Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: seylectric Wed, 23 Apr 2003 - 21:20
Post #93

I have just been caught speeding by a fixed Gatso camera. I have just received in the post the Notice of Intended Prosecution. It is 17 days since the offence.

Since I did not recieve the NIP within 14 days can I still be prosecuted?

Posted by: Mika Thu, 24 Apr 2003 - 05:33
Post #94

Hi,

You should read the http://www.pepipoo.com/NIP.htm very carefully and what http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2924.html has to say about this.

NOTE: Even if the NIP was received late, the recipient must still complete, sign and return the S172 notice naming the driver.

The RAC Legal Team gave one of our visitors the following suggested letter, and they recommend that it be posted via Special Delivery and that a copy of the NIP is attached to such a letter.

The letter was sent to the Officer in Charge of the Safety Camera Unit, and not the CC. They felt that the Officer would likely bury the matter, whereas a letter to the CC could start a Steward's Enquiry, an avalanche of justification posturing and I might lose in the end through foul means. The letter will be sent to you as a copy when the outcome is known - that way we'll not be passing on unhelpful letters to people needing helpful advice.

Also, it was on the A449 at Llantrissent, Usk, and the RACm (in response to the question about why they send them out after 14 days), stated that most people pay them and don't get advice. There is no repayment mechanism for people who have paid, who really should not have paid owing to the NIP being 'time-expired', (RAC's description for late NIPs).

Also, they were firm on the 14 days. They said that the 70+ mph was an absolute offence, but there were some absolutes on the Police as well. The 14 days is an absolute, mentioned in the Act etc and not a guideline, so it IS THE LAW.

They were careful to go over the exceptions and allowable circumstances, hire car, company vehicle, borrowed car etc, and changed address from that lodged at DVLC etc.; basically, every conceivable pretext for getting it to me late that was arguably not the Police's fault. Also, they said that being 26 days after the alleged offence was not arguable in terms of postal lag.

We'll see. But I now remain hopeful. The worst that can happen now is a malicious Fixed Penalty that can be served after the 14 day period, but the RAC have asked me to get back to them should this happen.
+++++
Nicholson v Tapp
(DC) Divisional Court
c.1972

Summary

Abstract: A notice of intended prosecution posted on the fourteenth day after the alleged offence does not comply with the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 241(2) (as amended). A notice of intended prosecution for an alleged offence of dangerous driving was posted to T by recorded delivery service on the fourteenth day after the incident in question.
Summary: Held, the notice did not comply with s. 241(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 (as amended). (R. v London County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee Ex p. Rossi [1956] C.L.Y. considered).

Cases Cited

R. v London County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee Ex p. Rossi, [1956] 1 Q.B. 682; [1956] 2 W.L.R. 800; [1956] 1 All E.R. 670; (1956) 120 J.P. 239; (1956) 100 S.J. 225 (CA)

Legislation Cited

As amended by Road Traffic Act 1962 s. 51
Road Traffic Act 1962
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 241
END OF DOCUMENT

Posted by: seylectric Sat, 26 Apr 2003 - 00:51
Post #96

for your excellent advice. I will post here on a later date with the outcome.

Posted by: brgccfc Sun, 17 Aug 2003 - 16:44
Post #585

any news on what happened ?

Posted by: Mika Sun, 17 Aug 2003 - 16:54
Post #587

Hi,

What do you think happened?…..

He heard no more - the Police didn’t even acknowledge receipt of the letter.

But, as you probably know, bullies “don’t like it up 'em”.

Posted by: jdrowen Tue, 11 Nov 2003 - 08:44
Post #2870

Hello,

I was caught by a mobile camera van on the A5 doing 71mph in a 60mph area on the 28 September 2003.

I was the registered keeper and the driver at the time.

The NIP didn't arrive until the 21 October 2003 (about 23 days after the camera caught me).

I sent the suggested letter to the central ticket office stating that the ticket was "time-expired".

However they have sent a letter back saying that the original NIP was sent to the previous owner within the 14 days and resent the NIP to me on the 1 October 2003 (which is still over the 14 days) 1 October to 21 October.

Can someone please give me some advice as to what I write back to them.

Regards

John

Posted by: Mika Tue, 11 Nov 2003 - 09:10
Post #2872

John,

Two things:

Have you checked with the previous keeper, that what the police have told you is accurate?

How long have you been the registered keeper of the vehicle? Because:

I have been informed that the DVLA provide the details of registered keepers to the police in the form of tapes, which are then load on to the PNC – Police National Computer. The PNC is used to provide the details for the issuing of NIPs etc.

However, failure by the police to comply with section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is not a bar to conviction of the accused where the court is satisfied –

(a) that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for a summons, or as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement , OR
(B) that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the delay.

Posted by: jdrowen Tue, 11 Nov 2003 - 09:35
Post #2875

Mika,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

1. I have not been in touch with the previous keeper yet - how do I find his number?.

2. I bought the car on the 12 September 2003, which is only two weeks before the offence (28 September). I assume that the information was not loaded onto the PNC in time for them to issue me with a NIP.

My full name is: John Derfel Rhys Owen but on the NIP I received, it only had Owen as my name - can I make an issue out of this?

I am not 100% clear on your second point in your reply.

John

Posted by: Mika Tue, 11 Nov 2003 - 12:40
Post #2890

John,

In my opinion, the 14 day rule may not apply in this case, and the error with your name can probably be rectified by means http://www.pepipoo.com/NIP.htm#Slip_Rule

I suggest that you speak to http://www.prycewoodrow.co.uk and you should explain that I suggested that you speak to him.

However, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=603

Posted by: jdrowen Tue, 11 Nov 2003 - 13:50
Post #2896

Mika,

I think I might give in on this one - fill in the NIP and sign it and receive my punishment of £60 and 3 points.

Thank you very much for your help.

Keep up the good work

Regards

John

Posted by: robketh Wed, 12 Nov 2003 - 16:37
Post #2975

Hi Mika,

Thank you very much for your helpful advice to seylectric and others.

I am in a similar position to seylectric, though with one difference.

I drive a company (lease) car and have received from my fleet manager a copy of the NIP sent to my company (registered keeper/owner of the vehicle). The date on the NIP is 18 days after the date of the offence (36mph in 30mph zone).

Being a lease car will the 14 day rule apply? I imagine they would have had to contact the lease company first in order to get my company's details.

My company have obviously sent the NIP back stating my name as keeper.

My second question is, should I write a similar letter to the one shown in this thread now, or should I wait until my own copy of the NIP arrives?

Also, reading elsewhere in this forum it seems that writing such a letter sometimes does not receive a reply. Is it ok to assume the case has been dropped or could one get a nasty surprise a while after?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Kind regards,

Rob.

Posted by: brgccfc Wed, 12 Nov 2003 - 17:06
Post #2979

If your vehicle is a lease car then they will write to the lease company not your company and this must be "sent" ie posted within 14 days. They have no restrictions on time to send out subsequent NIP's.
You can check with the DVLA who was listed by them as the registered keeper at any given time , just ring them up, i did and if you read my post under company cars or summit there is more details.
If you had only had your car for two weeks it will more than likely still be in the last keepers name. Mine took months to actually swap over.
Good luck Bob

Posted by: robketh Thu, 13 Nov 2003 - 15:48
Post #3053

Thanks, Bob. I will check with the DVLA but it seems very likely that they would have contacted the lease company first, so the 18 days means nothing. Looks like I will have to bite the bullet and accept the 3 points

I want one of those speed limiters fitted that have been trialled in a few Skodas. I don't want exceed the limit any more, but sometimes you do accidently. What a ridiculous situation.

Then it would be the producer of the limiter that would be responsible for keeping the car within the limits.

Posted by: black knight Thu, 13 Nov 2003 - 16:49
Post #3060

I am in similar circumstances. I received a N.I.P. 18 days after the alleged offence. I have spent a long time researching this & was pointed in the direction of your website. I have responded with a letter along the lines suggested by R.A.C. accompanied by a copy of the N.I.P. which I signed, timed & dated. What should I do now ? I am loathe to fill in the rest of the form as I cannot remember who was driving the vehicle that day.
Please advise me as to what course of action to take!
Regards Black Knight 8)

Posted by: nigeldunne64 Thu, 13 Nov 2003 - 18:07
Post #3070

Black Knight a) wait and see if you get the Police to drop the case as time expired. B) If not you have the paragraph 4 defence if you don't know who was driving. Ask to see the photos to help ID the driver. If they don't help do polite letter pointing out you cannot ID the driver and offer to list the possible drivers. they will then drop the case most likely.
All the people above you giving up - don't there are so many other ways. If you have bothered to find this site you probably aren't quitters are you

Posted by: robketh Fri, 14 Nov 2003 - 09:42
Post #3084

Thanks for the encouraging words. It seems difficult to know how to wriggle out of this one - in my case though only over the limit by 6 mph it is technically a 'fair cop'. I believe the camera was a Truvelo which flashed from the front. I imagine they can see me (yes I may ask for the photo) but anyway I will not go to the lengths of lying about who was driving or that I don't remember who was driving, because I do!

I know you can ask to not be banned due to mitigating circumstances where huge hardship can be proven, but I am not aware the same applies to points.

What other ways are there?

Maybe I'll just have to start driving an electric OAP buggy .

Posted by: nigeldunne64 Fri, 14 Nov 2003 - 12:20
Post #3103

No Rob, the only way to avoid the points are : 1) If the force who caught you operate the driver awareness type course where instead of paying the £60 and get 3 points you attend a few hours of lectures on the dangers of speeding or 2) you read MrWonderfuls post at the top of this forum and get your wife to return an unsigned completed form. If you go this route you are doing all that the law requires and you have a good chance of avoiding any fine/points/insurance bills/worry re losing your job if you get to 12 points and a ban. But it is your call and not everyone wants the stress and grief.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 14 Nov 2003 - 12:42
Post #3106

Nigel,
Ref your point 2) to be fair I don't think we can say that that is fully established yet can we?

Simon

Posted by: Jimbob Mon, 17 Nov 2003 - 22:37
Post #3216

Like Robketh I drive a company car and was surprised to receive a NIP through the post. However I only received it last week and it was for an offence on 16/08/03.

So does the same rule go for me even though it was nearly 3 MONTHS after the claimed offence!! I know that the company were only contacted on the 5th November, and I find it hard to believe that the lease company would take 6-8 weeks to respond to the first NIP.

To say I was surprised to receive the Notice is an understatement as it was on the A38 dual carriageway (2-Laned) in Bristol by the M5, which I thought should have been a 70mph, but apparantly is 40mph. Therefore any advice would be appreciated, as I am rather peeved and gutted, and don't really want them to get away with being soooo sly!!

Cheers

Posted by: froggo Mon, 8 Dec 2003 - 02:00
Post #4121

Oh no. Sometimes when driving you need to put the foot down to get out of a tricky situation. These dangerous devices will cause far more accidents than they prevent. It's a real shames that metal cameras don't have any common sense.

