DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101237--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: NewJudge Date: December 6, 2025, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They might not tell you.
There is an exemption in the FOI Act that does not require
information to be released if it might prejudice the prevention
and detection of crime.
#Post#: 101239--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: ivanleo Date: December 6, 2025, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NewJudge link=topic=9042.msg101237#msg101237
date=1765022668]
There is an exemption in the FOI Act that does not require
information to be released if it might prejudice the prevention
and detection of crime.
[/quote]
I would argue that if the prejudice has already occurred
(because the crime cannot be effectively prevented or detected
while the existing issue (whatever it is) remains in place),
then disclosure cannot cause any further prejudice so the
exemption is not engaged.
#Post#: 101650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: BertB Date: December 9, 2025, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=andy_foster link=topic=9042.msg101203#msg101203
date=1764960774]
On faceache, a poster who had an SAC booked - for 68 in a VSL 60
on the M6 in Cheshire received an email cancelling the SAC
(with promise of refund) with near identical wording ("Kent
Police" replaced with "We").[/quote]
Also the following post, possibly from the same page but for a
different event on the M1.
[quote]HI, I received a notice for speeding on the M1 by
Nottinghamshire police for doing 57 in a temporary 50 zone. Fair
enough.
I was all booked in to take the course and received a letter
from the police stating:
"We write regarding a notice of intended prosecution recently
sent to you under section 172 road traffic act 1988 in relation
to the above offence. We have been made aware of an issue
relating to a number of speed enforcement cases in the UK . As a
precaution there will be no further action in relation to this
case. Yours faithfully ..."[/quote]
#Post#: 101664--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: mickR Date: December 9, 2025, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=filippi9 link=topic=9042.msg101183#msg101183
date=1764956537]
The alleged offense occurred on the 6th of Aug on the M25
anti-clockwise Junction 5, Westerham. There was a temporary
speed restriction of 50 mph due to roadworks.
[/quote]
was the temp limit signed by static temp roundals or by the VSL
signs (gantry)?
#Post#: 101668--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: NewJudge Date: December 9, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]"We write regarding a notice of intended prosecution
recently sent to you under section 172 road traffic act 1988 in
relation to the above offence.[/quote]
I wasn't aware that s172 of the Road Traffic Act required a
Notice of Intended Prosecution to be sent. You learn something
new every day.
#Post#: 101678--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: andy_foster Date: December 9, 2025, 6:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As a term of art, "Notice of Intended Prosecution" does not
appear anywhere in s. 1 (or 2 for that matter) RTOA 1988 or s.
172 RTA 1988.
We have seen numerous cases where conflating a written warning
and a requirement for information under s. 172 RTA 1988 has
caused confusion or issues - mostly the potential for OPs to
wishfully think that a late NIP (particularly when they are not
the RK or haven't updated the V5C) means they can simply bury
their head in the sand and ignore the incorporated s. 172
requirement, but in the context of this thread, this is pure
pedantry. If you wish to engage in such pedantry, may I suggest
that the next time a motoring case comes before you you ask the
prosecution to show you where in Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic
Offenders Act 1988 it prohibits whatever it is the criminal scum
before you is accused of doing?
In the alternative, a NIP almost invariably incorporates an s.
172 requirement. Whilst the title of the combined document,
which as previously mentioned does not exist as a term of art in
the legislation, is descriptive of the requirement under s. 1
RTOA 1988 which the first such notice in the chain frequently
purports to satisfy (where such a requirement applies), the
combined notice is served in some cases to satisfy the
requirements of s. 1 RTOA 1988, and in almost all cases to
engage the obligation under s. 172(7) RTA 1988 - so the notice
was sent "under" s. 172 to the extent that the word "under" is
meaningful. S. 172 does not in and of itself "require" a notice
to be sent out, unless the police wish to engage the obligation
under s. 172(7), in much the same way that s. 1 does not require
a NIP (or other form of written warning without that term of art
as a title) to be served, unless the police wish to prosecute
the driver and have not verbally warned him at the time of the
commission of the offence. So, if you wish to engage in
pedantry, make sure you get it right - but mostly the Schedule 2
thing.
#Post#: 101757--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: d612 Date: December 9, 2025, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is also this thread on the MSE site where it appears (from
the last post) that a significant number of booked and accepted
speed awareness course are being cancelled and refunded -
presumably with a view to cancelling the entire NIP.
So all in all indeed something odd is going on
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6645074/your-national-motorway-awareness-course-offer-has-been-withdrawn-by-west-midlands-police/p2
#Post#: 101762--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: NewJudge Date: December 9, 2025, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well that’s me told! 8)
I mentioned the discrepancy because the quote was from a letter
sent by the police. Whilst I understand that it is common for a
NIP and a Section 172 request to be conflated by their
recipients, I would not expect the police to be similarly
confused – even if they usually do print both of them on the
same sheet of paper.
To a lay idiot such as me, the phrase “….sent to you under
section 172 road traffic act 1988” suggests that s172 either
requires or provides for the issue of the notice. But it does
not. But s1 of RTOA does – assuming, that is, the police want to
succeed with a prosecution (and if they don’t there’s little
point in them taking enforcement action for offences which have
that requirement). The term "Notice of [the] Intended
Prosecution" is mentioned and its contents specified.
[mod edit: Admittedly, the capitalisation of the words "Notice",
"Intended" and "Prosecution" would tend to indicate that it was
indeed a term of art, with or without the word "the". Except
that they do not exist in that form (capitalised, as to indicate
a term of art) in the statute.]
This thread is exploring possible reasons why the police might
have discontinued a speeding allegation. There could be any one
of a number of explanations for this including procedural errors
on the part of the police.
I’m not for one minute suggesting that the discrepancy I
mentioned might lead to such a discontinuation. But rather than
being pedantic, I was simply pointing out that – like me – the
police do not always get everything right and that may be a
reason for the discontinuation.The
#Post#: 102318--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: Brenda_R2 Date: December 13, 2025, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just an update, my FOI Request was refused with: Due to the
wording of the request this does not constitute a valid request
under Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act. The word
‘divulge’ is a broad term and not specific to information that
may be held by Kent Police.
I have responded accordingly.
#Post#: 102581--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cancelled speeding NIP
By: d612 Date: December 15, 2025, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
NOW we see what has being going on at last.
HTML https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15386377/Drivers-wrongly-fined-speed-camera-scandal-motorways.html
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page