[NIP Wizard] Late NIP and Section 172 info |
[NIP Wizard] Late NIP and Section 172 info |
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 10:29
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 17 Apr 2020 From: Kent Member No.: 108,502 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - March 2020 Date of the NIP: - 13 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 19 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A140 Coddenham Suffolk 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? - 0 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 - Snapped at 69 mph on dual carriageway with 50 mph limit. This road is mainly single carriageway with varying speed limits, much of it 50 mph. The dual carriageway was signposted from several miles ahead and I guess I just assumed it was NSP. The signage was probably OK just my expectation it would be NSP. I received the NIP on day 19, it had been posted on day 13 by first class mail. Having looked at this site & others, my understanding of the law is that the NIP must be mailed in sufficient time for it to be 'presumed' to be delivered by day 14. If mailed on day 13 by registered post or recorded delivery it is 'irrebuttably presumed' to have been served in time. If first class mail is used on day 13 it can only be 'presumed' that it was delivered after 2 working days, ie day 15, and even this can be 'rebutted' by evidence to the contrary. Based on this I believe that there was little likelihood of this NIP being served in time and I have a good case to prove that it was time expired. I have drafted a letter based upon the RAC Legal Helpline template which I am about to send. My questions are should I still complete the Section 172 information on the NIP. The advice on this seems to be mixed. One of my concerns is that if I do provide the information they may just ignore my letter and proceed with the speeding offence. If that happens can I then rely on the 'time expired' NIP defence against the speeding case in court? 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:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 10:29:43 +0000 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 10:29
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 09:57
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Is there a chance the Police try to proceed anyway only to back down at the last minute when the prosecutor realises the error? Would the OP get costs for winning the case but having to go to court to defend it? Yes there is, however what we usually see is an offer of a fixed penalty and then it quietly dropped. It depends on how far it got and what the costs were made up of. -------------------- 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, 21 Apr 2020 - 10:13
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
I think the lockdown has something to do with this. I am certain the V5C is fine but the lockdown could well have cause them problems, short of staff, missing experienced staff, just get out the NIPs and hope for the best? The excessive delay to the delivery, ie day 19 rather day 15, I believe was due Royal Mail lockdown problems. I think we had a delivery on day 14, a Friday but then nothing until day 19, the following Wednesday. I've looked at the Royal Mail website and they were flagging possible disruption from 1 April, day 12, and possibly earlier. But of course this is no excuse for the late delivery of the NIP thanks to Gidden, unless there's something hidden in the lockdown legislation. I'll wait and see how they react to my letter. It's quite possible they will issue a fixed penalty and put the ball back in my court, excuse the pun. I made it quite clear in my letter that 'I know my rights' so it will depend if they really want to waste everyone's time. The lockdown is already having a big impact on the courts so it's possible that this could time out along with many other cases. doc The issue really is not with the post. With the NIP dated (and probably posted) on day 13 there is a strong likelihood that it would have been served late anyway and as I mentioned earlier it would mean (without any reason for its late issue) a prosecution would be jeopardised because the presumption of service could not be relied upon. There seems to be no widespread reports of NIPs being sent out late (though of course that doesn't necessarily mean it's not happening). But there is far less traffic on the roads and I would imagine fewer offences being committed. There should be no issue with delays at the DVLA. The police do not have to approach the DVLA for the keeper's details for every vehicle they apprehend. They work on a copy of the DVLA database and if the details for your vehicle have not changed in the recent past there should be no issue. Do let us know what response you receive. |
|
|
Sat, 23 May 2020 - 14:10
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 17 Apr 2020 From: Kent Member No.: 108,502 |
LATEST UPDATE
I returned the NIP confirming I was the driver together with my letter based upon the RAC proforma demonstrating that the NIP was out of time. I received an email saying that I had not filled in all the info on Part 1 of the NIP and I would be prosecuted for this breach. I emailed back a copy of the NIP with driving licence no, email & phone. Not sure if this was infact necessary but was not material to my claim that the NIP was out of time. As predicted on this forum my letter was ignored and I have received a 'Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty' £100 plus 3 points. Interestingly, this document took 8 days to be delivered. While my experience is that the post is a little slower than usual it is not that slow. I believe there are issues at Norfolk & Suffolk ticketing regarding the timeliness of their mailings. I have taken up the remainder of the 28 days available to respond to the Fixed Penalty offer and requested the matter to be dealt with in court. In the letter I have repeated the facts from my original letter based upon the RAC proforma. I am not expecting any response. If I do hear more I will update this thread, otherwise I will wait another 4 months for the 6 month time limit to pass and let you all know. |
|
|
Sat, 23 May 2020 - 15:18
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
I received an email saying that I had not filled in all the info on Part 1 of the NIP and I would be prosecuted for this breach. I emailed back a copy of the NIP with driving licence no, email & phone. That's a shame. Section 172 says "the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police." I'm not familiar with any case law where the information that was provided was said to be deficient. Unless there is, I think it would be a harsh court that convicts you of failing to provide the driver's details on the basis you describe. Did you provide the missing information within the 28 days allowed by the original request? |
|
|
Sat, 23 May 2020 - 16:41
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,506 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