Posted by: black knight Wed, 17 Dec 2003 - 19:11
Post #4637

OK update ! The powers that be reckon the NIP was issued on time with the expectation it would arrive within the 14 day period. It was issued on the 7/11/03 & the offence occured on 25/10/03. I received NIP on 11/11/03. I returned a copy of letter by Staffs Police but they reckon that this does not apply in my case ! I ask for Photographic evidence to try & identify the driver at time, as someone came down to purchase some 15 inch wheels off me but they wanted to know what the car handled like on 17 inch rims so they took the car for a drive ( leaving me the keys to their car & the passenger as insurance. I havn't a clue to their names now but have evidence that I had wheels for sale ). Anyway the photographic evidence dosn't really help bit I've studied the picture & it has TIMEDOUT ! So does this make the PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE INVALID as quoted in another part of this excellent website. On the road in question although in a built up area it is dual carriageway but there are no SPEED LIMIT signs & no SPEED CAMERA warning signs until well after the point shown on the picture !
They are starting to quote 172 & will prosecute it I don't confirm driver etc & I have another 13 days to comply. I really am in a quandrie as what to do next ? Do I seek legal advice or put in another letter stating mitigating circumstances ?
I hate SPEED CAMERAS especially when you don't know about them until you get a NIP in the post, & when you go to see where they are you realise it was a well hidden MOBILE one ! :? :x

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 18 Dec 2003 - 08:36
Post #4646

If they 'issued' the Nip on the 13th day, then unless it was posted immediately (unlikely) they did not post it with the expectation it would arrive within 14 days, you should ask for proof of when it was posted!

Because it says TIMEOUT dosn't necesarily make it invalid, you need the whole video clip to determine whether or not it is valid, but you could ask for a photo showing a valid speed recording, if they can't produce one, then you definately want a look at the video!

Not sure what you mean about speed limit signs, go to www.abd.org.uk for its excellent descriptions of how they should be, if the signing isn't legal then again thats another reason for them to drop the case (they would rather drop it than get you a public aquittal!)

Simon

Posted by: Mika Thu, 18 Dec 2003 - 08:54
Post #4647

Hi,

You should check the traffic video because there should be at least four frames before http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_LTi2020_screen.htm but remember that you only asked for the evidence "to assist you in identifying the driver”.

There is a 48hr rule for delivery of normal post. So, if they raised the NIP on the 13th day, how did the police ever think that they would be able to comply with the legal requirement http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_2.htm#mdiv1 to “serve” the NIP within 14 days?

Unfortunately, http://www.pepipoo.com/Hidden_speed_traps.htm, so basically they can do what ever they like.

Posted by: coco b Tue, 27 Jan 2004 - 13:14
Post #6049

Guys

What do you think of my chances?

I was caught by a video machine on the A74. The video apparently shows me doing 88 in a 70 limit and was mounted on a bridge over the motorway.

The alleged offence was on 23 November 2003 and the NIP was POSTED on the 21st January 2004, 2 months later! It is a company car, but surely that's a ridiculous amount of time?! What advice can anyone give me. I'm sitting on points already, and am kinda desperate!

Thanks

Col

Posted by: cjm99 Tue, 27 Jan 2004 - 13:58
Post #6052

The 14 day ruling only really applies to the first NIP sent to your employer.
Still worth checking with them when they received it though.

The best current defence, is 'dont know which of us was driving'.. this assumes that more than you have access to the vehicle, and both of you are equally unsure who it was. Remember though, purgery is a far more serious offence, and should not be attempted.. Just like Christine and Niel Hamilton last month!!!!!

Best of luck anyway

Posted by: coco b Tue, 27 Jan 2004 - 17:31
Post #6077

Thanks

I might reply to the NIp asking them to provide me with a copy of the original NIP. Can I do this? Surely it would be dated whenever it was sent first?

Alternatively, If my fleet management company sent back my details and there was a FURTHER 14 days wasted, Is there any chance of getting out?

Last one. Considering the frst I've heard of this is 2 months after the event (and I genuinely don't remember the details of the drive) how easy is it to claim that I don't know who the driver was? The driver was on their own in the car, and It's a company car registered through a fleet management co. so there are a few people insured on the car. My office will probably not be overly supportive if called upon though.

Posted by: black knight Fri, 6 Feb 2004 - 16:29
Post #6648

I have a Summons one for speeding !
The other for failure to provide driver name or signature.
I accept I was speeding but do not agree with NIP arriving 18 days later. I also do not agree with Speed signage as I have turned onto a Dual Carriageway from a 30 limit & there are no signs to state 30 limit until further down the road upon which there is a repeater sign saying 30 at which point I slow down obviously ! For reference the dual carraigeway I turned onto joins another dual carraigeway for which there is a 30 limit. My point is there are no signs on original dual carraigeway.
I provided evidence that I was the driver but never a signature !
In mitigating circumstances, at the time my grandmother, to whom I had a very close relationship, was on her death bed so I really don't recall to much as I was very upset that she was going to die.
Do you think I should involve a solicitor ?

Posted by: nigeldunne64 Sat, 7 Feb 2004 - 14:19
Post #6707

Black Knight, what happened between your December posting and the summons. You stated in Dec you wanted photos to ID the driver. What happened after that?
Fill us in and we can hopefully help - and cheaper than any solicitor!!

Posted by: coco b Mon, 9 Feb 2004 - 12:05
Post #6811

Guys

I've written back to the police re my NIP and asked the for photographic evidence to identify the driver and asking why it took 2 months for the NIP to reach me.

Does this continued correspondence mean that I don't have to complete the NIP at the moment? i don't want to end up getting nailed for not providing info within 28 days.

Many Thanks

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 9 Feb 2004 - 12:15
Post #6814

No, any correspondance does not allow the 28day limit to slip, however most magistartes take a constructive view, and if you were endeavering to reply 9and can show this) and some of the delay was on the part of the Scameraship (failing to supply photo's) then you are unlikely to be convicted, but its not impossible!

