PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP went to old address!, NIP went to old address and now received SJP
izzixo
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:01
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22 Nov 2018
From: Liverpool
Member No.: 101,068



Hi all,

My mother-in-law was the registered keeper of our old car as it was through the NHS Fleet scheme. Was nothing but hassle so now have our own car (in my name) but that's completely off topic.

She moved in Feb 2022 to a new home. Today, she's had mail forwarded on from previous address that included an NIP.

NIP details as follows:

NIP date: 03/03/2022

Offence occurred: 21/01/2022

Offence: Speeding - exceed 30mph on restricted road - manned equipment - recorded speed 38.

My first thought was, NIP is dated well past the 14 day issue date so felt we could argue it. HOWEVER on calling the Safer Roads Unit (who are an absolute nightmare to get hold of) they've forwarded another letter via email that was sent in May.

This was a Single Justice Procedure Notice. Once again sent to her old address but luckily we're 2 days off the 21 day response period from issue date so have time to respond.

Charges on SJPN are as expected:

1. Speeding (as listed above)
2. Fail to give info when required

The woman on the phone told my partner to just click the link, plead guilty and pay (he was driving). But there's absolutely no part of me that thinks that's the correct response.

My question is, what do we do regarding the SJPN AND is there a point arguing the initial NIP was issued well after the initial offence?

I've told my partner to get his mum to forward on things like end of tenancy proof etc as feel this will be necessary in proving she's moved, even though I am aware the onus is on her to keep her info up to date.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

TIA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
jfollows
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:09
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
From: Cheshire
Member No.: 71,339



Read around the forum, there are many similar topics.
You plead not guilty to both charges and indicate that you'll plead guilty to speeding if the other charge is dropped, which it will be.
You may need to attend court in person or you may be able to do it in writing.

It's unlikely, albeit not completely impossible, that the very first NIP was sent late. It will have been sent to the address on the V5C document for the car, which presumably hasn't been updated with your new address or, more likely, is held by the NHS because you say it was a "Fleet Scheme".

However, I think it's your mother-in-law who has been charged. Ordinarily she'd have named the driver, but it's too late for that now. Wait to see what others advise now, since she can't plead guilty to speeding when she wasn't the driver.

This post has been edited by jfollows: Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:16
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,363
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



QUOTE
You plead not guilty to both charges and indicate that you'll plead guilty to speeding if the other charge is dropped, which it will be.

From the original post, I'm not sure that the person who has received the SJPN is the driver. If not, they can't do a deal to admit to speeding.
Edit: sent before seeing your edit pointing this out
QUOTE
It's unlikely, albeit not completely impossible, that the very first NIP was sent late.

The OP mentions NHS Fleet Scheme... If this is a lease car the OP's mother in law may not have been the registered keeper (although they state they were - OP, did your mother in law definitely have the V5C for the car, in their own name?)

This post has been edited by DWMB2: Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:19


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
izzixo
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:18
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22 Nov 2018
From: Liverpool
Member No.: 101,068



Here's a copy of the initial NIP, showing that it was dated 41 days after speeding offence.

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfollows
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:23
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
From: Cheshire
Member No.: 71,339



As DWMB2 says, who held the V5C for the car at the time?
If it was the NHS, they apparently named your mother-in-law at her old address.
Did they know of her new address at the time?
Your "initial NIP" is probably not the first one issued, but is the one issued after the NHS named your mother-in-law. But that's a guess.

By the way, I think your instincts are correct, if your mother-in-law is currently charged with both offences then the "advice" given for your partner to plead guilty to the (criminal!) offence he's not been charged with and pay up is completely wrong, and essentially advising him to break the law more seriously. If you can fill in a few blanks there are people on this forum who can help you unravel the problem, but it might not be simple.

If, as I'm only guessing, it's your mother-in-law charged with both offences, then she clearly can't be found guilty of speeding if she wasn't even driving at the time, but can be found guilty of the more serious offence of failing to provide details of the driver. So she may need a defence for this charge.

This post has been edited by jfollows: Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:32
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The Notice has to be sent to the registered keeper (or driver) and arrive (be served) with 14 days. For a lease car it's all but certain the user is not the registered keeper, it's also likely it's even not registered to the NHS. The fleet operator (likely outsourced) may be or even a finance company above them.


--------------------
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
izzixo
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:37
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22 Nov 2018
From: Liverpool
Member No.: 101,068



DWMB2 you're right, seems Fleet Solutions keep the V5C for the duration of the lease so I assume they received the initial NIP.

The one I've posted above is the first correspondence sent to my mother-in-law.

She leased the car as she benefitted from the NHS discount but was never insured as a driver, she doesn't even hold a driving license.

My partner was named driver with me as an additional, he was most likely driving at the time of offence based on where it was.

