will be "i'll give it a go".
Hence it will go to court where the magistrates or a jury can hear the full evidence and see how reliable you seem to be as opposed to the police whose primary job in this is to gather the evidence and act as a bit of a filter for the court.

It's the reason companies that allow staff to use vehicles have a specific person who is deemed legally responsible, and almost any company who cares about the law will keep a log of some kind.

GGizmo · 3 Jul 2022 at 20:20

Werewolf said:
You as the registered keeper should be able to name the driver, it's fairly simple generally, and for everyone who genuinely cannot remember who was driving the vehicle they own and insure, there are likely dozens more who will be "i'll give it a go".
Hence it will go to court where the magistrates or a jury can hear the full evidence and see how reliable you seem to be as opposed to the police whose primary job in this is to gather the evidence and act as a bit of a filter for the court.

It's the reason companies that allow staff to use vehicles have a specific person who is deemed legally responsible, and almost any company who cares about the law will keep a log of some kind.

In my case the car was being driven nearly every day by multiple people in the same day. It's a personal vehicle.

The case was on the 13th day in the past. So I've no idea who was driving the vehicle on that particular time of day on a main road between my town and the next town.

I asked to see the footage at the police station, which they let me see. It didn't show the driver.

The cops should have dropped the case at that point. Apparently some do. Yet they decided to take it to court.

At court all 3 drivers (me included) showed clean licenses. So I'd no reason to lie i.e. to avoid points as I had 0 points.

The case was dismissed.

Though my case was made easier when the CPS solicitor started talking to me about another location and a different vehicle not connected to me. When he was asked to correct himself he didnt have any paperwork and withdrew the prosecution.

A waste of time and money.

They should probably have only taken it to court if they had a way of identifying the person driving in the video. Though if they had, I'd have seen it at the police station and confirmed the identity.

I don't know if the law as changed since then, but from my understanding only business vehicles have to maintain a log of who was driving a company vehicle at what particular time of day.

wez130 · 3 Jul 2022 at 20:54

This happened to me years ago, someone was caught in Manchester speeding and gave my name, they tracked me down to where I lived in Teesside at the time and I got a court notice, I had to go and give a non disclosure to say it wasn't me, that was the end of it.