HELP court summons received

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by dyzio

Yeah, but aren't your bikes registered at the same address?

Yes they are.

But Liz and I are not married so we dont share a surname, the officer when he spoke to Liz knew this and refered to me by my surname.

[dyzio]

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

refered to me by my surname.

Was it possible for him to check it over the radio or something?

My point is, since your bikes were registered at the same address, there's no chance of you two not knowing each other.

Originally Posted by dyzio

Was it possible for him to check it over the radio or something?

My point is, since your bikes were registered at the same address, there's no chance of you two not knowing each other.

Exactly. A PNC check would reveal the keeper of the bike, the address and the insurance details (among other things) so they will have known that you live together.

Originally Posted by diamond

The police would have probably known exactly who they both were before stopping.

No, they would have known who the registered keeper of the bikes were but that doesnt prove who was riding it at the time and they would still have to acertain that.

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

Exactly. A PNC check would reveal the keeper of the bike, the address and the insurance details (among other things) so they will have known that you live together.

So... if thats the case.

Why didnt the OP in this thread get his NIP and why hasnt he had any supporting documentation evidence with his court summons.

Two riders, riding together, surely a PNC check on both bikes would have revealed the registered keeper without the officer asking the first rider to identify his mate ?

Unless the officer at the time didnt do a PNC check of course. But one would assume that normal process would be to run a PNC check at the time he was behind both riders ?

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

So... if thats the case.

Why didnt the OP in this thread get his NIP and why hasnt he had any supporting documentation evidence with his court summons.

Two riders, riding together, surely a PNC check on both bikes would have revealed the registered keeper without the officer asking the first rider to identify his mate ?

Unless the officer at the time didnt do a PNC check of course. But one would assume that normal process would be to run a PNC check at the time he was behind both riders ?

Yeh, but the registered keeper doesn't necessarily mean it's the rider. I have said several times in this thread that I would have sent a NIP and a S172 req to the reg keeper, because, IMO, there isn't sufficient ID of the rider.

Originally Posted by SVMAT

Everything has now become clear .......(we may have been riding slightly fast before we realised he was behind us)

Thank you so much for all the advice and help. Just got to see about acquiring this evidence, i will be contacting a solicitors on monday.

Ooops and you know the term may of been riding slightly fast actually means they were going for it...they wouldnt summons you for nothing..good luck!

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Unless the officer at the time didnt do a PNC check of course. But one would assume that normal process would be to run a PNC check at the time he was behind both riders ?

Do bikes have ANPR?

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Do bikes have ANPR?

I think they radio it in.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

Yeh, but the registered keeper doesn't necessarily mean it's the rider. I have said several times in this thread that I would have sent a NIP and a S172 req to the reg keeper, because, IMO, there isn't sufficient ID of the rider.

What do you think a court will make of it?