Simon

Posted by: coco b Tue, 10 Feb 2004 - 11:36
Post #6904

D'oh!

Oh well. I suppose I'd better bite the bullet. Although it strikes me that this time limit is really there to scare people into paying up before they get in trouble!

They've written back with two photo's, which aren't too clear, and don't really identify the driver. They haven't responded to my queries over why I didn't get the NIP for two months. Any advice?

Thanks

Posted by: black knight Tue, 10 Feb 2004 - 17:44
Post #6947

Reasons not to be Cheerful !
1: Nip issued on 13th day after offence !
2: Nip duely arrives 18 days after offence !
3: Photographic evidence shows my car, but driver is obscure so no clear identification can be made ! Photographic evidence has timed out so surely not valid as this is what they are using in court !
4: I have not signed form as I feel bullied into doing so ! I suggest I am probably the driver but cannot be sure due to short term memory being terrible !
5: I turn from Single Lane into dual carriageway & no Speed Limit signs although it is a built up area !
6: I reckon they are gonna have a field day with me in Court guys !
7: Do I get a Solicitor for a damage limitation exercise ?
8: Somewhere I must be in with a chance ?

Posted by: toony Sat, 21 Feb 2004 - 11:15
Post #7593

I was flashed by a mobile camera on the 4th December and did not receive the NIP until the 8th January. I duly returned the NIP quoting the '14 day rule' only to be told that as I had private plates on my car (by the way the car was a new car and I'd only had it a day) that the info could not be ascertained as quickly from the DVLA which therefore made it an exception of Section 2 of the RTA 1988. A couple of letter exchanges have subsequently happened where I have asked for photographc evidence , calibration certificates and offisers statement , none of which they have sent. If I want to view the photograph I have to make an appointment at the station in Middlesbrough , unfortunately I work in London during the week and cannot get there. They have said another officer will do the ID !! Do any of you think I have a case ? I was allegedly doing 41 in a 30. The camera was sighted 200mts from a 60mph zone behind some bushes and certainly not an accident blackspot.

Thanks

Toony :?

Posted by: Mika Sat, 21 Feb 2004 - 12:55
Post #7602

Toony,

I have been informed that the DVLA provide the details of registered keepers to the police, in the form of tapes, which they load on to the PNC – Police National Computer. The PNC is then used to provide the details for the issuing of NIPs etc.

However, failure by the police to comply with http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_2.htm#mdiv1 is not a bar to conviction of the accused where the court is satisfied –

(a) that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for a summons, or as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement , OR
(B) that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the delay.

The way I read the above is that, if the police have tried to serve the initial NIP in line with the rules, but have been thwarted by unforeseen circumstances, the 14 day rule can be ignored.

I suggest that you read http://pepipoo.com/Section_172.htm because, you could be liable to prosecution, if you not provide the name of the individual that was driving at the time of the alleged motoring offence.

Unfortunately, http://www.pepipoo.com/Hidden_speed_traps.htm.

Posted by: toony Sat, 21 Feb 2004 - 18:28
Post #7610

Thanks Mika

I'm confused then I think , surely 35 days is far longer than required to get the necessary information ? Otherwise why have a 14 day rule in the first place ? Am I misunderstanding ?

Posted by: Tiger Sun, 22 Feb 2004 - 21:19
Post #7643

Just interested in a point re private plates. I notice in this case that you had only had the car a couple of days. I was flashed by a camera in Sussex in November but have never received anything so just presumed it was a fake / faulty whatever. I do have private plates on my car though although at that time they had been on the car over 2 years. It was also its original identity and has never had any other number registered to it. Do all private plates hold up the identification process or do the tapes the police get identify such a car as quickly as any other? I presume after all this time I must be clear from getting anything nasty through the post but I just wondered for future reference.

Posted by: DW190 Mon, 23 Feb 2004 - 09:30
Post #7653

Tiger asked:

No they dont hold up the process and Yes they get the identity as quickly as any other.

The only hold up would occur when someone transferred his private plate to a replacement vehicle.

DW

Posted by: Mika Mon, 23 Feb 2004 - 09:45
Post #7655

Toony,

The problem in your case could have nothing to do with your private plate:

“I was flashed by a mobile camera on the 4th December and did not receive the NIP until the 8th January. I duly returned the NIP quoting the '14 day rule' only to be told that as I had private plates on my car (by the way the car was a new car and I'd only had it a day)”

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 23 Feb 2004 - 12:43
Post #7672

Black knight,
Just one obvious point, if you exit a road that is a 30 limit, why should they tell you that you are 'entering' (as in still in) a 30 limit just because its a dual carriageway..frankly that sounds a pretty poor excuse and not one to bring up in court!

Simon

Posted by: toony Sat, 28 Feb 2004 - 09:58
Post #8061

Looks like their patience has ran out and they have wrote and said they have sent my details to court ! Looks like I'll have to pay up and shut up this time.

Posted by: Beggarall Sat, 13 Mar 2004 - 15:05
Post #8821

Hi
Bringing this to the top. I have a similar problem except the NIP sent to me was dated 10 March 2004 and the alleged offence (54 in a 40) was on 17 December 2003 (84 days beforehand). I am the registerd keeper etc and I will certainly reply using the contents of the letter at the beginning of the thread .... but what do I do with the S172? Do I just send it back uncompleted? or hold it back till the end of the 28 days (and then what?) do I admit to being the driver (it is likely that I was but others could have been driving - do you remember exactly what you were doing 3 months ago?)
I am finding this unbelievably stressful and time consuming and I have lots of better things I could be doing. Deep inside I just wonder whether copping the plea and accepting the fine and points (licence curently clean) isn't going to be the easiest way out....however, I am quite insensed and prepared to fight it provided I have a good chance of winning. Any advice will be gratefullly recieved.

