Reporting uninsured, untaxed, no MOT driver

[Bonefishblues]

Difficult to take the moral high ground here, OP.

[thirdcrank]

Hi @thirdcrank.

Re offences for which a NIP is required. On the schedule listing offences for which NIP is required (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... fe7a068929), it does actually include the following:

"RTA section 143 ... Using motor vehicle, or causing or permitting it to be used, while uninsured F46 ... Sections 6, 11 and 12(1) of this Act."

Does this mean that the police are in fact correct, and a timely NIP is required for pursuing someone driving without insurance?

I want to be sure of my facts before I write to commissioner etc.

Thanks

The short answer is that I'm confident that my original "NIP" responses were correct.

To explain your query in more detail, when looking at Schedule 1 of the Road Traffic (Offenders) Act 1988 the relevant info is in column three. The requirement for an NIP is made under s 1 of that act, and that's what to look for. Re s 143 "No insurance" Section 6 = time limits for commencement of proceedings; sec 11 = evidence of ID by certificate; s 12 = proof of ID of driver. And most important in this context, no mention of s 1 (NIPs)

I'm sure you will understand I didn't write any of this legislation - I just do my best to explain it, with links. Learned friends can be perplexed too, so here's the CPS advice to prosecutors on this subject. Scroll down the below link to Notice of Intended Prosecution where you will find pretty much my earlier explanation including this list of offences needing an NIP NB No mention of insurance, although that is covered elsewhere in CPS stuff

Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) offences to which s.1 RTOA 1988 applies include:

• Section 2 (dangerous driving)

• Section 3 (careless driving/driving without reasonable consideration)

• Section 22 (leaving the vehicle in a dangerous position)

• Section 28 (dangerous cycling)

• Section 29 (careless cycling)

• Sections 35 and 36 (disobeying certain traffic signs and police signals)

And under the Road Traffic Regulation Act

• Sections 16, 17(4), 88(7) and 89(1) (speeding offences)

Or aiding and abetting any of the above.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/r ... y-offences

[Blibbka]

Hi @thirdcrank.

Re offences for which a NIP is required. On the schedule listing offences for which NIP is required (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... fe7a068929), it does actually include the following:

"RTA section 143 ... Using motor vehicle, or causing or permitting it to be used, while uninsured F46 ... Sections 6, 11 and 12(1) of this Act."

Does this mean that the police are in fact correct, and a timely NIP is required for pursuing someone driving without insurance?

I want to be sure of my facts before I write to commissioner etc.

Thanks

The short answer is that I'm confident that my original "NIP" responses were correct.

To explain your query in more detail, when looking at Schedule 1 of the Road Traffic (Offenders) Act 1988 the relevant info is in column three. The requirement for an NIP is made under s 1 of that act, and that's what to look for. Re s 143 "No insurance" Section 6 = time limits for commencement of proceedings; sec 11 = evidence of ID by certificate; s 12 = proof of ID of driver. And most important in this context, no mention of s 1 (NIPs)

I'm sure you will understand I didn't write any of this legislation - I just do my best to explain it, with links. Learned friends can be perplexed too, so here's the CPS advice to prosecutors on this subject. Scroll down the below link to Notice of Intended Prosecution where you will find pretty much my earlier explanation including this list of offences needing an NIP NB No mention of insurance, although that is covered elsewhere in CPS stuff

Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) offences to which s.1 RTOA 1988 applies include:

• Section 2 (dangerous driving)

• Section 3 (careless driving/driving without reasonable consideration)

• Section 22 (leaving the vehicle in a dangerous position)

• Section 28 (dangerous cycling)

• Section 29 (careless cycling)

• Sections 35 and 36 (disobeying certain traffic signs and police signals)

And under the Road Traffic Regulation Act

• Sections 16, 17(4), 88(7) and 89(1) (speeding offences)

Or aiding and abetting any of the above.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/r ... y-offences

Thanks thirdcrank, this is very useful.
I could never be a lawyer, thus stuff is very opaque.

[thirdcrank]

When people are unsure what to do next, I generally recommend deciding what they want to achieve. I'm not going to plough through what is becoming quite a long thread but I'm not clear about your views in particular how important all this is to you.

The sort of thing you need to be clear about is eg If necessary, would you be prepared to attend court to give evidence?

AIUI, you had an unpleasant experience with the way a vehicle was driven, but you then left it a while, to the extent that your local force's NIP-related deadline for submissions was missed. At some point you researched the vehicle and found that its documentation seemed not to be in order. At that point, I would say that in my terms you have apparently witnessed some driving offences and your evidence is corroborated by your having recorded it with a camera.

Again, AIUI, your attempt to report this to the police has been thwarted by the website incorrectly treating the relevant offences as requiring an NIP. I could imagine some IT bod setting up a reporting system wrongly assuming that dashcam footage = complaint of bad driving. I can't remember whether you have spoken to somebody about this, but either way, this glitch seems to be unresolved.

It's not investing much to write as I've suggested to the CC pointing out the problem you have had with the website. I agree wholeheartedly that offences like "no insurance" should be tackled, but I know that the reality is that enforcement of road traffic legislation has not been a police priority for around forty years and it continues to slip down the list. The MIB stuff already linked shows the extent of uninsured vehicle use: there's a lot of it about

[Blibbka]

I would be prepared to attend court to give evidence, yes, and I will write to the CC.

[thirdcrank]

Thanks for that. NB having to go to court in unlikely, but the CPS evidential test means they need to have the admissible evidence to prove a case before anything else, so they need to know the attitude of potential witnesses

[fastpedaller]

I had a near-miss last week along with aggressive hooting/driving from a driver whilst I was cycling, and I reported to Police via 101. I was informed I would get a call to discuss yesterday evening (exactly 7 days later) and that happened (all good so far). I have been asked if I'd be prepared to go to court (they won't discuss the incident with the driver unless I agree to press charges). As there were no witnesses and no camera it would be unlikely to go to court (PC's words, which are a reasonable take on the situation IMHO). The vehicle has no MOT, but does have VED and insurance (maybe not due to lack of MOT?)
I have an email from the constabulary stating the MOT is a separate matter and will be dealt with. On that basis, I consider it's not worth taking further as it's unlikely to proceed, and if the driver knows he has been 'shopped' by a cyclist this may result in further aggression towards cyclists he encounters. He may find his lack of MOT comes back to haunt him? who knows.
One strange thing I can't correlate is why folk who don't have their legal requirements in order are predominantly those who drive badly?(that's what the stats show it seems) I'd have thought they'd drive more carefully lest they be caught

[thirdcrank]

If you abide with the regulations, it's nt easy to put yourself in the mindset of people who don't.

A lot of this is economics: if you have a low-paid job which requires travel to different workplaces at irregular hours, then driving a banger may make some sort of sense, especially if you think that the likelihood of meeting the police is small. Then, there are those who ignore all the bits of the law that don't suit them. Another point about the lack of police activity is that a lot of offending goes unrecorded