Hi all,

I have just received an NIP today delivered through my letterbox but with a completely different address to mine which happens to be the next street along but a totally different address (ie delivered to 14 Molyneaux Drive where as I live at 14 Bispham Square.(Not correct addresses, but same context)). Would this qualify under the 'slip rule'? 14 Bispham Square is on the V5 by the way. I believe either someone from Molyneaux drive delivered it to my address although I do not know these people or the postman delivered it with a batch of letters in my uncommon name! Please advise where to progress with this. Many thanks. (I have never lived at Molyneaux Drive by the way!)

This post has been edited by swisstony: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 19:39

The OP has received it, is aware it is for them and should therefore work on that basis.

Depending on how the mail was delivered (i.e. the postman recognised the name or the people at the other address delivered it) then it could backfire spectacularly.

I still suggest ensuring 14 days has passed, respond the s172 request unequivocally and point out that the address on the NIP is different to that on the v5 and therefore fails to meet the necessary requirement of s1 Road Traffic Offenders Act were it was not sent to the 'last known address'. They may retract or they may not - it's up to the OP whether it's worth a court fight with the usual risks. (Although, it would be good to clarify how the 'error' occurred just in case this is something that could reoccur)

Seems reasonable to assert that the wrong address falls foul of the RTOA, in the hope that the police may withdraw.

However, I think the OP would be bonkers to consider going to court.

Section 1A says:



It clearly was "delivered" to him within 14 days, and I think he would be hard pushed to convince the court that the legal meaning of the wording would exclude the specifics of delivery in this case.

Agreed. The key is not to point this out and hope they do withdraw.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 14:31

Was it?

According to OP, it was delivered to him within 14 days. So no dispute there.

However, whether it's allowed to take a roundabout route within those 14 days might be a different matter.

I do not see why that should make a difference, a letter never goes direct from the police to the RK, it goes via a couple of sorting offices at least, if in addition it goes via the next street, and thereby follows an unexpected route, why should that make a difference?

I'm with you on this. It was clearly delivered to the OP within 14 days.

How would the prosecution prove that it had been delivered? Would they be allowed to 'extract' the required info from the OP?

Or would they for some reason not have to prove that it had been delivered?

They could use OP's posts from this forum.....

But first, OP has to risk jail time claiming it never arrived.

So they don't have to prove it was delivered, unless it's raised as a defence point that it wasn't? Got it

I believe that the defence has to refute the claim that the NIP was effectively served. Something that isn't necessarily easy even with the postman as witness (see PeterGuk's signature).

This post has been edited by thisisntme: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 - 00:50

As far as I can see, if it was not properly addressed then there can be no presumption of service.
Without that, what are they going to say if they are asked to prove that it was served correctly?

Wouldn't it go something like this:

1) Prosecution claim that it was served to his last known address
2) Defence rebut the claim that the address on the NIP is his last known address
3) Prosecution ask OP if it was delivered
4) OP either;
------- a) Admits it was delivered (guilty of original offence and FtF), or
------- b) Refuses to answer (probably found guilty of original offence and FtF)

This post has been edited by RottenToTheCore: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 - 01:51

If a letter arrives through your letter box that is incorrectly addressed would the right thing to do be to mark it as 'not know at this address' and pop it back in a postbox?

It's a judgement call when the letter arrives I suppose but I'd certainly be inclined to return it in these circumstances and wait to see what happens next.

Once opened that option has obviously passed but should you open mail that is not addressed to you in the first place?

We 'lose' a lot of our mail to a different part of the locality due to the city expanding and subsuming small villages with the same street names - we receive some of the mail for the other area and some of ours appears at our address late with try 'our location' hand written on it. Almost all of the 'lost' mail has the correct postcode on it.

There's a chance the postie noticed (apparently distinctive) name on the letter and posted it through the 'correct' door.

With one's name on top I suspect the majority would open it.

'Ignoring' it is likely to see proceedings commenced for failing to furnish. Although, a defence may well be available, it's still a lot of hassle to jump through hoops with a Statutory Declaration and attendance at court. (Assuming any reminder/summons is not received - of course a summons/requisition dropping through the door under the same circumstances cannot be ignored)

Fighting it on the 'front foot' would be better than the 'back foot' imho.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 - 16:01

A conviction for the original offence (speeding) under the above scenario cannot be secured. Accepting the NIP had been delivered (or refusing to say whether it had been or not) does not provide evidence of who was driving.

So long as the truth is told by the OP there is little chance of avoiding at best a penalty for speeding (unless the matter is dropped under “embarrassment”) and at worst a conviction for FtF. He cannot say he did not receive the NIP. He cannot say it was not delivered to him. He cannot swear a Statutory Declaration that he knew nothing of the matter. The plain fact is that the NIP was delivered to him (by whatever means) and it was in time. Section 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act (which deals with the service of the NIP) says this:

The requirement of subsection (1) above [which deals with the various methods of serving a NIP] shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.

One of the options to deliver the NIP under subsection (1) is (a) “By delivering it to him”. It was delivered to him. Albeit not by the conventional route but subsection 1(a) does not restrict the method of delivery or who should undertake it. This puts the onus on to the OP to prove that the NIP was not delivered and he cannot do so without lying.

I have to say that to consider going to court with this, which is almost certain to fail (unless lies are told under oath) is foolhardy. To risk a financial penalty of >£1k (and three points) for a matter that would normally be dealt with by a SAC (cost of around £100 and no points) is not very good odds.`

Even if the OP then gets a visit re a possible PCOJ charge? Doesn't sound like good advice to me. Remember this forum is monitored. Once the OP came here, he is bound to follow the lawful and honest direction even though that might not be to his advantage.

My question was just that a question not advice - if you think/assume the letter received is for you it could be proved it was or was not but only AFTER it was opened.

The OP has opened the letter even though it was not correctly addressed to him so any thought of returning it was, as I stated, not an option.

I'd still be interested to get an opinion on the question raised though

I think if it was clearly addressed to me by name but to the wroing address - as seems to have happened here - I may be inclined to open it. If, however, it was wrong in both name and address I'd mark it "not known" and shove it back in the post.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 - 09:21

Indeed, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

However, the OP hasn't been back for a while so we'll have to wait and see what happened if they do come back.