Posted by: Blackbird Sat, 13 Mar 2004 - 17:49
Post #8828

Beggarall

You have obviously read this thread so I will not go over 'old' ground.
You said

Are you happy that you know no reason why the partnership could not get the NIP to you on time ? Change of address perhaps? If there are no reasons that you can think of, IMO you are on very good ground.
The only down side is that you have to 'go through the process' in other words
Send in the NIP completed and signed.
Turn down the 'opportunity' to pay £60 fixed penalty.
Ask to be heard in court and plead NOT GUILTY.

If you take this route, all the advice that you will need will be available on this site.



Fully appreciate the stress but rest assured you will feel a whole lot better knowing that you are in command of the situation.
The final decision is yours but WHY cop the fine and points when you don't need to? IMO you should always fight the first NIP - if you don't, the potential for license loss in the future is only a couple of steps away.


Anybody else think of an easier route?

Best Regards

Posted by: viper Sat, 13 Mar 2004 - 18:12
Post #8831

Check the postmark on the envelope that's basically your answer!

Posted by: Beggarall Sat, 13 Mar 2004 - 19:24
Post #8834

Thanks for your quick replies. I know of no good reason why the NIP should have been delayed - the car was registered in my name on 25 July 2003 and the DVLA sent me documents to re-tax the vehicle in January. Unfortunately I did not keep the envelope but it is the actual date on the NIP that reads 10 March 2003 and I received it yesterday (12 Mar). I had been wondering whether to just send the "out of time" letter and hold onto the S172 for now (or even just sending it back without writing anything on it). Any other thoughts?

Posted by: Blackbird Sat, 13 Mar 2004 - 19:49
Post #8835

Good news that there appears to be no reason for the delay.
The reason that I suggested what might be viewed as a 'long way round' is you can be certain (justice permitting) that it will be dismissed the moment that it hits court - and you can claim back your expenses!
The out of time letter may well work - as it should do - but it may just set them on another tack.
On the subject of the S172, what have you got to loose in sending it in signed? The demand for information is separate from the alleged speeding offence - the last thing that you want is for them to start proceedings for non supply of information! (Could of course change on Tues but that is another story)

Just adding this section in as an edit.
Is there a possibility that this is actually the second NIP? Some areas send out a duplicate NIP and letter as a chase up prior to taking court action!
A letter that I have seen even says you have 28 days from the date of the offence to supply the information - which is obviously 'impractical' if this follow up NIP is sent out three or four months after the alleged offence. If the first one never arrived, the later NIP would appear to be the first!
Is there any indication that they view this as a 'continuation' of correspondence?
What area are you in?
Does anybody else have past experience in this area?

Sorry if I appear to have muddied the waters, but I always like to cover all eventualities.

Best Regards

Posted by: jeffreyarcher Sat, 13 Mar 2004 - 23:41
Post #8840

What he has to lose is that if there does turn out to be a good reason for the delay, he has lost the opportunity to go 'unsigned' if he wishes.
bggrrffccd (or something like that!) posted such a scenario late last year.
Since there is over 3 weeks until day 28, I see no reason not to send the 'out of time' letter without the signed NIP. Should no reply have been received by about day 26, there is nothing to stop Beggarall then sending in the NIP, signed or unsigned, depending on the situation in Idris's case, or not knowing the driver (sub-section (4)) as appropriate.

In the case of Lothian & Borders, at least from the posts in here, the 'normal' procedure seems to be to send an 'out of time' NIP and alledge that it is a 'reminder'.

Posted by: Blackbird Sun, 14 Mar 2004 - 08:33
Post #8848

Thanks jeffreyarcher for your words of wisdom I think we are coming from the same direction here.
you said

this is just the scenario that I was trying to avoid. Would the sending out of the 'out of time letter' not alert the scammers that Beggarall knew that they had served an invalid NIP and therefore divert them down the 'it was a reminder' route?
Is it possible to officially find out and document that this is the first NIP? Anybody know?
you also said

Fully appreciate that - hence the reason that I was ensuring that there was no 'normal' reason for delay.

Hope this 'discussion' is of some use Beggarall, as you can see from jeffreyarchers great knowledge and post, you cannot trust the scammers - they will do anything to get the cash.

Best Regards

Posted by: Beggarall Sun, 14 Mar 2004 - 12:20
Post #8852

Thanks again. I am still processing all the information. There is nothing on the NIP to say that it is a duplicate or a second copy. I suppose my first instinct was to send the RAC letter and return the NIP and S172 untouched but on reflection it may be better to sign S172 but just to acknowledge that I am the registered keeper and not to cross any boxes to say who was driving and then add a bit at the end (in part 6) that the NIP was time expired and refer them to the letter.
I suppose there is no great rush to do anything - there are still nearly 3 weeks before the 28 day deadline but by nature I am one who likes to have these matters dealt with and out of the way quickly. I will value any other input. How might the outcome of the Idris case affect this?
Best wishes to all for an excellent forum

Posted by: Blackbird Sun, 14 Mar 2004 - 12:59
Post #8857

Hopefully the messages from jeffreyarcher and myself made things as clear as is possible. Just to take your points one by one

These 'second' NIP's can just be a re-send of the original docs i.e not noted duplicate or second so beware (see jeffreyarcher comment on Borders and Lothian)

If you just send in the 'out of time' letter now and hold onto the S172 (bearing in mind that there are 3 weeks remaining) there are 2 possible outcomes
Case dropped
It is alleged that this is a second NIP :x

In either case you still have the option of going 'unsigned'.

