PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Returned NIP not delivered by royal mail
driver786
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 12:25
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 1 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,184



Hi,

I recently received a NIP, I was speeding so no issues with the actual NIP. However I returned the NIP last tuesday (24/07/2018) through first class delivery to be signed for on delivery. Since then I have checked my tracking number which has not had any updates and simply says that they have received my post. I rang up royal mail who simply said they cannot do anything until it has been ten days, but this would push it close to the 28 day period to return the NIP. Contacting the department responsible for issuing the NIP in North Yorkshire was no help and I was told to chase it up with royal mail or wait for a reminder and return that. What is my best option at this point, and what would happen if the NIP is not returned on time despite me sending it off well within the required time frame? I have the postage receipt and tracking number as proof I have sent the letter back and I am admitting to the offence which qualifies for a speed awareness course, so I do not want the matter to escalate and potentially leave me with points on my license.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 12:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 12:34
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,964
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



If you have sent a reply in the post you have, on the face of it, discharged your obligations under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. If you want to be extra sure just send them a letter naming yourself as the drive, but this time send it by 1st class mail (not signed for) and get a free certificate of posting from the post office. It is presumed delivered 2 working days later unless the police can prove otherwise, and there is no requirement that the driver nomination be supplied on the form sent by the police, the only requirement is that the information requested be supplied.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Slithy Tove
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 16:33
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,134
Joined: 5 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,178



Did you keep a copy of the completed NIP? If so, send a copy, 1st class with certificate of posting, with a note attached explaining why it's a duplicate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 17:20
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,339
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



I wouldn't worry, if you send signed for letters to a large organisation it is fairly common for them not to sign for it, no matter what Royal Mail say.

You have proof you have complied and in the very unlikely event they haven't received it they have confirmed they send out reminders. Personally I would not send a letter. The forms are read by machine. If you want to get a SAC you want to stay within that automated process, and occasionally anything out of the ordinary boots you out.


--------------------
My username is notmeatloaf because I'm not made of meat loaf. I hope that clarifies things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 20:36
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,422
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 18:20) *
You have proof you have complied

Is this the case even where his “proof” indicates it may not have been delivered?


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


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
cp8759
post Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 21:09
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,964
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 18:20) *
The forms are read by machine.

I very much doubt that, unless the police have invested in AI I don't see how a machine would be able to establish is a s172 response is valid.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
squaredeal
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 04:40
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,764



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 22:09) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 18:20) *
The forms are read by machine.

I very much doubt that, unless the police have invested in AI I don't see how a machine would be able to establish is a s172 response is valid.

Several forces have invested in form scanning software which successfully reads those forms that are correctly and clearly completed in the requisite black ink and block letters creating a data file for importing into PentiP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kernow2015
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 05:40
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 183
Joined: 9 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,209



I've sent recorded delivery letters to the local police HQ before for other things and the tracking showed still in progress even weeks after I'd received a reply back.
You've got the address and date the letter was sent which is enough to show that you've complied with your end of the process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 09:50
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,171
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (kernow2015 @ Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 06:40) *
You've got the address and date the letter was sent which is enough to show that you've complied with your end of the process.

Not really, while probably not an issue the legal requirement is that the reply gets to the requesting person(s) not that it is posted, as its not indicated in a statute the interpretation act wouldn't apply.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 09:50


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
driver786
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 12:52
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 1 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,184



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 13:34) *
If you have sent a reply in the post you have, on the face of it, discharged your obligations under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. If you want to be extra sure just send them a letter naming yourself as the drive, but this time send it by 1st class mail (not signed for) and get a free certificate of posting from the post office. It is presumed delivered 2 working days later unless the police can prove otherwise, and there is no requirement that the driver nomination be supplied on the form sent by the police, the only requirement is that the information requested be supplied.



