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! |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 - 15:49
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,214 Joined: 24 Mar 2013 From: Scotland Member No.: 60,732 |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
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 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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 16:26
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 28 Sep 2017 Member No.: 94,246 |
|
|
|
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?
-------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 16:40
Post
#12
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 28 Sep 2017 Member No.: 94,246 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 17:43
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 761 Joined: 16 Jun 2010 From: sw11 Member No.: 38,303 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 - 19:24
Post
#16
|
|
Member 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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 - 13:24
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:21 |