NIP Clerical Error, NIP Re-sent due to clerical error |
NIP Clerical Error, NIP Re-sent due to clerical error |
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 13:36
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 28 Sep 2017 Member No.: 94,246 |
Dear all,
I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution in early November 2019 for an alleged offence that occurred on 26th October 2019. I filled in the form with the required information and sent it back however on the 14th November I received a letter saying that the original NIP contained a clerical error and they had therefore re-sent another (correct) one to be resubmitted. My question is twofold. 1. As the new NIP was dated 14th November 2019 and was therefore outside the 14 day window am I still obliged to continue with this process? 2. If I am still obliged can I demand to know what the error was on the original form and to see whether that error invalidates this whole process? Any assistance is gratefully received. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 13:36
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 13:42
Post
#21
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 28 Sep 2017 Member No.: 94,246 |
I have no idea if the two notices are different or what the difference may be.
I filled in the first notice with my details as requested and sent it in within the allocated time period. Foolishly I didn't make a copy. I subsequently received a second notice with accompanying letter stating that an error had been made on the first, apologising and asking that I resend information on the second notice. As no details were given I sent a letter requesting more details of the error. I did not fill in or send in the second NIP. I subsequently received the SJPN which states that I filled in the first notice incorrectly as it was not addressed to me. I am now required to plead guilty or not guilty to both the speeding offence and the offence of failing to send in my details. I am fine with the speeding charge (though I would like to know if this error invalidates it in any way) but I feel that I should not be punished for the failure to supply. But you haven't answered the questions? It may become very costly if you go to trial. I have no idea if the two notices are different or what the difference may be. I filled in the first notice with my details as requested and sent it in within the allocated time period. Foolishly I didn't make a copy. I subsequently received a second notice with accompanying letter stating that an error had been made on the first, apologising and asking that I resend information on the second notice. As no details were given I sent a letter requesting more details of the error. I did not fill in or send in the second NIP. I subsequently received the SJPN which states that I filled in the first notice incorrectly as it was not addressed to me. I am now required to plead guilty or not guilty to both the speeding offence and the offence of failing to send in my details. I am fine with the speeding charge (though I would like to know if this error invalidates it in any way) but I feel that I should not be punished for the failure to supply. From your comments I have elected to go to court and plead my case. I hopefully will at least be excused for the failure to supply. If you are happy to do the plea bargain for the speeding it's very simple and its all but certain the failing to furnish will be dropped. Thanks. Yes, I am happy to go and plea the speeding and feel it will be worth it to avoid the points for the failure to furnish. I presume the downside will be having to pay costs but guess that will be a better option in the long run. This post has been edited by Keyboardwarrior: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 13:40 |
|
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 14:22
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
From what we (you) know it seems a plea bargain is a good option. (Defending a s172 charge without any certainty as to whether there was any duplication is risky)
In terms of sentencing you could ask for a fixed penalty equivalent sentence (with no costs order) but not be so easy here. Worst case is an income related fine, costs (£85) and surcharge (10% of the fine min £32). -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 14:43
Post
#23
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 28 Sep 2017 Member No.: 94,246 |
That is what I think I will do. Cheers.
This post has been edited by Keyboardwarrior: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 14:45 |
|
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 15:18
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
So the first notice wasnt addressed to you?
|
|
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 16:25
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Argh, so it appears the clerical error wasn't theirs at all, it appears you completed an S172 addressed to someone else naming yourself (possibly ticking 'I was the driver' which was incorrect as the addressee was not?), it is then perfectly normal to get one in your own name you MUST complete.
Plead not guilty to both, get it to a magistrates court and do the plea bargain.... lots of examples but ask if you don't understand the process. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:32 |