The Lyonator:
See: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/TrafficManagement/DG_10025598This page quite clearly states that Quote: “If a vehicle is caught speeding or jumping a red-light by a safety camera, the registered keeper will be sent a notice of intended prosecution within 14 days of the alleged offence.”
Richard
Scanny isn’t the registered owner 
montana man:
:shock:
I’m off to check me rule book
I was carried away !! I meant no !!! You can post NIP’s all day long its quite legal.
Better than nothing though isn’t it!?
Richard
The Lyonator:
See: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/TrafficManagement/DG_10025598This page quite clearly states that Quote: “If a vehicle is caught speeding or jumping a red-light by a safety camera, the registered keeper will be sent a notice of intended prosecution within 14 days of the alleged offence.”
Richard
Correct, the registered keeper has to get it on 14 days. The driver of said vehicle is under no such time constraints unfortunatley.
The Lyonator:
Better than nothing though isn’t it!?Richard
In this whole sorry case i would say least said soonest mended !!!
Power to the people
This thread is descending away from the topic, and into a attack on the participants.
The questions being asked by the opening poster have been answered by both the company that recieved the notice to identify the driver, and by other members pointing towards official websites with clarification of the rules.
It is a matter of opinion wether this issue has been dealt with in a manner that would have been the quickest and simplest to sort out. Even if you believe there was a better option to sort this out attacking the personality of the member behind the post is not acceptable.
Please feel free to discuss the issues, and the manner that was taken to try and sort it out. please refrain from personally attacking any individuals or entities involved or posting.
If the above does not happen the post will be locked.
i appreciate that you have to enforce the forum rules Rikki but just for the record, it takes a lot more than this lot to bother me. its a forum, no skin off my nose what people think of me 
regarding the topic though, what would be achieved with talking to pollocks? the NIP came through my door therefore their part in this had already been played. any correspondence between me and them would make no difference. i had to send the NIP back to the SCP regardless of any other discussions so the outcome is entirely up to them. a conversation with pollocks prior to or after returning the NIP would have solved nothing. totally pointless
scanny77:
a conversation with pollocks prior to or after returning the NIP would have solved nothing. totally pointless
Not totally true.
scanny77:
on a saturday at 12.15 on the A1i havent received it yet but there are mitigating factors so i might get away with it.
- i have only ever worked for them once and it was a thursday
- on that thursday, at 12.15, i was on the customers site at newton aycliffe
- i have only done one job other than iceland over the past 2 months and that was the thursday at pollocks
methinks they are trying to use me as a scapegoat to cover someone else. it does raise a question though
how do THEY prove who was driving when the driver still has the tacho? i dont mean the driver proving his innocence. in this case, i am going to be as difficult as i can be for them
again Mike, they couldnt prove anything. my name wasnt on anything there other than the tacho i filled in on the one day i did work. no signing in/out sheets, licence copys etc etc etc. i knew i hadnt been there so i had nothing to gain. i had to fill in and return the form and there was nothing i needed to know prior to doing that. the reason i was on the form in the first place was completely irrelevant to the filling out of the actual form itself 
Mike-C:
The Lyonator:
See: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/TrafficManagement/DG_10025598This page quite clearly states that Quote: “If a vehicle is caught speeding or jumping a red-light by a safety camera, the registered keeper will be sent a notice of intended prosecution within 14 days of the alleged offence.”
Richard
Correct, the registered keeper has to get it on 14 days. The driver of said vehicle is under no such time constraints unfortunatley.
I believe the NIP has to be sent within 14 days. When you receive it makes no difference, and if they say that they sent it then they did Not receiving it or receiving it late makes no difference if they claim it was sent within 14 days.
If the one at the centre of this thread has a date showing when it was sent which is more than 14 days after the alleged offence it might be another matter.
