Didn't Receive NIP - Valid Defence? – Anyone Used This? |
Didn't Receive NIP - Valid Defence? – Anyone Used This? |
Tue, 24 Feb 2004 - 23:02
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 24 Feb 2004 From: Lancashire Member No.: 923 |
Many apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere, I have been reading through the forums for many hours now with much interest but have not seen this specifically asked/answered. In a nutshell, I received an NIP for allegedly travelling at 57 on a nice wide open Dual Carriageway limited to 40. I did not see the camera (was not a fixed site - probably on a bridge or hidden in a lay-by?) and the notice came as a complete shock. My 28 days are nearly up and I'm wondering what would happen if ....
I ignore the NIP completely and state that I did not receive this letter (I have had letters go missing before in our fantastic postal system) when and if summoned (I'm guessing that that's what will happen next?) What will happen then? I guess a couple of possibilities could be: 1) Court deals with this offence (that of not providing details) and judges that because I did not receive the letter there is no case to answer to (Ideally!!!) or fines me for some off reason but does not issue points as the offence is no longer a speeding offence. 2) The above may happen and/or the court decides I must also answer to my speeding offence ... here's where my next area of uncertainty arises.... It would only have been me driving the car but I am considering stating I do not know who the driver is (hoping the photo evidence is unclear) on the grounds that colleagues and family also drive my car third party as allowed by their own insurance policies. (I am the only named driver on my fully comp insurance policy). Any ideas? The biggest worry for me is the extra three points taking my total to six (I got 3 just under three years ago for doing 47 in a wide non-pedestrian single carriageway limited to 30 by a manned laser unit in a lay-by. I was pulled over that time), thus potentially increasing my already sky high insurance premiums exponentially. Any advice/past experiences would be greatly received. P.S. For all the spies watching My post is of course entirely hypothetical and I would never even consider perverting the course of our lovely balanced judicial system that has served me and my family so well over the past years *AHEM*. Anyway once again very many thanks to any help/advice offered. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 24 Feb 2004 - 23:02
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 25 Feb 2004 - 10:00
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 306 Joined: 24 Sep 2003 From: Swansea Member No.: 365 |
DO NOT commit perjury or pevert the course of justice, the penalty is far worse than anything the RTA could muster.
You will have to testify (under oath) that you did not receive the NIP as all the talivan need to prove is that the NIP was sent correctly. i.e. 1st class post to be received by the registered keeper within 14 days from the alleged offence. This is not a good course of action unless you received the NIP by 2nd class post or outside the 14 day limit. It's not just speedding that attracts points. a s.172 offence may carry a greater penalty (points and pounds) than the speeding offence and it will affect insurance premiums to a greater extent (MS90 as opposed to SP30/40). Only use the para 4 defence if you honestly do not know or could not ascertain the driver. Do no commit perjury by claiming that you did not know when you did. This could result in a jail sentence! If you are sure you were spotted by a mobile camera van using an Lti20-20 speed scope, I would send an additional letter (signed) giving all information required by s.172. Ignore the fixed penalty and when a summons is received, plead not guilty and request full disclosure of the video evidence. All information you need to do this is in this forum. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Feb 2004 - 17:51
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 24 Feb 2004 From: Lancashire Member No.: 923 |
Many thanks for your reply Keycare, just a couple of queries though...
QUOTE You will have to testify (under oath) that you did not receive the NIP as all the talivan need to prove is that the NIP was sent correctly. i.e. 1st class post to be received by the registered keeper within 14 days from the alleged offence. So are you suggesting that if a person was sent an NIP that was lost in the fantastic and ultra reliable postal system and it didn't reach that person and the first that the person knew about this was when they received a court summons that they could have legal action taken against them because of the failing of the postal system? How would that person prove that they did not get that letter?
QUOTE If you are sure you were spotted by a mobile camera van using an Lti20-20 speed scope, I would send an additional letter (signed) giving all information required by s.172. Ignore the fixed penalty and when a summons is received, plead not guilty and request full disclosure of the video evidence. All information you need to do this is in this forum.
I am unsure as to what the device used to allegedly "catch" me was. Are you suggesting that I send a letter stating that it was me driving at that time (but even then I don't know how I can say that, I cannot remember if I was in fact on the road at that time, what if it is a case of mistaken number plate identity or a cloned plate?) but state that I was not in breach of the speed limit? Cheers again for your comments and help on this matter. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Feb 2004 - 23:32
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 306 Joined: 24 Sep 2003 From: Swansea Member No.: 365 |
QUOTE How would that person prove that they did not get that letter? If the case was brought before the court you would have to testify under oath that you did not receive the NIP. It is then upto the Mag or Judge to convict or acquit.
