PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] NIP 4 months late claiming they have complied with requirement to serve NIP within 14 days
bigdaddy1969
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 12:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2 Jun 2012
Member No.: 55,268



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - August 2018
Date of the NIP: - 137 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 138 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - New Cut Lane, Halsall
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 6
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons -

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - No
Was there a valid reason for the NIP's late arrival? - No

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The first NIP to the Registered Keeper must arrive within 14 days unless there is a valid reason why that was not possible, for example a recent change of details.

    This link will take you to the advice provided by the RAC's legal team.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 12:10:40 +0000

So this NIP arrived yesterday for an alleged offence on 20th August but it contains a box in which it states:

"Please be advised we have already complied with the requirement to serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution on the last known keeper of this vehicle within 14 days of the alleged offence. You are now required to respond to the S172 request for information as noted below."

This is the first Ive heard of it.

I assume I have to supply the S172 details but should I also send a letter with it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 35)
Advertisement
post Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 12:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
bigdaddy1969
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 21:59
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2 Jun 2012
Member No.: 55,268



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 01:12) *
While it’s of the OPs making it’s still for unreasons unconnected with the offence.


Im sorry I dont understand what that means
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 22:56
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,937
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Basically it's your 'error' which caused the issue - although it's strictly unconnected with the offence itself they may not be minded to impose a fixed penalty equivalent sentence. (But don't ask, don't get)


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

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
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 22:57
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,911
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 21:59) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 01:12) *
While it’s of the OPs making it’s still for unreasons unconnected with the offence.


Im sorry I dont understand what that means

The sentencing guidelines say you can receive the fixed penalty level sentencing rather than income related.only qualified by the "unconnected to the offence".

There isn't any concept of fault. The reduction is at the magistrates discretion however, so you need to ask politely - either in writing - and tactfully remind the. It is in their sentencing guidelines.


--------------------
No longer posting - please do not PM for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 23:51
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,323
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 22:57) *
QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 21:59) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 01:12) *
While it’s of the OPs making it’s still for unreasons unconnected with the offence.
Im sorry I dont understand what that means
The sentencing guidelines say you can receive the fixed penalty level sentencing rather than income related.only qualified by the "unconnected to the offence". There isn't any concept of fault. The reduction is at the magistrates discretion however, so you need to ask politely - either in writing - and tactfully remind the. It is in their sentencing guidelines.


It is also qualified by the words "outside the control of the offender" which do rather introduce a concept of fault.



QUOTE
….where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender








This post has been edited by Logician: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 23:53


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 23:59
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,394
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The ‘outside the control of the offender’ is however merely part of the example of ‘an administrative difficulty’ and not a caveat on unconnected with the offence. Though I would accept in this case the reason is an administrative difficulty and thus the caveat can be argued as applicable, however the old adage of ‘don’t ask, don’t get’ holds true and courts seem reasonably amenable to the request in most cases.


--------------------
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
bigdaddy1969
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 09:18
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2 Jun 2012
Member No.: 55,268



QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 22:56) *
Basically it's your 'error' which caused the issue - although it's strictly unconnected with the offence itself they may not be minded to impose a fixed penalty equivalent sentence. (But don't ask, don't get)


ok, thank you.

could I ask for proof that NIP was originally sent out within 14 days?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 09:52
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,394
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



You could, but as its greater than 99% certain it was it will achieve little. The chain of NIPs will usually be included in with the 'summons' (SJPN).


--------------------
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
Churchmouse
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 13:39
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 23:51) *
It is also qualified by the words "outside the control of the offender" which do rather introduce a concept of fault.
QUOTE
….where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender


That reads to me like an example, not necessarily a qualification. Judges may read it differently, however.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 19:31
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,323
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



Certainly administrative difficulties are an example, but not all administrative difficulties, only those outside the control of the offender, so administrative difficulties is qualified.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 03:29
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,394
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



That's one interpretation of the 'such as', but it doesn't actually exclude administrative difficulties within the control of the defender, though I concede that's an implication that can be drawn, we don't know the intent in the wording.

I agree the defendant shouldn't EXPECT the fixed penalty tariff but there is no harm in asking and we've seen it given in similar circumstances.


--------------------
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
Churchmouse
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 15:37
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Logician @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 19:31) *
Certainly administrative difficulties are an example, but not all administrative difficulties, only those outside the control of the offender, so administrative difficulties is qualified.

The guidelines do not include a fault element outside of the "administrative difficulties" example. Potential non-administrative difficulties, among others, are completely unqualified. It could be that the qualified example was included in order to emphasise the fault element, but that is not what is actually written in the guidelines.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 19:39
Post #32


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,773
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 09:18) *
could I ask for proof that NIP was originally sent out within 14 days?


You can ask for anything. However, you cannot simply put the prosecution to proof that a NIP was served - the requirement to serve a NIP is deemed to have been complied with unless the contrary is proven.


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

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 10:16
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,911
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 23:51) *
It is also qualified by the words "outside the control of the offender" which do rather introduce a concept of fault.



QUOTE
….where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender


I have always read that as being a qualifier only to third parties. After Whiteside it would be very rare for any administration required by the driver not to be under their control.

Ergo it is not an exhaustive list of which administrative issues would qualify.

It could be interpreted as essentially excluding any administrative issue the defendant is responsible for, but in that it would have been much clearer to say administrative difficulties by third parties. However, of course it is ultimately for a magistrate to decide.


--------------------
No longer posting - please do not PM for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 14:38
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,323
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



The sensible and straightforward meaning is that if the administrative difficulties are caused by the offender, then he should not get the benefit of this provision, if they are not his fault then he can get the benefit.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 15:33
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,911
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Except it really doesn't. The phrase "such as" implies it is one of a number of qualifiers. If it was a simple fault/not fault this could have been stated.

If we assume that in this case "an example of which is" is interchangeable with "such as" it makes it easier to read.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 15:34


--------------------
No longer posting - please do not PM for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 16:46
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,460
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



This is getting pointless now. People have said their piece so leave it at that.


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

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: Sunday, 15th December 2019 - 12:29
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.