Pepipoo PACE statement

laissez-faire · 7 Jul 2006 at 18:06

My boss kindly paid for a lawyer to investigate for me.

The reply was:

I don't accept the advice on the website about Mawdesley v Chief Constable of Cheshire. If the person has actually read the case properly, he would have noted that Mr Justice Owen rejected the argument that a person needed to be cautioned under para 10.1 of PACE and he indicated that an argument advanced to exclude a written confession would not have succeeded. In other words, the form of words advocated by the website is a load of tosh.

So make up your own minds........

willd58 · 7 Jul 2006 at 18:15

man what? i have no idea what all this is about, someone kindly explain please :confused:

Kamerad · 7 Jul 2006 at 18:16

By boss you mean dad :confused:

Serj · 7 Jul 2006 at 18:17

I think someone hired a lawyer instead of taking the normal route of using the internet to settle your legal problems and discovered that not everything on the internet is true. I think. Maybe.

andi · 7 Jul 2006 at 18:23

I think someone else has realised a large percentage of Pepipoo is a load of crap

mejinks · 8 Jul 2006 at 13:45

I used the pepipoo PACE statement twice and its worked for me.

merlin · 8 Jul 2006 at 13:51

I use the pepipoo statement with my work shirts - just a little scoop with every wash and they come out nuclear white.

Jez · 8 Jul 2006 at 14:30

mejinks said:
I used the pepipoo PACE statement twice and its worked for me.

Do you have any more details mate? I have only around a week left to respond to a NIP and was going to use the pepipoo pace statement. What was the accusation and outcome of yours?

L Plate · 8 Jul 2006 at 14:58

This got published in MCN a while back, a week after it was published MCN issued a statement saying it was garbage and they advised their readers not to try it.

Having asked a couple of solicitor friends of mine too (me cynical?

) i got told pretty much the same thing, its about as water tight as a sieve

Muncher · 8 Jul 2006 at 18:45

The bill of rights argument is a little more interesting...

Jez · 9 Jul 2006 at 10:49

mejinks said:
I used the pepipoo PACE statement twice and its worked for me.

Do you have any contact details? Interested to see how these went?

CocoPops · 9 Jul 2006 at 10:51

I also used the PACE statement back in December and have not been summonsed.

The Speeding charge timed out on June 16th and it seems likely that I will recieve no further action

Funny how plenty of people are quick to doubt (as I was) yet putting it into practice and following it through works.

Jez · 9 Jul 2006 at 10:53

What exactly did you do mate, i have a NIP for 60 in a 50. Thinking of responding as per pepipoo with the NIP crossed and the PACE attached. Is this what you did and under similar circumstances?

CocoPops · 9 Jul 2006 at 10:58

I recieved an NIP for 47 in a 40.

I waited until day 25 of the 28 day period you get, sent back the PACE statement along with their form (just wrote "see attached" across it and stapled the PACE letter to it).

I then got a fixed penaltly offer and a letter saying PACE did not apply as I could only be cautioned if a police officer was present.

I then waited....

I then got a reminder about the fixed penatly....

I then waited....

The speeding offence then timed out on June 16th (6months from "alleged offence").

In theory they have until July 16th to summons me for "S172 - Failure to produce driver details"....
However, if they do... then I can prove I did supply the driver details as I sent the PACE statement by special delivery with proof of signing

By virtue of the fact they issued a COFP, they acknowledge I've sent the driver details.

Hope that helps.

I certainly recommend a trip to the pepipoo forums for more help.

Amps · 9 Jul 2006 at 11:03

A note for people who don’t know what the PACE statement is it is not applicable under Scottish Law.

Jez · 9 Jul 2006 at 11:22

Thanks for that cocopops, i think i might as well give it a go then. I assume the time outs are 6 months for speeding, and 7 months for S172 then? It was already over 2 months ago down to the fact that the NIP's had to bounce between the lease company, then my employer, and then me

Rotty · 9 Jul 2006 at 11:54

Jez said:
Thanks for that cocopops, i think i might as well give it a go then. I assume the time outs are 6 months for speeding, and 7 months for S172 then? It was already over 2 months ago down to the fact that the NIP's had to bounce between the lease company, then my employer, and then me

it's 6 months for each but re the S172 the 6 months doesn't start until the 28 day period for you to respond expires

John_V85 · 9 Jul 2006 at 12:00

Running the risk of sounding a little retarded what is this all about?

TaKeN · 9 Jul 2006 at 12:06

Yes please explain to me aswell what this is all about

mejinks · 9 Jul 2006 at 12:06

I was allegedly caught doing 88mph in between the tool boths and the first flyover on the SSC, which I know is absolute rubbish, but nonetheless, I completed the form as per the pepipoo advice, waited 26 days and sent the letter. I then had another NIP, which I waited 28 days and attached another letter saying I had already filled one in and could they supply the evidence for me to examine.

8 months later I had a nice letter from Gwent police advising me that no further action would be taken and that I was not exempt from private prosecution should more evidence surface, which left me confused as they have 6 months to lay papers, which they clearly had not done. It was probably a standard letter, which didn't admit the fact they hadn't followed procedure and made it look like they were doing me a favour.

People can debunk pepipoo all they like, but when several people on the forums have successfully used their letters and defence, then either the debunkers are wrong or the law is wrong. Either way its worked brilliantly for me.