PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Company Car NIP 4 Months Late
jevilla802
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 08:43
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 25 May 2018
Member No.: 98,108



Hello,

I received a message from my workplace approximately 3 weeks ago that they had first received notification of a speeding offence in my company vehicle.

The subsequent NIP that has come through the post is dated 22/05/18 but refers to an offence committed 17/01/18. Would I have reasonable grounds to challenge this, and would I be best not to fill in the NIP?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 08:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Dwaynedouglas
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 08:50
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 9 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,346



QUOTE (jevilla802 @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 09:43) *
Would I have reasonable grounds to challenge this


What would you be challenging?

Only the first NIP has to arrive within 14 days, and that would be to the registered keeper (company, finance company, lease company etc.)

If you fail to respond stating unequivocally who was driving, you are leaving yourself open to a S.172 offence, which carries 6 points, and an insurance lifting offence code.


--------------------
I'm not a lawyer or legally trained, my opinion is based on my experience - follow at your own risk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 09:35
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



The only decision for you is whether to fill in the form now or immediately before the deadline
Failing to fill in the form, as already pointed out, results in £500/6 points and insurance problems for the next five years

If you do it now, the most likely outcome is a conditional offer of a fixed penalty - too late for a course
If you wait until the deadline, the police may or may not notice that the offence will time out within four weeks

If they notice, it will go straight to prosecution
If they fail to notice and send the COFP, it can be ignored

The question is whether you feel lucky
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 09:55
Post #4


Member


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



QUOTE (jevilla802 @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 09:43) *
Would I have reasonable grounds to challenge this

We don't have enough information to say. But the likelihood is that you do not have any grounds - as noted, only the first NIP has the 14 day requirement. It is almost certain that this was complied with and subsequent notices have no such limit.

Company cars are often leased and the requests can bounce around before hitting the driver. Things can also be delayed further depending on the status of the car, e.g. when it was registered/bought/transferred etc.

But regardless, any s172 request must be responded to irrespective of any 'late' NIP defence. It is a totally separate matter and can be prosecuted accordingly with the penalty highlighted above.

QUOTE (jevilla802 @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 09:43) *
and would I be best not to fill in the NIP?

As above, that would be a guaranteed way to end up in court.

Do you know the alleged speed/limit?


--------------------
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
BertB
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 10:13
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 497
Joined: 14 Nov 2011
Member No.: 51,087



QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 10:55) *
Do you know the alleged speed/limit?


This would be good to know. If you (OP) are in CoFP territory there is an opportunity of a time out on this one if they do not receive your nomination until the end of the 28 day period.

This post has been edited by BertB: Fri, 25 May 2018 - 10:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 12:04
Post #6


Member


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



QUOTE (BertB @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 11:13) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 10:55) *
Do you know the alleged speed/limit?


This would be good to know. If you (OP) are in CoFP territory there is an opportunity of a time out on this one if they do not receive your nomination until the end of the 28 day period.

Or the possibility of the case going straight to court if a CoFP could result in a timeout, most the camera teams are now using good enough computer control now to know when to, and when not to, issue CoFP's because of that, the days when timeouts where common has passed. If it goes to court it risks a fine and costs of upto £215 if costs and surcharge aren't allowed for in the fine.


--------------------
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
disgrunt
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 12:34
Post #7


Member


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



Op you haven’t said if you were driving or not. If you weren’t driving the chances of a time out for the driver are higher
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 13:06
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Personally I think it would be worth a punt in trying to manipulate a “time out”. The timeline (assuming a Fixed Penalty offer is made) looks like this:

- Offence date: 17th January 2018
- Your NIP/S172 deemed served: Thursday 24th May
- Your response due by: Thursday 21st June
- Fixed Penalty Offer(FPO) received (assumed at earliest): Monday 25th June
- Fixed Penalty to be accepted by: Monday 23rd July

However, if court proceedings are to be instigated they must begin by Tuesday 17th July so if a FPO is made you would be perfectly entitled to ignore it and upon its expiry it would be too late for court proceedings to begin. If no FPO is made and the matter goes directly to court you would be entitled to ask the Magistrates to sentence you in equivalence to the Fixed Penalty instead of in accordance with their guidelines. They have specific guidance which says this:

"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, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances."