Just my humble opinion regarding what I understand to be the case.
gardun:
If the one at the centre of this thread has a date showing when it was sent which is more than 14 days after the alleged offence it might be another matter.
the date on this one makes zero difference. as i am not the keeper, this one will not be the first to be sent out. the original thread regarding this was dated 24/08/2007 which is the day i first heard about it from the agency. i can only assume that the original NIP was received on that day which is within 14 days of the alleged offence
teddy_0781:
Lmao Tuff justice take your points and start collecting for the toaster
It seems to me that Hanlon’s Razor applies here…
MrFlibble:
It seems to me that Hanlon’s Razor applies here…
more like " scannys law " 
I think Scanny has a right to be ■■■■■■ off, ok he went really over the top.
Pollocks are responsable as the registared keepers, yet they don’t know who is driving their trucks. They would have had to send the agency details and state who was driving the truck. When i was working for an agency some places have numerous guys from the same agency working.
So what do they just contact the agency say one of your guys was driving a truck went through a camera, without giving any details of who was driving it. Pollocks must have stated Scannys name.
So i think this shows Pollocks aint doing much checking when they have given the wrong details of who was driving the truck to the agency. Doubt it was malicious but its a bit of a f-up.
If an agency driver was involved in a hit and run, would Pollocks just say to the police well no idea who was driving just some guy from the agency would that suffice.
Secondly i think the agency have been shown to be completly useless and most at fault. Pollocks don’t know Scanny, easier to make a mistake. But the agency also don’t seem to have a clue who was working where and when. If i were working for an agency i would expect them to contact me first and ask me about it. Was i driving this vehicle, was i doing this route, check details before sending my details away anywhere.
If i was Scanny i’d be ■■■■■■ off since both the agency and pollocks dont really seem tto know their arse from their elbow with keeping track of who is driving what. Ok i wouldnt be as paranoid and i wouldnt be seeking vengance. but i would be ■■■■■■ off at having to write letters and deal with the police because two other proffesional companies both screwed up.
“Achems Razor”
All things being equal, the most simple explanation is probably the correct one
Perhaps the simplest explantion would be it was a simple mistake we all make them
Simple mistakes can be simply corrected
Kenny1975:
I think Scanny has a right to be ■■■■■■ off, ok he went really over the top.Pollocks are responsable as the registared keepers, yet they don’t know who is driving their trucks. They would have had to send the agency details and state who was driving the truck. When i was working for an agency some places have numerous guys from the same agency working.
So what do they just contact the agency say one of your guys was driving a truck went through a camera, without giving any details of who was driving it. Pollocks must have stated Scannys name.
So i think this shows Pollocks aint doing much checking when they have given the wrong details of who was driving the truck to the agency. Doubt it was malicious but its a bit of a f-up.
If an agency driver was involved in a hit and run, would Pollocks just say to the police well no idea who was driving just some guy from the agency would that suffice.
Secondly i think the agency have been shown to be completly useless and most at fault. Pollocks don’t know Scanny, easier to make a mistake. But the agency also don’t seem to have a clue who was working where and when. If i were working for an agency i would expect them to contact me first and ask me about it. Was i driving this vehicle, was i doing this route, check details before sending my details away anywhere.
If i was Scanny i’d be ■■■■■■ off since both the agency and pollocks dont really seem tto know their arse from their elbow with keeping track of who is driving what. Ok i wouldnt be as paranoid and i wouldnt be seeking vengance. but i would be ■■■■■■ off at having to write letters and deal with the police because two other proffesional companies both screwed up.
spoken by another sock who doesnt even know where he loives himself…Glasgowish…
montana man:
“Achems Razor”
All things being equal, the most simple explanation is probably the correct onePerhaps the simplest explantion would be it was a simple mistake
Simple mistakes can be simply corrected
I think you mean Occams Razor My dear chap
Saratoga:
montana man:
“Achems Razor”
All things being equal, the most simple explanation is probably the correct onePerhaps the simplest explantion would be it was a simple mistake
Simple mistakes can be simply correctedI think you mean Occams Razor My dear chap
NO NO I was talking about his brother , honest 
