[NIP Wizard] they have lost my section 172 statement |
[NIP Wizard] they have lost my section 172 statement |
Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 21:26
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 4 Jan 2011 Member No.: 43,207 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - November 2010 Date of the NIP: - 4 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 6 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - yew tree drive 50mph nr preston new rd (ne) blackburn (e div) mobile Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - n/a How many current points do you have? - 0 Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - I have returned the original NIP by recorded delivery and yet have received a reminder. I have rang the CPU and they say they have not received it NIP Wizard Responses These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation: Have you received a NIP? - Yes Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes Were you driving? - Yes Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England NIP Wizard Recommendation Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:26:42 +0000 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 21:26
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 21:30
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,374 Joined: 29 Mar 2008 From: South of John O Groats Member No.: 18,387 |
Have you checked the Royal Mail website using the tracking number to see if has definetely been received? If it has, then it is their problem as to what they have done with it. You would have fulfilled your obligations!
-------------------- Results from taking councils on regarding PCNs (Lines and signs)
Quickboy 2 Torbay Council 0 Quickboy 1 Swindon Council 0 If a council tell you your own name, check they are correct! Always challenge PCNs. Make them work for their money! |
|
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:16
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22,678 Joined: 23 Mar 2009 Member No.: 27,239 |
Isn't there case law including Gidden that a document sent recorded delivery is deemed served whether the addressee receives it or not ?
|
|
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:21
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,816 Joined: 20 Dec 2008 Member No.: 24,962 |
Prob, but if PO has not delivered it according to tracking OP can get his postage fee refunded and still claim Recorded service.
|
|
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:24
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
Isn't there case law including Gidden that a document sent recorded delivery is deemed served whether the addressee receives it or not ? No, that is s1(2) RTOA 1988 applying to NIPs. Spacedog, if they send you another in the form of a reminder you are equally obliged to complete that one. -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:58
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22,678 Joined: 23 Mar 2009 Member No.: 27,239 |
Isn't there case law including Gidden that a document sent recorded delivery is deemed served whether the addressee receives it or not ? No, that is s1(2) RTOA 1988 applying to NIPs. Spacedog, if they send you another in the form of a reminder you are equally obliged to complete that one. The RTOA is just an example. This turns up frequently in landlord-tenant disputes. The OP is able to prove that he sent the original. If he receives a reminder what prevents him writing "Please refer to previous reply" and sending it back ? |
|
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2011 - 00:01
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Have you checked the Royal Mail website using the tracking number to see if has definetely been received? If it has, then it is their problem as to what they have done with it. You would have fulfilled your obligations! What he said. Isn't there case law including Gidden that a document sent recorded delivery is deemed served whether the addressee receives it or not ? No, that is s1(2) RTOA 1988 applying to NIPs. Spacedog, if they send you another in the form of a reminder you are equally obliged to complete that one. There was a recent Scottish case that decided that the original s. 172 requirement to the accused was *the* requirement, albeit in the context of the scammers attempting to get around the 6 month rule. Isn't there case law including Gidden that a document sent recorded delivery is deemed served whether the addressee receives it or not ? No, that is s1(2) RTOA 1988 applying to NIPs. Spacedog, if they send you another in the form of a reminder you are equally obliged to complete that one. The RTOA is just an example. This turns up frequently in landlord-tenant disputes. The OP is able to prove that he sent the original. If he receives a reminder what prevents him writing "Please refer to previous reply" and sending it back ? Certain notices sent under landlord and tenant legislation are deemed to have been served when they were posted, regardless of when or whether they were delivered. In such cases, s. 7 Interpretation Act 1978 is deemed not to apply because of a contrary intention expressed by the legislation (often written is special invisible ink that only judges can read). There appears to be a potential argument that, particularly when postal service is the only service allowed by the scammers, that merely sending the response is good compliance with the requirement, but I'd only recommend trying to run that if it was the only option (other than pleading guilty to s. 172). If the response has been delivered (according to the Royal Fail tracker), I'd be minded to do nothing. If not, I'd be minded to provide the information again. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:09 |