PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP's
tiptop
post Mon, 30 Jun 2003 - 09:33
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Member No.: 119



Hello,

Please can someone help ?

Date of alleged offence :23/04/2003
NIP : not recieved
Summons: Letter regarding summons received 16/06/2003
Rang Police: 16/06/2003 asked for original NIP and details
NIP: Received 23/06/2003 with an issue date 20/06/03 ?

Query: Have they missed the 14days to issue NIP I asked for the original to be sent they said they could but it looks like this was never issued ?

Do I have a case not to pay ?

Any help greatly appreciated...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Mon, 30 Jun 2003 - 09:33
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Marty
post Mon, 30 Jun 2003 - 12:09
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Member No.: 116



Hi Tiptop.
Well as long as it was your car ( Registered to you ) then it would seem that the old bill have cocked up. They have 14 days & a reasonable overlap to allow for postal delay ( a Day or 2 ). Looks like you could get out of it on a point of law. I assume you were not stopped at the roadside or have had no previous communication with them. I would also comunicate in Writing as then you have evidence. Be carefull what you say as they may try to trick you. Stick to the facts & be carefull to Admit Nothing, even on the phone.

Would be interesting to hear what others have to say.

hope this helps.

Good luck,

Marty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stephen fleck
post Tue, 1 Jul 2003 - 16:29
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 1 Jul 2003
Member No.: 123



The 14 day rule only applies to certain offences.

The standard speeding offence which attracts the offer of a Fixed Penalty Notice e.g. RTRA Section 89(1) unfortunately does not apply.

If you look up the RTOA 1988..........

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/ac...53_en_1.htm#end

you will see that :

Section 1.(1)c(ii) says that a NIP must be served to the registered keeper within 14 days (unless the driver got an on-the-spot notification). The small print in sub-clause 1.(4) says this is only applicable for certain offences as listed in Schedule 1 at the end of the Act.

Schedule 1 lists Careless Driving, Reckless Driving & Bad Parking as applicable, but not speeding.

Sorry ! I'm in the same boat (my NIP was dated Day 15).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Odd Job
post Tue, 1 Jul 2003 - 20:17
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 194
Joined: 20 May 2003
Member No.: 54



Stephen, I'm not doubting your reply to this matter, but I think that some clarification is necessary on this point. A lot of the info provided on this site refers to the 14 day rule for the serving of NIP's, and many people are of the opinion that there is a time limit for issuing a NIP relating to a speeding offence.

So could someone please clarify:

Does a NIP for speeding have to issued within 14 days of the offence ???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Wed, 2 Jul 2003 - 06:57
Post #5


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Hi tiptop,

Like the other parts of our law, the 14 day rule is not straight forward.

Firstly you should read the NIP page very carefully and what the law has to say on this subject.

However, in 1994 the law has been amended to allow the police to send the NIP by First Class post, and it would appear that as long as they have a record of the NIP being issued, then that is sufficient evidence.

They have six months to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), because they are exempt from the 14 day rule. This link includes the advice of the RAC's legal team.

However, 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 , OR
(b) that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the delay.

Case files fourteen and fifteen, are good examples of how this works in practice and, in my opinion, a decent lawyer should always be able to win a genuine case.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stephen fleck
post Thu, 3 Jul 2003 - 11:26
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 1 Jul 2003
Member No.: 123



Mika,

So if the NIP is "late", and the Police didn't stop you at the time, and they could have tracked your details easily, etc., am I correct in thinking that :
1) they cannot 'prosecute' you i.e. issue a court summons for the offence,
but
2) they can, however, issue a FPN, within 6 months ?

Are you not still obliged to return the NIP ?
Without it completed (and signed !) I don't think they can issue a FPN (they have no evidence).
The RAC letter doesn't say whether you should return the NIP. Is the point of the RAC letter to avoid court summons, and force a FPN ?

I'm in the interesting position of having returned a late NIP, completed, but unsigned. I am the keeper, but was not the driver. Cambs Police have said the matter will be dealt with by court (the exact offence was not specified). I've just pointed out the lateness of the NIP to them, asking for any prosecution to be dropped.

I suppose they could still threaten Section 172 offence, since this is what's preventing them from issuing a FPN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Thu, 3 Jul 2003 - 12:44
Post #7


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Hi Stephen,

The RAC legal team said that, if the police issue a “malicious FPN” following their suggested letter, the motorist should get back to them. But perhaps not surprisingly, the individual never heard any more because the NIP was issued too late and had “time expired”.