QUOTE I am unsure as to what the device used to allegedly "catch" me was.
Request a copy of the photograph to help you identify the driver in order to demonstrate 'due dilligence'. It will become obvious from the photo which device was used. |
|
|
Thu, 26 Feb 2004 - 08:42
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
They will usually send a reminder and a letter long before the court summons, if you had not recieved the NIP, the chances of not getting any of the three is very small, who would the mag believe (who would YOU believe), unless of course you can show the NIP was sent to the wrong address!
Simon |
|
|
Mon, 29 Mar 2004 - 20:34
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 24 Feb 2004 From: Lancashire Member No.: 923 |
You Were Right (Not that I for one moment doubted you, you understand! ). I received a duplicate NIP identical to the first one by recorded delivery the other day. Not a word about it being a replacement or a previous one being sent at all. Call it a long shot but I'm wondering now if I could use the 14 day invalid rule here? Stating I didn't receive the first NIP sent, this is the first NIP I have received well over a month since the offence. Any ideas/suggestions/Criticisms would be greatly appreciated
Thanks in advance. |
|
|
Mon, 29 Mar 2004 - 20:40
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,433 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
ukanalyst wrote:
[quote]You Were Right (Not that I for one moment doubted you, you understand! ). I received a duplicate NIP identical to the first one by recorded delivery the other day. Not a word about it being a replacement or a previous one being sent at all Consider it to be the first one. -------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
Mon, 29 Mar 2004 - 23:18
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 24 Feb 2004 From: Lancashire Member No.: 923 |
Apologies if this has been covered in other posts (and I'm sure it has many times) but I have read through a great deal of posts and haven't yet found exactly what I am looking for. What would my best course of action be to follow along the lines of getting the NIP dismissed due to the 14 day limit being exceeded (by about four times)?
Once again a very many thanks to all those that have given advice and comments so far and for any given in reply to my question. |
|
|
Mon, 29 Mar 2004 - 23:40
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,433 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
-------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
Tue, 30 Mar 2004 - 14:17
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 24 Nov 2003 Member No.: 575 |
Q. Why was there a temporary speed limit on the dual carriageway?
I have just walked away from a similar charge.(55 in a 40) What was the signage like. Stu |
|
|
Tue, 30 Mar 2004 - 22:46
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 153 Joined: 23 Aug 2003 Member No.: 248 |
QUOTE (ukanalyst) What would my best course of action be to follow along the lines of getting the NIP dismissed due to the 14 day limit being exceeded (by about four times)?
You can't. The 14 day rule applies to the scameraship sending the first NIP, it doesn't matter if it never arrives, if they can prove they sent it first class then they have done their bit. Your only possible defence would be if they had sent it 2nd class and you would need to have recieved it to prove that. |
|
|
Wed, 31 Mar 2004 - 10:45
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 24 Feb 2004 From: Lancashire Member No.: 923 |
STU2: It wasn't a temporary limit. The road layout was as per a dual carriageway but the speed limit set was 40.