If you do send the 'out of time letter' take the expensive option (can never remember the name - see elsewhere on this site) so you can ensure that it has been delivered.


Not really relevant to you at this stage in the process. Simply for those that have already gone down the 'unsigned' route, if he wins they win. If he looses they loose. As Mika has posted elsewhere, will the case be fully heard and dealt with on Tuesday - don't hold your breath.

Best Regards

Posted by: DW190 Sun, 14 Mar 2004 - 13:38
Post #8860

ROYAL MAIL SPECIAL DELIVERY

dw

Posted by: Blackbird Sun, 14 Mar 2004 - 13:49
Post #8862

Cheers DW190.

Posted by: bassanclan Fri, 26 Mar 2004 - 15:54
Post #9939

Mrs Jennifer Margaret Bassan

If I receive a second NIP do I have 28 days from that date to return it?

1st came 19th Feb - returned unsigned - Yorke compliant

17th March original NIP returned saying please sign it. Didn't do anything

Obviously there has been the Idris case, so unsigned is no longer a defence

25th March 2nd NIP received (for original offence) - so I still have 28days before I try with the PACE argument?

Posted by: Beggarall Thu, 22 Apr 2004 - 22:16
Post #11972

Bringing this back to the top. I sent the RAC letter and had a reply saying the NIP had been sent to a previous keeper - I am contesting this - see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1350&highlight= but also requested photos as I could not remember who was driving. The pictures dont help - shows my car from the back with "timeout" written underneath. Send back a signed S172 giving my details and adding in the box at the bottom that I had named myself as being the "most likely" driver.
I have now had a second NIP stating that there had been "no satisfactory response leading to the identity of the driver" and would I kindly complete (another) S172 "within 14 days to avoid any unnecessary court proceedings".
I have already send them a signed form - what should I do now? Presumably they do not like my annotation of the original? Help as ever much appreciated.

Posted by: jeffreyarcher Thu, 22 Apr 2004 - 22:40
Post #11975

Of course they don't. It's no good to prosecute you. The driver has to admit that it was him.
If you are going to continue down that road, you should read the 'unsure of driver' sticky, and it is likely that you will be summonsed.
Note that even if you eventually show that the original NIP was 'timed out' (> 14 days), that will be unlikely to protect you from a s172 prosecution as there is no time limit on a S172 notice.

Posted by: Beggarall Thu, 22 Apr 2004 - 23:22
Post #11982

So presumably best to send an unambiguous "yes it was me" S172?

Posted by: volvodriver Wed, 28 Apr 2004 - 08:06
Post #12340

I have a ongoing saga of a alleged 38mph in a 30mph limit (obviously I was a 'danger' as it was an wide A road, going through a village at 9am on a sunday morning, the limit had just dropped from 60, so I dropped to less than 40...still obviously a hazard to public safety! So the unmarked camera van got me)

My point is this, I never recieved an original NIP. The first I heard of it was 2 months later with a threatening letter saying they were going to take me to court. I have phoned/written to them four times asking for a copy of the original NIP, dated within 14 days of the alleged offence on it. All they have sent me are new NIP's with the date of printing on it, up to 80 days after the alleged offence.

Does anyone know if the police have to provide a copy of the original NIP to prove date of postage or can they do what they like 'cos we're the police'?

The other strange thing is that on several statements from them they state they have 28 days not 14/17 to send out a NIP, is this right? Has the law changed?

Any advice appreciated.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 28 Apr 2004 - 11:15
Post #12351

To get an S172 to stick they will need to show evidence of a sent NIP, so that mst be dated, so why they can't send a correctly dated one and EVIDENCE that the original was in time is beyond me..

28 days..Scammers getting mixed up with 28 day reply limit for S172 I think..thats wrong, 14 days still applies!

Simon.

Posted by: volvodriver Wed, 28 Apr 2004 - 14:14
Post #12368

Thanks for the info Rookie, I have just spoken to the police and they 'do not have a policy of sending out copies of the original NIP's' although they assure me that a copy will be produced for any court apperance. Sounds like heads they win, tails I lose to me. Also they could kindly lay their hands on a copy of the photos and could describe what I looked like, so not chance of claiming that we didn't know who was driving. Damm.

Looks like I am going to bite the bullet and pay this one. Its not the £60 that galls me, its the probable £100-200 increase in my premiums (I'll have six points in total) I already pay over the odds (nearly £600 for a group 7 car) Do you know (or anyone reading this) of any insurance companies that ignore up to 6 points?

As this stands at the moment, there is no point in the police wasting a stamp and sending out an original NIP, as all they have to produce is a back dated NIP for the court and their 'word' that they they posted it. How can we prove that we never received it at all, let alone within the 17 permissible days? Ho hum.

Posted by: Beggarall Sun, 9 May 2004 - 19:40
Post #13023

Continuing the saga. I sent back a completed and signed S172 asking them to note the correspondence about "Time Expired" NIP and my being the "most likely" driver. I had on first receipt of the NIP sent them an abridged version of the RAC letter. Now the offer of a £60/3points FPN has arrived with 28 days to pay up.
How do you assess my chances of winning a court case? I have also the possibility to demand "full disclosure" of video evidence and have already pointed out in letter that the photo they sent had "TIME OUT" printed on it. As I have said before I am finding all this pretty stressful (interestingly others have said much the same on this forum) and a part of me says pay up and end the matter.