However, if you returned the completed NIP “late”, then your case is quite different and I suspect that you will receive a summons for a section 172 offence – failing to provide the name of the driver. icon_redface.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stephen fleck
post Thu, 3 Jul 2003 - 13:43
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 1 Jul 2003
Member No.: 123



Mika,

Thanks for the help. I should clarify that it was the NIP which was issued late (dated Day 15 after the offence), not my reply.

I replied to the NIP in good time, giving the driver details as required by s172, sent it recorded delivery, but unsigned. Their subsequent request that I furnish a SIGNED NIP, threatening Broomfield etc. confirmed that they received the 1st one OK.

So I don't think I could get convicted on a s172 charge, currently. But who knows what will happen after 15th July (unless it gets adjourned again !).

Am I correct in thinking that they do need a signed NIP to issue a FPN ?

Stephen
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marty
post Thu, 3 Jul 2003 - 13:50
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Member No.: 116



hi Mika.
I have had my 1st 2 NIP's returned with a letter saying that failure to sign ect will result in a summons under sec 172 ect & quoting Broomfield. They also point out that is the form was unsigned because of media reports or advice then I am misinformed & yet the content of the letter contains misinformation in itself.
Also they state that, & I Quote " Indeed on a National level we have advice from the CPS in support of the matter, stating that the Judgment is "Sound & robust". ( This relates to Broomfield ) It was decided the registered keeper is obliged to provide a signiture & failure to do so is a breach of section 172 RTA 1988.

As I understand it Sec 172 RTA 1988 has been replaced as in the ecert below from recent amendments on the .gov website.

1988 c. 52. Section 172 was substituted by the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 27), section 21 and was amended by the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22), section 63 and paragraph 24(1) of Schedule 3.

The Letter I got was this time from Adrian Emberton & Not signed on behalf of the chief of Police.

I am now pondering what to do bext as my 28 days are up today & they say I still have to comply with this. Well I havn't so we'll see.

cheers,

Marty.

PS: The NIP was stamped as received on 1st July. Maybe some milage there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Thu, 3 Jul 2003 - 14:26
Post #10


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Hi Stephen,

If you get a summons, I suggest that you enter a plea of not guilty and send the CPS the RAC’s letter.

Good luck, icon_wink.gif
++++
Hi Marty,

Most of the amendments to the RTA to which you refer, are only applicable to company owned vehicles. In the following case, involving Avon & Somerset Constabulary, they refer to section 172 (7) which says:

“(7) A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made—

(a) it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and

(B) the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.”

But where does it say that you must sign the Form icon_question.gif icon_redface.gif Remember it was CPS Bristol, who appealed Broomfield to the High Court in the first place, and even they have stopped referring to the ruling icon_eek.gif

You may wish to send a letter similar to this to the police and perhaps you should consider copying it to their Complaints and Disciplinary department and to:

Sir David Calvert-Smith, QC,
Director of Public Prosecutions,
CPS Headquarters,
50 Ludgate Hill,
London EC4.

Don't forget to use Special Delivery. icon_idea.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marty
post Thu, 3 Jul 2003 - 23:15
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35
Joined: 29 Jun 2003
Member No.: 116



Thanks for that..
I was sure this was right but you know when one gets these things from an authority it is very easy to think that what they are telling you must be right. Not.
In the Doc accompanying the original NIP it definately says that under Sec 172 (7) 1988 RTA that it requires the NIP to be signed. As far as I'm concerned that is Misinformation intended to mislead an individuall or parties as to ones rights within the law. I think this is appauling.
How low will these Jumped up scumbags stoop to get convictions on people who in the main try to be law abiding and lead decent lives. I hate them & the system they support.

Mika. If I send a copy of the letter to the address you suggest, is it likely the jepordise my cases ?

Hey, I just heard tonight from a mate that the Conservatives have said that if they get in that they will abolish Scameras. anyone heard the same ?

I think it is worth the vote just to get this evil scurge off the highways.

Thanks for ALL your help,

Marty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Fri, 4 Jul 2003 - 08:15
Post #12


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Hi Marty,

John Josephs, who is John Pickford’s solicitor, recommends ignoring the police correspondence. However, in my experience, most people tend not to like ignoring threatening letters from the police. Such individuals may wish to enter into polite correspondence that requests “clarification” on a point of law:

“Where in the law does it say that I have a legal obligation to sign the Form?”