The SJPN has been issued to my mother in law which is why I'm at a bit of a loss for how to proceed.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfollows
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:40
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
From: Cheshire
Member No.: 71,339



Why did the NHS Fleet Management people use your mother-in-law's old address?
Had she told them of her new address at the time or not?
It may just be unfortunate timing in that when they were notified of the alleged offence your mother-in-law was still at her old address, but by the time the NIP in her name was issued she had moved. In which case, some would argue that not having mail forwarding in place (if it wasn't) wouldn't help her cause.

This post has been edited by jfollows: Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
izzixo
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:48
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22 Nov 2018
From: Liverpool
Member No.: 101,068



She'd never updated her address on the system as the car actually went back at the beginning of Feb and she didn't take out another lease car with them. She then moved mid Feb and the NIP was sent to her old address in March.

As the car was paid in full and sent back, I assume she'd not even thought about updating her details as she had no further business with Fleet Solutions (or so she thought).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 15:51
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,300
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (izzixo @ Wed, 25 May 2022 - 16:37) *
DWMB2 you're right, seems Fleet Solutions keep the V5C for the duration of the lease so I assume they received the initial NIP.

The one I've posted above is the first correspondence sent to my mother-in-law.

She leased the car as she benefitted from the NHS discount but was never insured as a driver, she doesn't even hold a driving license.

My partner was named driver with me as an additional, he was most likely driving at the time of offence based on where it was.

The SJPN has been issued to my mother in law which is why I'm at a bit of a loss for how to proceed.

You do not have to proceed, it is entirely your MIL's problem.

She must plead not guilty to the speeding charge. The prosecution can offer no evidence that she was driving.

As for failure to furnish, it is difficult to see a defence. A guilty plea would see a discount on the fine, and much lower costs. A brief explanation of the circs as mitigation may help.

A conviction for this offence is normally very serious, with six points and a nasty effect on insurance premiums, but as a non-driver that will not affect her.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
izzixo
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 16:02
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 22 Nov 2018
From: Liverpool
Member No.: 101,068



Sorry, let me clarify, I know there's no onus on my partner or I as neither of us were named. Just would like to advise my mother in law of best course of action as she has a tendency to ignore these type of issues and let them escalate...

Regarding the speeding fine, once she's pled not guilty, would that be reissued for her to nominate the driver or written off?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfollows
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 16:26
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
From: Cheshire
Member No.: 71,339



QUOTE (izzixo @ Wed, 25 May 2022 - 16:48) *
She'd never updated her address on the system as the car actually went back at the beginning of Feb and she didn't take out another lease car with them. She then moved mid Feb and the NIP was sent to her old address in March.

As the car was paid in full and sent back, I assume she'd not even thought about updating her details as she had no further business with Fleet Solutions (or so she thought).

EDIT Apologies, offence was 21 January, please ignore what I just posted.
Unfortunately I tend to agree that she needs to plead not guilty to the speeding but provide mitigation along with a guilty plea for failure to furnish, at least knowing that the big sanction with the latter of 6 points on the license probably won't affect her.
The alternative of pleading not guilty to both charges would need a defence to the failure to furnish, and although it's totally understandable how it happened given the sequence of dates and delay between the holder of the V5C nominating (probably) the NHS and then they nominating your mother-in-law, it's possible that someone would then ask why mail redirection wasn't in place, although it's still possible to argue that it's not a requirement.

This post has been edited by jfollows: Wed, 25 May 2022 - 16:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfollows
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 16:36
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 18 Jun 2014
From: Cheshire
Member No.: 71,339



QUOTE (izzixo @ Wed, 25 May 2022 - 17:02) *
Regarding the speeding fine, once she's pled not guilty, would that be reissued for her to nominate the driver or written off?

It's binary; either the registered keeper or someone nominated by the registered keeper names the driver, who gets charged in turn, or the registered keeper or nominee gets charged with failure to furnish. They have no evidence as to who was driving, if your mother-in-law pleads guilty to the failure to furnish that's the end of it. Just make sure she doesn't say "but X was driving" at some point to be sure, she doesn't need to and can't be convicted herself of the driving offence.

EDIT Worth waiting 24 hours for input from others, more experienced than me, if you can wait. Always valuable to have other opinions.

This post has been edited by jfollows: Wed, 25 May 2022 - 16:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
disgrunt
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 17:21
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 634
Joined: 8 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,778



MiL has a fantastic defence and should plead not guilty.

It wasn’t reasonably practical for her to respond as she never received the S172 due to returning the leased vehicle and then moving home prior to the S172 in her name being sent out.

She had no obligation to put postal forwarding in place or notify the lease company she had moved as she had returned the vehicle.

It’s just unfortunate timing. Timelines would be interesting to see if the authorities were tardy in issuing the S172 after receiving the nomination from the lease co.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 17:48
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,300
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (disgrunt @ Wed, 25 May 2022 - 18:21) *
It’s just unfortunate timing. Timelines would be interesting to see if the authorities were tardy in issuing the S172 after receiving the nomination from the lease co.

What obliges them to act promptly?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 25 May 2022 - 18:16
Post #16


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



The CTO are not on trial. but if the more time they wasted, the more remote any concept that the accused should have measures in place becomes and the easier to distinguish from Whiteside.