Homer: How could the ticket office prove without doubt that a letter was posted to me if I did not receive it? Surely the One that they sent recorded delivery should have made reference to an earlier posted NIP? I contacted RAC legal line yesterday and interestingly he said that I had to have RECEIVED the notice within 14 days, so I decided to have a peep at the RTA and check this out and found the following: --- Begin Quote --- © within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was— (i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him, (ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence. (2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)© above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him. --- End Quote --- Surely this means that the only evidence they can use of sending is a recorded delivery/registered post receipt, which I feel would make sense? Cheers again to all that have participated so far helping me through this minefield of shaky ground they call law. |
|
|
Wed, 31 Mar 2004 - 10:58
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 5,109 Joined: 16 Dec 2003 From: Manchester Member No.: 675 |
UKanalyst
QUOTE if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service
This was ammended in 1991 to include 'first class post' It is deemed to have been 'served' this does not mean recieved Your other point regarding proof of service. This will take the form of an s9 wittnes statement by a postal clerk in the Scam office stating that he/she despatched by first class post on date xx/xx/xxxx. And like it or not, that is NIP service to reg. keeper prooved conclusively. Chris -------------------- Chris
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Bush Acoustic Music Club Acoustic Folk at the Nursery Inn Tameside folk concerts |
|
|
Wed, 31 Mar 2004 - 11:00
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Administrators Posts: 9,760 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wiltshire, UK Member No.: 4 |
Hi,
Can I suggest that you phone back to the RAC legal help line and politely remind them that the law has been amended to enable the police to serve the NIP via first class post? Furthermore, the police only have to show that they issued the NIP on time and not that it was received – take a look at our case files 14 & 15. However, as this recent case demonstrates, it is possible to win such a case. ==== Quote Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Schedule 9 6.(3) (3) In section 1 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (which requires warning of prosecution for certain offences to be given), after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection— "(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person— (a) by delivering it to him; (B) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or © by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.” -------------------- Regards, Mika
Useful Info: 1 Read This First 2. 14-day Rule; 3. 6-month Rule. 4. NIP Wizard. 5. Success Stories. |
|
|
Wed, 31 Mar 2004 - 11:27
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 251 Joined: 19 Sep 2003 From: Watford Herts Member No.: 347 |
My understanding as indicated, now by two solicitors, is that you can ask for INDEPENDANT proof that the NIP or any letter has BEEN SENT!
A signed statement from the Police Admin or anybody is not independant! Independant proof can only be given by the Royal Mail this can be in any of the following forms:- a) Registered - Cost money c) Signed for - Cost Money d) Certificate of Posting - Costs nothing! If the police can not prove it was posted by the above means then you can soundly argue that it was never recieved However this is only proof of posting which is all that is needed. Under the present laws if a document was proved to be posted via the Royal Mail its is deemed to have been recieved. TomP |
|
|
Wed, 28 Apr 2004 - 20:40
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 24 Feb 2004 From: Lancashire Member No.: 923 |
Many thanks once again to all that have contributed thus far, your advice, and general input is very much appreciated.
Mika, QUOTE Can I suggest that you phone back to the RAC legal help line and politely remind them that the law has been amended to enable the police to serve the NIP via first class post? I never actually spoke to them about any previous NIP's I only stated that an NIP had been sent to me 57 days after the offence.
I struggled very much to find details for the officer in charge and settled instead in the end for the name of an officer I was given that has /something/ do with the scameraship who I couldn't get hold of to confirm and out of all the Scamerships, GM appear to be the only one that do not have a website for information. Anyway I digress, I sent a letter similar to the template that I was pointed in the direction of by DW190 and posted by Mika and addressed it to his name, Officer in Charge ... Scamership etc. I received a letter today from a Senior admin assistant that goes a little something like this... ..."I write to advise that the original NIP was forwarded to you on X. However, as no response was received, another one was sent on Y by Recorded Delivery."... ... ..."The offence was recorded by a laser video camera operated by an officer at the roadside. A copy of the evidence is enclosed for your information"... ..."You are reminded that you must complete the notice by 2nd May to avoid further action being taken"... A photo is attached that appears to be from an LTI 20-20 speed scope and although not very clear does appear to be me driving my car. The cross-hairs are aimed just above the base of my windscreen and it contains the following info in the box at the top: Frame: 35; Speed: 57; Range: 187 m; No Error messages are displayed. So now to my question, as they are only giving me three days to reply do you think I should roll over and accept as a 'fair cop', or do you feel I have any weight on my side to continue arguing that I only received the NIP 57 days after the offence and therefore it's invalid regardless of any evidence they may possess, or do you think I should complete the S172 and argue that I don't believe the LTI 20-20 image is correct, or do you believe I should do something completely different or .... are you just bored of reading this post now and feel you have better things to do with your valuable time?! If you do take the time to reply with your comments/advice it really will be very very much appreciated and if not then thanks for reading anyway. Ukanalyst |
|
|
Wed, 28 Apr 2004 - 22:44
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 149 Joined: 6 Dec 2003 From: Westerly my 'ansom Member No.: 620 |
QUOTE (ukanalyst) I only stated that an NIP had been sent to me 57 days after the offence.....
.....that the original NIP was forwarded to you on X. Waste of time they have already told you when they posted the FIRST NIP QUOTE (ukanalyst) .... recorded by a laser video camera
Sounds like it is a Lti20/20 see other postings/sticky on this device QUOTE (ukanalyst) .... complete the notice by 2nd May to avoid further action being taken...
