Returned NIP not delivered by royal mail |
Returned NIP not delivered by royal mail |
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. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 12:25
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 12:34
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 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.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 16:33
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,283 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.
|
|
|
Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 17:20
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 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. |
|
|
Wed, 1 Aug 2018 - 20:36
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
You have proof you have complied Is this the case even where his “proof” indicates it may not have been delivered? -------------------- 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, 1 Aug 2018 - 21:09
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 04:40
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 784 Joined: 9 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,764 |
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. |
|
|
Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 05:40
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 292 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. |
|
|
Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 09:50
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 12:52
Post
#10
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 1 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,184 |
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 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 |
|
|
Thu, 2 Aug 2018 - 13:05
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 16:10
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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? -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 19:07
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 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. |
|
|
Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 19:09
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 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.
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 19:28
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 18:27
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 784 Joined: 9 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,764 |
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. |
|
|
Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 19:36
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
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 |
|
|
Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 20:39
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
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. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 22:47
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 784 Joined: 9 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,764 |
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. 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 |
|
|
Sat, 4 Aug 2018 - 23:31
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:22 |