I returned the NIP confirming I was the driver together with my letter based upon the RAC proforma demonstrating that the NIP was out of time. Just to be sure - your nomination was in time, unequivocally named/confirmed the driver and was signed? I received an email saying that I had not filled in all the info on Part 1 of the NIP and I would be prosecuted for this breach. I emailed back a copy of the NIP with driving licence no, email & phone. Not sure if this was infact necessary but was not material to my claim that the NIP was out of time. There's no such offence as breaching Part 1 of a form. Indeed, there's no requirement use their form at all as long as it satisfies the requirement. Sounds like a bit of bluster/sour grapes. As predicted on this forum my letter was ignored and I have received a 'Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty' £100 plus 3 points. If they have sent a CoFP then this would seem to contradict the above. If the driver was not named (to their 'satisfaction') then how could they progress to offer? Interestingly, this document took 8 days to be delivered. While my experience is that the post is a little slower than usual it is not that slow. I believe there are issues at Norfolk & Suffolk ticketing regarding the timeliness of their mailings. Yeah, mail is pretty messed up at the moment. My postie seems to be saving it all up and delivering just once a week. I am not expecting any response. If I do hear more I will update this thread, otherwise I will wait another 4 months for the 6 month time limit to pass and let you all know. Indeed, the ball is in their court at the moment. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Mon, 25 May 2020 - 15:12
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 17 Apr 2020 From: Kent Member No.: 108,502 |
Just to Cllarify:
Having returned the NIP confirming I was the driver, the NIP already having my name & address on it and my signed letter also confirmed that I was the driver. I then received an email stating that Part 1 must be completed in full otherwise "court proceedings would commence". The only info that they did not already have was my phone number and my driving licence number, which the form implies is necessary only if you wish to be considered for a course, which I did not. I hadn't signed the form because I had signed the letter confirming I was the driver. I think this was just a jobs worth ticking boxes because I had originally provided all the relevant information in my signed letter. However, this was not something I was going to argue about because i didn't want to cloud the issue of the late NIP. They suggested that the updated NIP could be scanned and returned by email to stay within the time limits. So I did finally provide all the info for Part 1 of NIP within time, although I was not personally convinced it was necessary. I am also not convinced that anyone even remotely knowledgeable of the relevant law has been involved in any part of this process yet. |
|
|
Mon, 25 May 2020 - 19:30
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
I suspect they scan the forms to extract the information and ignore any letter, and if the scanner sees an empty box a warning letter is generated automatically.
-------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 25 May 2020 - 21:44
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I am also not convinced that anyone even remotely knowledgeable of the relevant law has been involved in any part of this process yet. You're right about that, the people who process these notices have no need for any in-depth knowledge of the law. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 3 Jun 2020 - 14:42
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 17 Apr 2020 From: Kent Member No.: 108,502 |
LATEST UPDATE
I have now received a charge sheet with 21 days to enter my plea. The police report enclosed refers to all the correspondence and my letter claiming that the Notice was not received within 14 days. It also states that they had replied "explaining that legal requirements had been met". The only occasion when any such reply was made was to my very first email questioning when the NIP was sent. They replied that the NIP was posted on the day it was dated, day 13, and that they had until day 14 to send it. I will use up most of the 21 day period before entering my not guilty plea. BUT SOME ADVICE PLEASE: In pleading not guilty and completing the paperwork 'Information for the Court' 'I am pleading not guilty because:' I intend to I repeat everything that I previously set out in my letters, based upon the RAC proforma? But do I actually have to provide anything at this stage in the proceedings? 'Prosecution witness statements' A police witness is identified in the documentation with evidence being "business records and images" but nothing has been included in the pack. I have seen copies of the camera images and don't dispute them. But I have not seen any busines records regarding the posting of the NIP. So is this how I respond stating what evidence I require to see supporting their assertion that they have met the legal requirements for the NIP? |
|
|
Wed, 3 Jun 2020 - 14:53
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Under "I am pleading not guilty because" I would put: Because the requirements of section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 have not been met and that is a statutory bar to conviction.
I would also write to the police and the local CPS magistrates courts team to formally ask for the initial details of the prosecution case under Part 8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (quote this specifically), and specify that this should include evidence regarding the posting of the NIP. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 3 Jun 2020 - 15:02
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I don’t know why you’re intending on using up the 21 days you have to reply - what is the benefit to you in not replying (once you know what to say)?
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Wed, 3 Jun 2020 - 19:43
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 17 Apr 2020 From: Kent Member No.: 108,502 |
Under "I am pleading not guilty because" I would put: Because the requirements of section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 have not been met and that is a statutory bar to conviction. I would also write to the police and the local CPS magistrates courts team to formally ask for the initial details of the prosecution case under Part 8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (quote this specifically), and specify that this should include evidence regarding the posting of the NIP. Thanks for this |
|
|
Wed, 3 Jun 2020 - 19:59
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 17 Apr 2020 From: Kent Member No.: 108,502 |
I don’t know why you’re intending on using up the 21 days you have to reply - what is the benefit to you in not replying (once you know what to say)? Good question. My thougts were that this charge is not going to be withdrawn but probably just allowed to run out of time and the nearer we get to the six month time limit the less likely it is to come to court. But I'd appreciate any thoughts on whether this is a sensible approach. |
|
|
Wed, 3 Jun 2020 - 20:01
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,506 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
...and the nearer we get to the six month time limit the less likely it is to come to court. The 6 months limit is to commence proceedings only. -------------------- 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, 3 Jun 2020 - 20:18
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
If what you have is a Single Justice Procedure Notice (as seems likely) then proceedings have already commenced inside 6 months, so nothing to gain.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 20:02
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 17 Apr 2020 From: Kent Member No.: 108,502 |
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:31 |