I didn't think to keep a copy, assuming it would be sent in a few working days max, will keep an eye out for the reminder and send that out again through the guaranteed next day delivery service

QUOTE (kernow2015 @ Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 06:40) *
I've sent recorded delivery letters to the local police HQ before for other things and the tracking showed still in progress even weeks after I'd received a reply back.
You've got the address and date the letter was sent which is enough to show that you've complied with your end of the process.


I rang the department up and know for sure that they have not received anything, my worry is that if it hasn't been delivered in a week then what is the guarantee that it will be delivered in the coming week. I stupidly waited two weeks before returning the NIP, the 28 day period ends on 8th of August and Royal mail have told me I have to wait till the 6th before they even consider my letter missing and investigate the matter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 13:05
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,171
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Just send a letter (if you have the reference number) first class with free proof of postage, make sure it contains the same details and is signed.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 16:10
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,964
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (squaredeal @ Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 05:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 22:09) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 18:20) *
The forms are read by machine.

I very much doubt that, unless the police have invested in AI I don't see how a machine would be able to establish is a s172 response is valid.

Several forces have invested in form scanning software which successfully reads those forms that are correctly and clearly completed in the requisite black ink and block letters creating a data file for importing into PentiP.

So if on the signature line I write "this is not my signature" nobody will look at it or realise there is a problem realise for months, possibly till it's too late?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 19:07
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,339
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Too late for what?

If you decline a CoFP and it goes to court it will be looked at, and the prosecutor has a slam dunk S172 conviction.

If more subtlety you fake a signature and then send a solicitor along to tell the court it isn't your real signature and they can't convict you, you'd probably get off the speeding and swap it for PCoJ.

It's difficult to see how you'd benefit.


--------------------
My username is notmeatloaf because I'm not made of meat loaf. I hope that clarifies things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 19:09
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,422
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



If the accused was going to deny it was their signature they’d need to turn up and give evidence.


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


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
cp8759
post Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 19:28
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,964
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 20:07) *
Too late for what?

If you decline a CoFP and it goes to court it will be looked at, and the prosecutor has a slam dunk S172 conviction.

If more subtlety you fake a signature and then send a solicitor along to tell the court it isn't your real signature and they can't convict you, you'd probably get off the speeding and swap it for PCoJ.

It's difficult to see how you'd benefit.

If nobody scrutinises the reply till it gets to court, there would be no reason to dual charge (as PeniP says everything is fine), by the time a prosecutor looks at it the six month limit might have come and gone. We get cases all the time where the police progress the matter to court because a s172 response has some sort of "ambiguity", I don't see how a computer just scanning the information would be able to weed out any "ambiguous" response without some sort of human oversight.

What if someone write outside of the answer boxes "I think the driver probably is"? You could imagine a million scenarios where a legally defective response wouldn't be picked up by a scanning machine.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
squaredeal
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 18:27
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,764



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 20:28) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 20:07) *
Too late for what?

If you decline a CoFP and it goes to court it will be looked at, and the prosecutor has a slam dunk S172 conviction.

If more subtlety you fake a signature and then send a solicitor along to tell the court it isn't your real signature and they can't convict you, you'd probably get off the speeding and swap it for PCoJ.

It's difficult to see how you'd benefit.

If nobody scrutinises the reply till it gets to court, there would be no reason to dual charge (as PeniP says everything is fine), by the time a prosecutor looks at it the six month limit might have come and gone. We get cases all the time where the police progress the matter to court because a s172 response has some sort of "ambiguity", I don't see how a computer just scanning the information would be able to weed out any "ambiguous" response without some sort of human oversight.

What if someone write outside of the answer boxes "I think the driver probably is"? You could imagine a million scenarios where a legally defective response wouldn't be picked up by a scanning machine.

Oh FFS.
You really think the envelopes magically empty themselves and feed the contents into a scanning machine?
Of course there is human interaction before the scanning takes place, if only to weed out the ones that are incorrectly completed which would automatically be rejected by the scanning process because mandatory boxes have been missed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 19:36
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,763
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (squaredeal @ Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 19:27) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 20:28) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 20:07) *
Too late for what?

