DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 45408--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP/s172 received for registration mark fails to conform
with regulations
DIR By: baroudeur
Date: November 13, 2024, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it technically possible for a fixed camera to show if a front
registration plate of a moving vehicle is attached in compliance
with the specified measurement? Unless, of course, it's so badly
placed it's obvious!
A photo taken manually as evidence would, normally, result in a
windscreen notice.
#Post#: 48985--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP/s172 received for registration mark fails to conform
with regulations
DIR By: ft_sjo
Date: December 9, 2024, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=266]baroudeur[/member] [member=885]RichardW[/member] -
Thanks for your replies. To give some extra context (there's
always some, right?):
There was an event for the public held at a commercial premises.
At least in one instance, the police had set themselves up
road-side nearby to 'catch' potential offenders leaving the
event.
As far as I am aware, the police were only present on the
near-side of the road, pulling people into a layby. I do not
know what device or location was used to capture evidence in
relation to the allegations against me. My assumption it was a
mobile/portable camera used as part of this temporary road-side
posture.
[member=885]RichardW[/member] - To answer your MOT question, yes
the vehicle was MOT'd with this plate. However, the MOT rules
don't go into the same level of detail as the Act would require
(e.g. MOT tester isn't going to stand 22 metres away from the
vehicle at 45 degrees to read the plate).
[member=266]baroudeur[/member] The vehicle would have been
moving at time of evidence capturing, so no notice on the
vehicle, hence the NIP.
So did return the s172 request, and the Conditional Offer of
Fixed Penalty arrived last week.. Attached to post. Looks like I
wouldn't get to see any evidence, as people have pointed out,
unless I take it to court.
I am pretty confident that there is practically no way the
police could have clear evidence that the plate was not fully
readable from a 90 degree window of viewing. They may have it
from one viewpoint, but multiple? Doubtful.
It's just £100, I get it. I also think things should be right
and proper, but as I get older I am somewhat of a pragmatist,
and appreciate there's no practical way the police could enforce
this rule whilst a vehicle is mobile, unless the plate is
missing or something very obvious.
What are the potential implications of taking this to court? Is
there a way this could go to court and not cost me more than
£100? Even taking time off work is worth more than that to me.
What if I am found guilty? Is that a criminal record? I get DBS
checked for my job. I need to consider this.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 48991--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP/s172 received for registration mark fails to conform
with regulations
DIR By: 666
Date: December 9, 2024, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is not a recordable offence, so no criminal record.
#Post#: 49004--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP/s172 received for registration mark fails to conform
with regulations
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: December 9, 2024, 7:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Is there a way this could go to court and not cost me more
than £100?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, if you plead not guilty and are acquitted. If you are
convicted it will cost you probably £1k. Even with a guilty
plea, the prosecution costs alone will be around £100. The
"victim surcharge" might double that (depending on your income)
and that's before you get to the fine).
#Post#: 49179--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP/s172 received for registration mark fails to conform
with regulations
DIR By: baroudeur
Date: December 10, 2024, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Why do you think there is photo involved? It may be that your
vehicle was seen arriving at, or inspected at, the "public
meeting on private property" and a non-compliant plate noticed.
Leaving the property onto the highway with same plate resulted
in the NIP being issued.
It seems unlikely that it has anything to do with the offset
mounting of the plate but about the details on the plate. You
posted "However, the MOT rules don't go into the same level of
detail as the Act would require" which suggests that your plate
does not conform fully.
A not guilty plea to see the evidence could be an expensive
alternative to a £100 penalty.
#Post#: 49183--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP/s172 received for registration mark fails to conform
with regulations
DIR By: mickR
Date: December 10, 2024, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: baroudeur link ---
> It seems unlikely that it has anything to do with the offset
mounting of the plate but about the details on the plate. You
posted "However, the MOT rules don't go into the same level of
detail as the Act would require" which suggests that your plate
does not conform fully.
--- End Quote ---
the OP was refering to the viewing from a distance that is
stated in the act, but an mot tester wouldnt fo that.
The OP has stated the plate otherwise conforms although we only
have his opinion on that.
#Post#: 49249--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP/s172 received for registration mark fails to conform
with regulations
DIR By: ft_sjo
Date: December 10, 2024, 3:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=75]mickR[/member] This is correct. The plate does
conform, and was issued by a company registered to produce
plates and has the relevant BS watermark on it. The issue
isn't/shouldn't be the plate itself, but I expect it's down to
the visibility.
It goes against my soul to pay up for a fine without evidence. I
am however on the fence with regards to does it bother me enough
to want to pay more than £100 to prove a point. I suspect I will
end up just paying it (even if it's just to keep the wife
happy). Blah.
#Post#: 49252--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP/s172 received for registration mark fails to conform
with regulations
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: December 10, 2024, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> I am however on the fence with regards to does it bother me
enough to want to pay more than £100 to prove a point.
--- End Quote ---
If you prove your point it will not cost you a penny. It will
only cost you more than £100 if you fail to prove your point.
#Post#: 49257--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP/s172 received for registration mark fails to conform
with regulations
DIR By: mickR
Date: December 10, 2024, 4:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
it sounds like a case of plod targeting participants of a car
meet in order to dissuade them from attending said meets by
issuing questionable PCNs. from the OPs description of events it
would appear plod may have difficulty in actually proving and
offence
#Post#: 49258--------------------------------------------------
Re: NIP/s172 received for registration mark fails to conform
with regulations
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: December 10, 2024, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that any PCN issued by the police is necessarily
fake, not merely questionable.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page