Doing so is unlikely to “jeopardise their case” and to date, I am not aware that anyone has received an answer to the question - why do you think that could be? As you have found, they just keep quoting larger sections of completely irrelevant statute instead.

So, if you are comfortable ignoring their threatening letters, then that is what you should do.

Polite letters seeking clarification that are ignored, also tell us all we need to know about the conduct of our Public Servants. Furthermore, deception and attempting to pervert the course of justice, may be slightly less serious offences than speeding, but they are criminal offences non the less.

This link will take you to the story that you referred to in your last post.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stephen fleck
post Thu, 10 Jul 2003 - 17:03
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 1 Jul 2003
Member No.: 123



Mika, Odd Job, Tip Top & anyone else interested,

This is my 3rd attempt at a posting to clarify my previous 14-day rule 'confusion'.

I said earlier that the 14-day rule did not apply to speeding offences, as per RTOA 1988 Section 1 and Schedule 1. However, I've just discovered the amendment in RTOA 1991, which adds speeding fines to the list. Phew.

Hope this helps.

1 thing I am still puzzled about. How come, if the police are exempt from the 14-day rule and can issue FPNs for up to 6 months, why does the RAC legal letter tell the police that the NIP 'cannot be acted upon' if it is over 14 days ? Are they advocating non-completion of the NIP ? Can a FPN be issued without a valid (signed) NIP ? It may be academic, but I'd be interested to know if I could still be prosecuted for non-signing a late NIP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Fri, 11 Jul 2003 - 08:08
Post #14


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Hi Stephen,

I agree that this is somewhat confusing:

The implication is that the FPN can be issued without a NIP ever having been served. This is why the RAC asked the motorist to get back to them is the police issued him with a “malicious FPN” - perhaps not surprisingly, he never heard anymore icon_wink.gif .

Therefore, an FPN can legally be issued up to six months after the date of the alleged offence, without a NIP ever having been served.

But what happens if the defendant declines the offer of the FPN, and requests that the matter is dealt with by a court? There will be no NIP (signed or otherwise icon_redface.gif ), and how are you supposed to remember who was driving six months after the date of the alleged offence? rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dave5
post Sat, 8 May 2004 - 19:43
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 8 May 2004
Member No.: 1,182



HI obviously I have recieved one of the dreaded letters from the saftey camera unit (for the first time) I would like to thank you for the hard work and effort that has gone in to making this site and for all the information on a subject which I did not know I knew so little about.

I have a couple of questions I would be grateful if anyone could advise. I have been caught on a mobile camera on a bridge above the A14 in Cambridgeshire. It is on a video and the distance away that I have been recorded is so far away from the camera it is impossible to see my number. When my number is visble there is no speed being recorded. I believe I was accelrating to get past some traffic joining the A14 of a slip road and had slowed back down to the 70 mph limit very quickly. Does this matter. I also believe the speed they indicate is high


Most importantly if I read the information on the site correctly. The date of the offence was the 17th Mar I did not recieve the NIP until after the 28th April (42days) 28th being the date on the NIP

I am the registered owner and could easily have been tracked

Can they do this ? is it stricktly 14 days?

Does it matter that I have signed and returned my form ?

Thank you

Dave
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Sun, 9 May 2004 - 02:14
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (dave5)
Most importantly if I read the information on the site correctly. The date of the offence was the 17th Mar I did not recieve the NIP until after the 28th April (42days) 28th being the date on the NIP

I am the registered owner and could easily have been tracked

Can they do this ? is it stricktly 14 days?

Yes, it is strictly 14 days. If it is more than 14 days, that is a defence to a speeding charge. Are you sure that you are the registered keeper? The 14 day rule only applies to the first NIP in the chain, the one to the registered keeper.

QUOTE (dave5)
Does it matter that I have signed and returned my form ?

No. That is only admitting that you were the driver at the time. It is not an admission of guilt of the offence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Sun, 9 May 2004 - 05:58
Post #17


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Jeffrey,

Incidentally, the 14-day rule is also a valid defence against a S 172 – failing to provide charge.


--------------------
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: Saturday, 28th January 2023 - 03:59
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.