If you decline a CoFP and it goes to court it will be looked at, and the prosecutor has a slam dunk S172 conviction.

If more subtlety you fake a signature and then send a solicitor along to tell the court it isn't your real signature and they can't convict you, you'd probably get off the speeding and swap it for PCoJ.

It's difficult to see how you'd benefit.

If nobody scrutinises the reply till it gets to court, there would be no reason to dual charge (as PeniP says everything is fine), by the time a prosecutor looks at it the six month limit might have come and gone. We get cases all the time where the police progress the matter to court because a s172 response has some sort of "ambiguity", I don't see how a computer just scanning the information would be able to weed out any "ambiguous" response without some sort of human oversight.

What if someone write outside of the answer boxes "I think the driver probably is"? You could imagine a million scenarios where a legally defective response wouldn't be picked up by a scanning machine.

Oh FFS.
You really think the envelopes magically empty themselves and feed the contents into a scanning machine?
Of course there is human interaction before the scanning takes place, if only to weed out the ones that are incorrectly completed which would automatically be rejected by the scanning process because mandatory boxes have been missed.

There aren't any "mandatory boxes"...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 20:39
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,964
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (squaredeal @ Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 19:27) *
Oh FFS.
You really think the envelopes magically empty themselves and feed the contents into a scanning machine?
Of course there is human interaction before the scanning takes place, if only to weed out the ones that are incorrectly completed which would automatically be rejected by the scanning process because mandatory boxes have been missed.

Then surely a letter would be picked up at this stage and providing all the required details have been provided, PentiP would be updated accordingly.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
squaredeal
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 22:47
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 760
Joined: 9 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,764



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 20:36) *
QUOTE (squaredeal @ Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 19:27) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 20:28) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 20:07) *
Too late for what?

If you decline a CoFP and it goes to court it will be looked at, and the prosecutor has a slam dunk S172 conviction.

If more subtlety you fake a signature and then send a solicitor along to tell the court it isn't your real signature and they can't convict you, you'd probably get off the speeding and swap it for PCoJ.

It's difficult to see how you'd benefit.

If nobody scrutinises the reply till it gets to court, there would be no reason to dual charge (as PeniP says everything is fine), by the time a prosecutor looks at it the six month limit might have come and gone. We get cases all the time where the police progress the matter to court because a s172 response has some sort of "ambiguity", I don't see how a computer just scanning the information would be able to weed out any "ambiguous" response without some sort of human oversight.

What if someone write outside of the answer boxes "I think the driver probably is"? You could imagine a million scenarios where a legally defective response wouldn't be picked up by a scanning machine.

Oh FFS.
You really think the envelopes magically empty themselves and feed the contents into a scanning machine?
Of course there is human interaction before the scanning takes place, if only to weed out the ones that are incorrectly completed which would automatically be rejected by the scanning process because mandatory boxes have been missed.

There aren't any "mandatory boxes"...

--Churchmouse

There are for a form to be an acceptable candidate for the OCR process. (In particular the signature and DL fields) Any that are not correctly completed or have accompanying correspondence are still scanned but have to be manually input.

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 21:39) *
QUOTE (squaredeal @ Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 19:27) *
Oh FFS.
You really think the envelopes magically empty themselves and feed the contents into a scanning machine?
Of course there is human interaction before the scanning takes place, if only to weed out the ones that are incorrectly completed which would automatically be rejected by the scanning process because mandatory boxes have been missed.

Then surely a letter would be picked up at this stage and providing all the required details have been provided, PentiP would be updated accordingly.

Correct
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 23:31
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,339
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



People also underestimate how sophisticated the technology can be.

A while back I was involved with a project about OCR detecting forged signatures. First step is to check for really stupid attempts. For some reason "Mickey Mouse" seems to be the number one "fake" signature people go for.

I don't know how sophisticated the police software is but I'd guess they have some degree of anti-stupid people checking built in.


--------------------
My username is notmeatloaf because I'm not made of meat loaf. I hope that clarifies things.
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, 16th August 2018 - 02:33
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.