Posted by: OU812 Mon, 10 May 2004 - 07:01
Post #13039

You dont get to see the evidence unless you ignore the fixed penalty, go to court, and plead not guilty at the start _then_ you can ask to see the evidence (I say ask because, even though they are legally entitled to it, they dont seem to like to)

The 'timeout' is part of the measuring process. The equipment takes the speed reading and then displays timeout so the operator cannot just then aim at other vehicles and allege they are doing the speed displayed (i.e. the speed that you were doing). Now if the evidence showed that it said timeout all the way through aiming at your car then there is no evidence to support their case - of course you dont get to find this out yet (and I think thats a pretty unlikely scenario but you never know)

However LTi20-20 cases do seem to get dropped alot once the defence asks for full disclosure. This can be largely due to the fact that the operators use it incorrectly but also probably due to the fact that it is unreliable (see Mikas ongoing work on this). Even if you were speeding there is a chance that the case will be dropped or you can get the evidence ruled inadmissable (even more easily if they dont want to disclose it)

Posted by: Beggarall Mon, 10 May 2004 - 07:43
Post #13042

Thank you OU812.
I am still hoping to win this on the basis of NIP served late - the "full disclosure" is a fall-back position. I am really hoping that if I ignore the FPN the CPS will not want to pursue the matter further and it will "time out" completely. I have written a number of letters which they must (?) keep on file.
In dealing with the FPN am I best to send it back saying I am pleading not guilty and indicating that I would want full disclosure of the video evidence or should I just ignore it and keep my fingers crossed? Help and guidance appreciated. Thank you all again.

Posted by: Rosewell Mon, 10 May 2004 - 08:02
Post #13044

If you think the form filling is stressful wait 'till you get into court!

The whole idea of the FP system is it takes the stress out of the equation. You don't actually think that the executive will make it easy to resist the law do you? If you want a stress free life go the FP route.

At the start of the proceedings you have two choices; pay up, no fuss or; fight and maybe no points. This is the fightback forum isn't it? You have decided to fight so do not weaken your resolve, you have plenty of surport here to help you through. Yes it's an uphill push but it's worth it if you are successful.

Posted by: OU812 Mon, 10 May 2004 - 08:54
Post #13046

I actually asked this very same question recently, but no one offered a reply. Simply waiting out the 28 days will do the trick as they will automatically summons you. I had read somewhere (and I now cant find it) that it was viewed against you (probably unofficially) if you just waited out the 28 days rather than immediately reply rejecting the fixed penalty, however my fixed penalties dont have any information on how to go about this.

The other thing worth bearing in mind is that if you just let the 28 days expire, there is more chance of the 6 month limit expiring (especially if you used the full 28 day limit for the s172 return) than if you try to immediately get court proceedings instagated against you

I personally wouldnt bet my game plan on this, but having said that I'm still in my fixed penalty 28 day period and I've never delt with the CPS before so I have no idea how slowly their wheels turn

Posted by: volvo4life Mon, 10 May 2004 - 16:01
Post #13101

I know that I would personally respond withing 21 days, at least then when you get your day in court and the CPS try pushing to the court that you were delaying and uncooperative then they have nothing to go on to prove that because you always replied in the time required. When writing to them, always at the end of a letter put that you would appreciate a reply in xx days, at least 7 and no more than 21.... The courts do not like timewasters...

Posted by: seylectric Mon, 10 May 2004 - 21:23
Post #13121

Apologies for the long delay as I have been working away. I posted the original question "Can I be prosecuted if the NIP arrived later than the legally required 14 days".

I actually wrote back stating that I hadn't recieved the NIP, and I was sent a copy. However the "copy" didn't have the original date on it, but had a new date on it - dated some two months after the offence. I wrote back stating that it was impossible to remember who had been driving the car at the time of the alleged offence and as such I was now expected to try and "guess" who was driving at the time, which, I pointed out, was ridiculous. I also pointed out that as the "copy" had a date on it that was later than the date on my first letter to them, it could not actually be considered to be a true copy.

I recieved a further letter stating that if I did not fill in the NIP I would be summonsed for failing to name the driver. I again replied stating that they were asking the impossible, as I could not be sure who the driver was, therefore my "evidence" could not be classed as reliable. I also asked for a copy of the evidence, i.e. the photograph. A photograph duly arrived, approx. 3" x 2", which showed my car but the number plate was not that clear. I also recieved a blown-up photo, but I wrote back pointing out that the original photograph did not prove it was my car beyond any reasonable doubt, and that the blown-up version (which did clearly show my plate) was inadmissable as the evidence (the original photo) had clearly been tampered with (i.e. blown up). I did not recieve any further reply.

Thank you for your help.

Posted by: Beggarall Mon, 10 May 2004 - 21:50
Post #13122

volvo4life said

Is that really the way the CPS behave? Why would the CPS do anything of the sort...it sounds far too vindictive and personal - not an impassionate application of the law. Do you have any experience or evidence that the CPS act this way?

Posted by: Blackbird Tue, 11 May 2004 - 08:26
Post #13135

Oh yes they would, and worse if you wind them up
I spent 1.25 hours discussing points of law with the back of the head of the CPS - didn't look at me as I came in, during the proceedings, or as I left and this was a PTR.

Be prepared!

Best Regards

Posted by: OU812 Tue, 11 May 2004 - 12:36
Post #13163

Yes but what do you actually write to them saying/asking during the 28 day fixed penalty period?

Besides there isnt really and requirment to reply unless you want to take them up on the fixed penalty is there?

Posted by: AWretham Mon, 14 Jun 2004 - 23:55
Post #15767

Hi I have just been flashed by a Gatso facing facing towards me I didn't think they could detect the speed of an oncoming car? Also the flash didn't go off until I was almost going past it, I would have thought it would have taken the picture when I was about halfway through the marked zone? but it seemed alot l8r. If they do send me a letter through within the 17 days then how can I deal with this? I have heard I can send the letter back unsigned and they won't beable to prosecute? Any help is very much appreciated thanks.