Better do as they say or you will be charged for failing to supply - S172 Follow the guidelines already posted for defence against the 'dodgyscope' and fightback or lie low and plead guilty. Over.... |
|
|
Thu, 29 Apr 2004 - 08:31
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,433 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
ukanalyst said:
QUOTE I sent a letter similar to the template that I was pointed in the direction of by DW190 and posted by Mika and addressed it to his name, Officer in Charge ... Scamership etc.
Was this the s9 witness statement that Mika drafted? From the pics they sent, are there any other vehicles in the pics? If you did send a signed statement you now appear to have to choices. 1, The signed statement would comply with all the information required by s172. As per Jones v DPP repeated at 15 in Idris's case The last authority to which I need refer is Jones v DPP [2002] EWHC 236 (Admin). In that case the registered keeper of the offending vehicle when sent the section 172 form returned the form and gave information in a covering letter. May LJ referred to Boss v Measures and to Broomfield, and said in paragraph 13 that on the facts of the instant case Dr Jones did act in substance in accordance with the statutory requirement. Section 12(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 was not relevant because Dr Jones denied being the driver, but - "His letter was a document which he had signed and the letter contains all the information in writing which the form had required and indeed more." It follows that had Dr Jones admitted that he was the driver the letter could have satisfied the requirements of section 12(1). 2, You could complete and sign the s172, ignore any conditional offer and plead Not Guilty when the summons arrives, then demand full disclosure of the video to enable you to have it expertly examined. Dont forget there is a system in place and you are trying to beat it. No Guarantees. Its like backing a horse. The favorite doesn't always win. -------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
Thu, 29 Apr 2004 - 14:40
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 24 Feb 2004 From: Lancashire Member No.: 923 |
Thankyou Rosewell and DW190 for your replies, my fingernails are almost none existant as time ticks away closer to the 2nd May!
DW190, QUOTE Was this the s9 witness statement that Mika drafted? It was the letter sourced from the RAC Legal line found in this post: [forum link]
and was basically quoting the fact that the notice was received after the 14 days deadline and therefore should be considered invalid. QUOTE From the pics they sent, are there any other vehicles in the pics?
No it is purely my vehicle filling the entire frame with all around the outer edges of the vehicle blurred. QUOTE If you did send a signed statement you now appear to have to choices. I haven't at this point replied telling them who was driving my vehicle, I have only sent a copy of the S172 form back blank but dated and signed in a blank space at the top of the front side. Should I complete the S172 with details and send this?
QUOTE 2, You could complete and sign the s172, ignore any conditional offer and plead Not Guilty when the summons arrives, then demand full disclosure of the video to enable you to have it expertly examined.
If I did this, worse case scenario, what is the penalty likely to be should it be found that the video is valid etc? I am getting tempted to roll over with my legs in the air wagging my tail, while they take £60 out of my pocket and nudge the insurance co's to take exponentially more cash off me at the moment. The only thing that is niggling me at the moment is the fact that the cross hairs were pointed at the base of my windscreen but on the glass in the photo they sent me, aren't there issues with light diffraction and laser? Also if the Laser had started out on my front grille and then moved up to my windscreen, surely the bonnet distance differential would have incorrectly increased the speed reading? But then I wonder if that was the case if at a reading of 57 what the likelihood is that I actually was still above the 40 limit. I just wish I could remember back, I very rarely speed without a good reason. Partly mad at myself for not remembering and very mad with the system and the fact that I travel in excess of 30,000 miles per year and have never caused an accident yet police sit and prey on motorists who are easy to catch while dangerous and unfit drivers wreak havoc on the roads. The woman that knocked my brother off his bike by pulling out in front of him couldn't even read a number plate from yards away and yet she is still on the road. Sorry I digress but it just makes my blood boil . Anyway thanks again for all your help Ukanalyst |
|
|
Thu, 29 Apr 2004 - 17:58
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,433 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
ukanalyst,
Thought the letter was the s9 witness statement that Mika produce so we'll forget that. It does look like they will produce a statement in the future that the original NIP was sent out on time. Now you know its the LTi 20-20 and why they should blurr the edge of the pics? I dont know, but its been said by an expert in lasers that a loose number plate can distort the reading so I would be tempted to sign and return the NIP, ignore the conditional offer FPN and wait patiently for the summons. Then enter a plea of Not Guilty and request full disclosure of the video/document for expert analysis. You can change your plea at any time up to the trial with little extra costs. Others thoughts may differ. I'm sure they will post them. -------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:39 |