--------------------
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
disgrunt
post Thu, 26 May 2022 - 07:31
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 634
Joined: 8 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,778



OP - Whiteside was a guy who “ignored” a S172 sent to his house as he regularly worked away for weeks/months at a time. The judges decided that as the letter was sent to his house and he didn’t have any measures in place to deal with his post then he hadn’t taken reasonable steps. I think MiLs situation is different enough
1. Not registered keeper so has not provided the authorities with that address in respect of this car
2. I presume MiL was registered for council tax at the new address so the S172 wasn’t served on her last know address as the state did have a more accurate address. Instead the state sent the S172 to an address supplied by the lease co.
3. The MiL doesn’t drive, but was merely using her position to get a cheap car for her child and their partner.
4. Should the lease co have even providdd her name when she didn’t have a driving license and wasn’t insured to drive it? (We’re they aware of that)

In MiLs case should she now reply to the S172? By the time the OP or their partner receive their S172 and reply to it will likely to be timed out and worse case should be 3 points and £100 fine vs the MiL getting 6 point (though moot if she doesn’t drive) and a bigger fine?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 26 May 2022 - 07:47
Post #18


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (disgrunt @ Thu, 26 May 2022 - 08:31) *
2. I presume MiL was registered for council tax at the new address so the S172 wasn’t served on her last know address as the state did have a more accurate address. Instead the state sent the S172 to an address supplied by the lease co.


Drugs are bad, m'kay?

QUOTE
In MiLs case should she now reply to the S172? By the time the OP or their partner receive their S172 and reply to it will likely to be timed out and worse case should be 3 points and £100 fine vs the MiL getting 6 point (though moot if she doesn’t drive) and a bigger fine?


There could potentially be an argument that an accused cannot rely on the defence that either the information was provided as soon as was reasonably practicable or that it was not reasonably practicable to provide it at all, if they did not provide the information in response to having been made aware of the requirement by receiving the summons/SJPN/whatever. AIUI, the obligation to provide the information is effectively ongoing until satisfied, or until the addressee is charged with failing to provide it. The defence of it not having been reasonably practicable to provide it at all would seem to be redundant except in the most contrived of circumstances otherwise.

Any suggestion that responding to an s. 172 requirement after having been charged somehow negates the offence and resets the process, beyond the issue of relying on the defence of providing the information as soon as was reasonably practicable, is somewhat fanciful.


--------------------
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
The Rookie
post Thu, 26 May 2022 - 08:38
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 26 May 2022 - 08:47) *
Any suggestion that responding to an s. 172 requirement after having been charged somehow negates the offence and resets the process, beyond the issue of relying on the defence of providing the information as soon as was reasonably practicable, is somewhat fanciful.

I fully agree.

IF the defendant intends to plead not guilty and try and show that what they did was sufficient to amount to reasonable diligence then a response now would satisfy the reasonably practicable issue (otherwise they could be found to have performed reasonable diligence but still guilty due to not supplying as soon as reasonably practicable!).

IF there is no intent to fight it then it's an exercise in futility to respond now as it will have no material effect on proceedings.

Personal opinion is they were not reasonably diligent, and as the keeper doesn't drive the points will have no material effect, so it's a choice between pleading guilty and a fine and costs coming to circa £500, or not guilty and risk that increasing to circa £1200. Where insurance costs are a factor the balance may be different, as it is I think the risk far outweighs the benefit given the odds in play.


QUOTE (disgrunt @ Thu, 26 May 2022 - 08:31) *
OP - Whiteside was a guy who “ignored” a S172 sent to his house as he regularly worked away for weeks/months at a time. The judges decided that as the letter was sent to his house and he didn’t have any measures in place to deal with his post then he hadn’t taken reasonable steps. I think MiLs situation is different enough
1. Not registered keeper so has not provided the authorities with that address in respect of this car
2. I presume MiL was registered for council tax at the new address so the S172 wasn’t served on her last know address as the state did have a more accurate address. Instead the state sent the S172 to an address supplied by the lease co.
3. The MiL doesn’t drive, but was merely using her position to get a cheap car for her child and their partner.
4. Should the lease co have even providdd her name when she didn’t have a driving license and wasn’t insured to drive it? (We’re they aware of that)

1. Whiteside found that the reasonable diligence applied whether you knew of the requirement or not, a RD person would have ensured the records were kept up to date I would suggest
2. Drivel
3. Irrelevant IMO, they were the person known to the leasing co. as the keeper
4. Yes, as they couldn't possibly know who was driving it falls under 'such details' as she was the known keeper. This is usual with any lease/hire/company car etc where the RK is not the keeper in any way shape or form.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 26 May 2022 - 08:43


--------------------
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 Thu, 26 May 2022 - 09:48
Post #20


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Please do not conflate reasonable diligence and reasonably practicable. Atkinson says that diligence starts when the notice is received and Whiteside (which was seemingly ignorant of Atkinson) says that practicability can predate it.


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

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:27
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