PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP Clerical Error, NIP Re-sent due to clerical error
Keyboardwarrior
post 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.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 13:36
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Irksome
post Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 13:51
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 761
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



What was the clerical error - what's the difference between the two NIP's?

When did you respond to the original NIP, was it before the 14th November NIP? Did you unequivocally name the drive in your response?


--------------------
PePiPoo will likely close in October due to issues beyond the control of any contributor to this forum.

You are encouraged to seek advice at https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/ where the vast majority of the experts here have moved over to already.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 14:38
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



A NIP actually consists of two independent items, a Notice of Intended Prosecution and a demand under s.172 RTA to name the driver on that occasion.

If the clerical error related to the vehicle, time or place of the alleged offence and was fundamental to any of those items and misled you, you may have a case that you were not served a NIP within 14 days, that would not invalidate the s.172 request which you must still comply with.

You can surely see for yourself what the error was, simply by comparing the two forms? If your response to the second NIP would be the same as to the first, it seems unlikely that the error misled you.


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TonyS
post Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 15:49
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,214
Joined: 24 Mar 2013
From: Scotland
Member No.: 60,732



QUOTE (Keyboardwarrior @ Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 13:36) *
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?

When did you received the new request, and when is (or was) the deadline for your response?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Rusty
post Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 16:49
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 597
Joined: 13 Mar 2004
From: Somewhere oop north
Member No.: 984



QUOTE
A NIP actually consists of two independent items, a Notice of Intended Prosecution and a demand under s.172 RTA to name the driver on that occasion.

If the clerical error related to the vehicle, time or place of the alleged offence and was fundamental to any of those items and misled you, you may have a case that you were not served a NIP within 14 days, that would not invalidate the s.172 request which you must still comply with.

You can surely see for yourself what the error was, simply by comparing the two forms? If your response to the second NIP would be the same as to the first, it seems unlikely that the error misled you.


I seldom query the learned advice from the regulars, but surely in this case the "misled" argument is irrelevant - why should he try and claim he wasn't served a NIP? One was sent, he filled it in in good faith - wasn't misled -appropriate information provided within the appropriate timescales. is there really an obligation to do it again if the issuer has discovered they made a mistake and the NIP is obviously now over 14 days?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 17:13
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Mr Rusty @ Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 16:49) *
QUOTE
A NIP actually consists of two independent items, a Notice of Intended Prosecution and a demand under s.172 RTA to name the driver on that occasion.

If the clerical error related to the vehicle, time or place of the alleged offence and was fundamental to any of those items and misled you, you may have a case that you were not served a NIP within 14 days, that would not invalidate the s.172 request which you must still comply with.

You can surely see for yourself what the error was, simply by comparing the two forms? If your response to the second NIP would be the same as to the first, it seems unlikely that the error misled you.


I seldom query the learned advice from the regulars, but surely in this case the "misled" argument is irrelevant - why should he try and claim he wasn't served a NIP? One was sent, he filled it in in good faith - wasn't misled -appropriate information provided within the appropriate timescales. is there really an obligation to do it again if the issuer has discovered they made a mistake and the NIP is obviously now over 14 days?

Are you conflating NIP and s 172 notice?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 18:53
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



What’s the alleged offence?


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Keyboardwarrior
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 15:55
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 28 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,246



Thank you all for your responses and please accept my apologies for the delay in coming back. I have been out of the country which is a reason but not really an excuse.

The alleged offence was: Exceed a 60mph speed limit in contravention of a local traffic order. I do not know what the clerical error was. The accompanying letter that came with the NIP on the 14th stated:

An (sic) clerical error was made on the previous Notice of Intended Prosecution recently sent to you. Attached is an amended Notice for your completion.
I hereby offer my sincere apologies for this error and the inconvenience this must have caused you.


This notice was on the 14 November 2019 and gave 28 days to comply which I didn't do. I had previously complied with he s172 request and had sent my details to them. Am I obliged to do so again?

I have subsequently received a single justice procedural notice and would like to know if I should plead guilty here or fight this.

Thanks again.



QUOTE (Irksome @ Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 13:51) *
What was the clerical error - what's the difference between the two NIP's?

When did you respond to the original NIP, was it before the 14th November NIP? Did you unequivocally name the drive in your response?



I don't know what the clerical error was, they never made that clear.

I responded to the original NIP before the 14th Nov yes....I assume they noted the clerical error while they were processing it.

I named myself in the response yes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 16:19
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



An SJPN for what offence(s)?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Keyboardwarrior
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 16:26
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 28 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,246



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 16:19) *
An SJPN for what offence(s)?


Fail to give information relating to the identification of the driver

Exceed a 60 mph speed limit

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 16:33
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



Would your reply to the second letter have been any different to the reply you gave to the first?


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Keyboardwarrior
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 16:40
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 28 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,246



QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 16:33) *
Would your reply to the second letter have been any different to the reply you gave to the first?


I doubt it to be fair. I was in that area at that time so assume that this is all valid but can't say for sure.

I was hoping that the error (whatever it was) or the fact that the second NIP was outwith the 14 day period would invalidate the whole process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 17:29
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



So you failed to reply to the second notice in the (vain) hope it would invalidate the process?

Even if it would have invalidated the NIP, you now no longer have the luxury of using it as you seem to be guilty of the failing to furnish offence and your best hope is to plea bargain to the speeding.

Post #3 made it clear you still had to reply.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irksome
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 17:43
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 761
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



QUOTE (Keyboardwarrior @ Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 15:55) *
I had previously complied with he s172 request and had sent my details to them. Am I obliged to do so again?


The OP claims to have met the requirements of the S172 request ... so why is he being charged with fail to provide?


--------------------
PePiPoo will likely close in October due to issues beyond the control of any contributor to this forum.

You are encouraged to seek advice at https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/ where the vast majority of the experts here have moved over to already.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 18:03
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Because he appears not to have replied to the second one.

It’s possible the ‘clerical error’ changed the nature of the request such that it could be considered a completely new request.

It’s also possible that it didn’t and as such, having replied once, he had fulfilled his obligations. As the OP couldn’t tell us the differences it would have been sensible to reply.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 19:24
Post #16


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



As has been indicated, the matter appears to turn on the as yet unknown nature of the 'clerical error' - or more precisely the difference (if any) between the notices. I would suggest that the OP either needs to compare the 2 notices or post suitably redacted scans for us to compare.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 21:56
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



If the location, date and time are the same on both notices then the 1st reply would seem to cover it.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Keyboardwarrior
post Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 13:05
Post #18


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 28 Sep 2017
Member No.: 94,246



Thanks for your comments.

A further point of interest is that while the letter I received apologised sincerely for the clerical error implying that it was the authorities fault the sjpn now suggests that the error was mine.

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.

Thanks again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 13:11
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



But you haven't answered the questions?

It may become very costly if you go to trial.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 13:24
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Keyboardwarrior @ Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 13:05) *
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.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:21
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here