NIP received after 14 days but i'm a new owner |
NIP received after 14 days but i'm a new owner |
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:47
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 20 May 2006 Member No.: 5,789 |
Hi
i received a NIP from South Yorks Police for motorway driving at 63 in a variable speed zone of 50. NIP received on 12/11/18 offence 07/09/18 clearly more than 14 days. BUT, this was a new car, purchased on 04/09/18. I filled out the V50 new owner information online (on 04/09/18) rather than submitting t he paper copy by post. I know that the previous owner received a NIP on the 17/09/18 and a follow up on 22/10/18 I have read here ( http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87 ) that the 14 day requirement is the law not a guideline. But, i have also read in the same thread that: failure by the police to comply with section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is not a bar to conviction of the accused where the court is satisfied – (a) that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for a summons, or as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement this thread dates from 2003. What are the learned members' opinions regarding the likelihood of my success in contesting this NIP? as a follow up, if i contest the NIP with the RAC letter (shown in the aforementioned thread), do i immediately deny myself the option of receiving the speed awareness course instead? This post has been edited by mk1: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:52 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:47
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:59
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
So the first NIP was sen tto the previous owner within 14 days?
-------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 13:12
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
What date is at the bottom of page 2 of your v5 in DD MM YY format as documentation reference?
as a follow up, if i contest the NIP with the RAC letter (shown in the aforementioned thread), do i immediately deny myself the option of receiving the speed awareness course instead? Regardless, the driver needs to be named. The Force will likely assert that they've complied with the necessary timeframes and you do not have a '14 day defence'. (But let's establish some facts first) You can only informally challenge which shouldn't impact your chance of a course or fixed penalty - but a formal challenge would be at court and only court sentencing would then apply if found guilty. There's also a 4 month requirement for courses to be taken - so any delays could impact the offering of one. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 14:25
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,723 Joined: 3 Apr 2006 From: North Hampshire Member No.: 5,183 |
The Force will likely assert that they've complied with the necessary timeframes and you do not have a '14 day defence'. (But let's establish some facts first) Based on the OP, the previous owner received a NIP 10 days after the offence. So clearly the 14 day has been complied with. |
|
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 15:15
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
The Force will likely assert that they've complied with the necessary timeframes and you do not have a '14 day defence'. (But let's establish some facts first) Based on the OP, the previous owner received a NIP 10 days after the offence. So clearly the 14 day has been complied with. Yes, spotted that. But the OP says they updated their details prior to the alleged incident. (My hunch is the DVLA did not actually immediately update the records, thus the question about the v5) But what if the DOCREF date is actually before the alleged incident? This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 15:16 -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 15:23
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Depends on how long before, as ‘reasonably’ the Police reply in the PNC which is usually one day behind the DVLA AIUI.
-------------------- 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, 16 Nov 2018 - 16:10
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Depends on how long before, as ‘reasonably’ the Police reply in the PNC which is usually one day behind the DVLA AIUI. Indeed, it's likely the OP has no case but best to see what the facts are first. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 11:08
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 20 May 2006 Member No.: 5,789 |
So the first NIP was sen tto the previous owner within 14 days? Yes What date is at the bottom of page 2 of your v5 in DD MM YY format as documentation reference? it's 04 09 18 as an addendum....i also changed the number plate, so the full chronology: 04/09/18 - date bought car, registered online as new owner with dvla, date on pg2 of V5 issued to me 07/09/18 - date of offence 10/09/18 - registration put on retention (with me as the grantee), new reg issued, new V5 issued (to me), this date is the doc ref on page 2 of the new V5 17/09/18 - NIP sent to previous owner 22/10/18 - reminder sent to previous owner 06/11/18 - previous owner completes part 2 of the NIP naming me as new owner 12/11/18 - NIP sent to me |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 12:08
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Interesting, without the retention there might be an angle. But the retention seems to have caused a back-track to the previous keeper.
I think it would be risky taking it to court. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 12:16
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 20 May 2006 Member No.: 5,789 |
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 12:28
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,503 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
A plate on retention shouldn’t be on a vehicle - the DVLA/PNC query would have shown the retention and they’ve used previous keeper details to track the driver.
Arguing that they’ve failed to meet the 14 day requirements won’t be simple and section 2 RTOA has some exceptions anyway. See what others think but it’s not straightforward. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 15:56
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
The issue is that the police only need to use reasonable diligence, not every means possible, so if the PNC returned the previous keepers details, then it would be reasonable to assume that’s correct, if it returned it as on retention then they could have either tried a back track of RK details or the insurance database, either would be reasonable and may have returned the previous RK. Either could be classed as reasonable. While not at all impossible I’ll think that whatever the Police did a court will accept as reasonable.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 19:42
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
Since when does "could not with reasonable diligence" equate to "did something which seems reasonable"?
Whilst somewhat nebulous, "reasonable diligence" means pretty much the same as "reasonable diligence" does in s. 172(4) RTA 1988 -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 20:52
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Because if you come by the information reasonably then there is no diligence required to keep looking, in your wholly inappropriate simile you are trying to determine something you don’t have, in this case if you reasonably believe you have it does reasonable diligence require you keep looking? I’d suggest not, hence my wording.
This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 20:53 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 21:32
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
You seem to have read your previous post as selectively as you read other people's posts.
Your first point is broadly correct - if the DVLA had the previous RK listed as the current keeper at the time of the enquiry, and the police would have had no reason to doubt its accuracy, then obtaining the OP's details would have required speculative investigation which would have gone beyond reasonable diligence. If the PNC was out of date, and the DVLA database had the OP listed as RK then it would seem to be at least arguable that the police could with reasonable diligence have ascertained the OP's details. The fact that their policy is to use potentially out of date information does not necessarily mean that accessing up to date information from the DVLA is beyond reasonable diligence. However, your post goes from being arguably right (and arguably wrong) to being completely wrong (in the context of it being in any way relevant). If the PNC showed an issue, and the police could reasonably obtain information from the MIB database and look up the previous keeper's details, then only doing what would pretty much be guaranteed not to provide the driver or RK's details cannot be said to exhaust reasonable diligence. The law does not say "as long as the police did something that seems reasonable it's all gravy", it says "could not with reasonable diligence...". -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 22:43
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,196 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Your suggesting that having uncovered one address during their RD they should complete all RD to see if there is a better one, I strongly believe that’s not the intention of Parliament nor that a court would either.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 18:19
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 20 May 2006 Member No.: 5,789 |
hmmmm interesting points of view......i think i'm irritated that as the RK and as the owner of the private reg that the offence was committed under, then the Police should have access to the correct details. To argue that their DB is necessarily out of date by a certain number of days days, seems to be accepting a whole multiple of issues that surely would cause problems throughout their working day...(it's not like people buying and selling cars is unusual, so presumably people are stopped all the time in cars that ANPR show registered and insured to someone else?)....i suppose i'm saying, i can't believe that they would operate under these conditions and so in my case they've made an error.
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 18:45
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
i suppose i'm saying, i can't believe that they would operate under these conditions What, with a mirror version of the DVLA database refreshed every 24 hours? Believe what you like but that was certainly the case within the last ten years. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 18:46
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
i think i'm irritated that i can't get out of it. FTFY You have the option of taking the matter to court, but I suspect it'll prove to be an expensive day out. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:02 |