The reason the matter would have taken so long to conclude was not within your control. All you would have done was to have taken your full 28 days to respond to the S172 request and you should not be penalised for that. As has been mentioned, it is probable that no FPO will be made but bearing in mind the above you should really have nothing to lose.


QUOTE (disgrunt @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 13:34) *
Op you haven’t said if you were driving or not. If you weren’t driving the chances of a time out for the driver are higher


Indeed. If you were not driving and you respond saying who was by 21st June, even if a fresh S172 request was sent to the driver that very day it would not be assumed served until Monday 25th June. The named driver will then have until Monday 23rd July respond. (This could arguably be Saturday 21st if Saturday is considered a working day - I cannot remember if it is. But still too late for proceedings to begin).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 16:01
Post #9


Member


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



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 14:06) *
you should really have nothing to lose.

Potentially £115, I’ve not heard of any case where the courts adjusted the fine down to £70 to allow for the surcharge, in addition some haven’t waived the £85 prosecution costs.


--------------------
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
NewJudge
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 19:28
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 17:01) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 25 May 2018 - 14:06) *
you should really have nothing to lose.

Potentially £115, I’ve not heard of any case where the courts adjusted the fine down to £70 to allow for the surcharge, in addition some haven’t waived the £85 prosecution costs.

I've heard of plenty. The guidance is quite clear that the offender should not be disadvantaged by being unable to accept a Fixed Penalty for reasons outside his control. The usual form adopted by the Bench in the cases I have seen is to impose a £70 fine, £30 surcharge (they have no discretion to waive this) and no costs. Any other disposal would clearly see the offender disadvantaged.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Fri, 25 May 2018 - 19:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 19:36
Post #11


Member


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



I agree with that.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 19:47
Post #12


Member


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



I would agree it’s how it should be, but we’ve seen plenty of feedbacks where it hasn’t been the case that saying it will happen is ‘optimistic’.


--------------------
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
NewJudge
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 21:47
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Then any such defendants would have a strong case to appeal to the Crown Court against their sentence.

The said guidance is part of the "additional information" that accompanies the Magistrates' Sentencing Guidelines and there's not much point in it being provided if it is not to be followed. There may be instances where the court believes that the offender may have contributed to his inability to accept the FP (if, for example he could not submit his licence because he had lost it). They may then decide to perhaps impose a FP equivalent but also award costs. But where the offender is clearly prevented from accepting a FP through no fault of his own he should pay no more than £100.

In this particular case if the matter went straight to court with no FP being offered it would be for reasons absolutely outside the control of the offender. It's not his fault that his NIP/S172 took more than four months to be served on him and he should be treated in accordance with the guidance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 05:23
Post #14


Member


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



Is anyone realistically going to appeal those sums to a crown court?

I’m not disagreeing with your viewpoint, I’m just saying given the number of cases w were we have feedback where it’s hapoened we shouldn’t give advice that ther would be no disadvantage at all, just that there shouldn’t be one?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sat, 26 May 2018 - 05:24


--------------------
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
Logician
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 22:52
Post #15


Member


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



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 06:23) *
Is anyone realistically going to appeal those sums to a crown court? I’m not disagreeing with your viewpoint, I’m just saying given the number of cases w were we have feedback where it’s hapoened we shouldn’t give advice that ther would be no disadvantage at all, just that there shouldn’t be one?


Equally, we should not give advice that we have not heard of any cases where the courts have adjusted the fine down to £70 to allow for the surcharge, because we have.

Unfortunately the Sentencing Council, no doubt with their minds on far weightier matters, have failed address this specific point following the introduction of the surcharge, and the courts are left merely with the general guidance that the offender should not be disadvantaged. Logically that should apply to the surcharge as much as to the fine and costs, which were the only items current at the time it was written, but not all magistrates agree, probably because they are also instructed not to adjust any fines to reflect the fact that a surcharge will be applied.






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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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 - 10:04
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