Posted by: Divbad Tue, 15 Jun 2004 - 00:17
Post #15769

Front-facing Gatsos are unusual: the flash could cause a crash. Was it a Truvelo (3 or 4 very narrow lines in the road, inches apart)?

Try posting a new thread...

Posted by: AWretham Tue, 15 Jun 2004 - 00:25
Post #15771

It was a normal Gatso painted in the yellow relective paint.. And yea the flash did almost blind me, and I will post a new thread to get as much help as poss cheers

Posted by: digi-ghost Tue, 22 Jun 2004 - 11:50
Post #16635

Hi all

I came to this site via BMW Land, and I've been reading this thread with interest. I'd like to set out a scenario for you, and my conclusion, and see if you guys agree:

On the 6th September 2003, we bought a new car. Drove it home from Cardiff to Swansea, no problem. Mid October, we received a NIP for speeding on 5th October, hands up fair cop etc, took the points.

Changed the plate on the 28th November 2003 to a private plate.

Beginning of May, we receive another NIP, dated 6th May 2004, for an offence on 6th September 2003 i.e. 8 months previously.

Question 1 is can they realistically explain away 8 months by saying they didn't know who we are (haven't moved house, had tax reminder through in March). My guess is that they probably can't, but also that it probably doesn't matter, they'll say it was posted to the reg'd keeper within 14 days etc

Question 2, and this is where it all falls apart, is this - we moved house last week, asked my wife this week where the NIP was so that I could sort it out, and she's pretty sure she chucked it. No use crying over spilt milk I guess.

My conclusion is this - my evidence for them sending it late is now landfill (even if it had mattered), I've got no NIP to return so I'm (or rather she's) in the proverbial, and I'm simply going to have to take it like a man (whimper).

Only one way out - if I write a letter asking them for a copy of the NIP dated 6th May 2004 for registration blah blah blah which has been misplaced due to a house move, will that buy me some time. If they then respond to this, does it effectively confirm that the original was sent on the 6th May?

Secondly, if I get a copy of the photo and it's not obvious who's driving (unfortunately, my wife has long blonde hair and I don't, so might be wishful thinking), shall I then return the new NIP with the details that due to the NIP being received 8 months after offence (and we did swap over part way back to try out the car) we can't remember who was driving?

I need to get this sorted ASAP for obvious reason, so any help would be gratefully received.

TIA

Stuart

Posted by: peteturbo Tue, 22 Jun 2004 - 12:00
Post #16638

Stuart,

some questions;

who is rk, you or your wife?

I note the alleged offence was the day you brought the car, but what was the time? ie address issues aside, you may have had nothing to do with the car at that time.

sounds interesting, but others know far more than me - why dont you try a new thread?

Peteturbo

Posted by: digi-ghost Tue, 22 Jun 2004 - 12:19
Post #16642

My wife's the RK, and it was defo us, since we picked it up first thing in the morning, and time was about 10:30 ish I think.

I'll post a new thread, thanks for the suggestion

Posted by: DW190 Tue, 22 Jun 2004 - 12:29
Post #16646

If the date of the offence was the date you bought the car you would be the registered keeper on that date. If the time of the alleged offence on the NIP was before you took delivery then you should name supplier as the keeper at the time of the alleged offence.

I dont see how they could have sent a NIP to the supplier unless your new car was registered by the supplier prior to you purchasing it.

First I would check your registration doc to see if it shows a previous owner and the date showing as when you aquired the vehicle.

Check these first then post again.

Posted by: Philwalker_wba Tue, 22 Jun 2004 - 22:40
Post #16735

Dont know if you've already seen this but, Lord Justice Brooke thinks you need PROOF OF POSTING on occasions when the law allows the use of first class post to be deemed as served. Whist this case relates to the accused returning documents by post, Lord Justice Brooke must certainly on balance see the matter as the same for the Camera Partnerships sending NIP. The fact that the letter was dated in time is no proof that it was despatched in time.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/2468/98
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST )

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Friday, 9th October 1998

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE BROOKE

and

MR JUSTICE SEDLEY

- - - - - - -

KENNET DISTRICT COUNCIL

-v-

YOUNG AND OTHERS

- - - - - - -

(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited,
180 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2HD
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040
Fax No: 0171-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - -

MR BARKER (instructed by Wansboroughs Solicitors, Wiltshire
SN10 1JX) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.


J U D G M E N T
(As approved by the Court)

Crown copyright
Friday 9th October 1998

22. The one exception is the exception created by section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which is as follows:
"Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression 'serve' or the expression 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
23. Particulars of the kind with which this case is concerned are authorised by statute to be served through the mechanism which I have described. If, therefore, Mr Young could show the Justices that he had posted the letter, then there would have been a deemed delivery and the gap would have been closed. This too seems to me to demonstrate that it is upon the receiving end that the law focuses and that it is the non-receipt of a response, subject only to proof of posting, that constitutes or completes the offence.

Posted by: Louise Sun, 1 Aug 2004 - 11:11
Post #20008

hi there. i really need some help

i was caught on march 13th for 50 in a 30 by a safty camera van.

i didnt get my NIP until july 16th and it was dated july 10th is it still valid?

Posted by: fairygothmother Sun, 1 Aug 2004 - 16:40
Post #20031

Hi Louise,
Are you the registered keeper of the car? Have you only recently bought it or moved address recently?

If I were you start a new thread on the main board as more people will read it and be able to help you.

Rach