Advice Please - Not Acknowledging Receipt Options

[Davey]

Hi,
Have received a NIP about 1 month after the alleged offence:-
38 in a 30.
(the original NIP was sent to the Registered Keeper, previously)

Returned a PACE with the NIP attached as described elsewhere in these forums.

Received a reminder, dated exactly 28 days after the NIP,saying no reply has been received and suggesting S.172 action would be taken and I should contact them immediately.

As this reminder is dated 2 days after the Signed For delivery receipt, it's not as if they've crossed in the post.

My question at this point is:-

Should I write back in reply to this reminder (as they indicate I should contact them), indicating that the required information has been provided, so they cann't just treat it as a failure to reply ?

I have a printout of the PO Delivery receipt with a Signature, Name & Time of Delivery on it.

My inclination 'though is to be as helpful as possible and make sure they cann't just treat it as a failure to reply.

Any advice appreciated

Thanks,

Davey


Here's what the NIP Wizard had to say:-
(I cann't seem to get the nice formated output at the end that I've seen in a lot of these posts)

NIP Wizard
Based on the answers you've given we recommend that you consider:

NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Sussex
Date of the offence: - June 2006
Date of the NIP: - 30 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 36 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Marine Parade, Worhing.
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? – Company 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 – I don’t remember anything about it , but the alleged offence is stated as:-
"EXCESS SPEED - 30 MPH (automatic camera device/speed detection device) travelling at 38 mph on ____ in____ at ____ hours"

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - No
Although you are not the Registered Keeper, were you the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it)? - Yes
Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

• Complete the PACE witness statement.

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

This post has been edited by Davey: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 - 15:29

[Advertisement]

[Blackbird]

Did you write 'see attached' on the original NIP? Do you have a photocopy?

Should I write back in reply to this reminder (as they indicate I should contact them), indicating that the required information has been provided, so they cann't just treat it as a failure to reply ?

Well you have received some typical Bluff and Bluster but it is unusual to be asked to make contact immediately.

Personally I would do nothing, knowing that I would love to see a s172 summons drop through the letterbox
But perhaps you are not quite as 'grumpy' as me.
If you feel that you have to respond, a letter on the lines of 'Please sort out your systems, I have already responded, my letter was delivered to youselves on xxx and I have a signature for delivery (as I will have for this letter)
Whatever you do, avoid phone conversations.

As with all B&B, the advice is to do absolutely nothing.

Regards

[Davey]

Thanks Blackbird,

Yes indeed, see attached was written on the NIP and attached it to the PACE and kept a copy of both.

I suspect this isn't really a B&B but just a standard reminder, as if they hadn't received anything.

Isn't it my duty to point out their apparent oversight 'though, which their reminder has brought to my attention, just in case it's more than that.

Is the printout of delivery signature from PO's website, sufficient proof that one did reply ?

The PACE was sent to the POBox address of the camera unit indicated on their NIP.

This post has been edited by Davey: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 - 16:01

[andy_foster]

They have received it. The reminder was probably automatically generated on day 28(ish) as the computer has not been told that you've complied with the s.172 requirement.

If you really feel that you are obliged to point out their errors to them, may I suggest that you join the IPCC and do it properly...

[Davey]

If you really feel that you are obliged to point out their errors to them, may I suggest that you join the IPCC and do it properly...

Thanks Andy, Very well put. I've always supported the police 'though and would rather go perhaps beyond the call of duty now, rather than being treated like a fugitive from justice in the meantime and getting an apology from the CC later.

The danger of course is in inadvertently incriminating oneself in the process...

I have replied to their request, although the reminder suggests they haven't perhaps realised/accepted or received it.

What does anyone else think ?

Cheers,

Davey

[Davey]

........... but it is unusual to be asked to make contact immediately.

Well to be precise, it probably wasn't so unusual , if I just quote the substance of it:-

To date no reply has been received at this office and a decision will shortly be made as to whether or not to prosecute you for failing to comply with Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If you have not returned the NIP duly completed, I would advise you to do so by return of post.

Your liability remains outstanding and you are advised to contact this office without further delay.

I await your early response.

If they don't realise they've got it 'though, will they send the boys round ?

This post has been edited by Davey: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 - 18:01

[Sherwood]

If it gets to court, follow this excellent link, from Mika:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=4985



Sorry all - i dont know how to alter the above into an idnetified link

[djtaylor]

........... but it is unusual to be asked to make contact immediately.

Well to be precise, it probably wasn't so unusual , if I just quote the substance of it:-

To date no reply has been received at this office and a decision will shortly be made as to whether or not to prosecute you for failing to comply with Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If you have not returned the NIP duly completed, I would advise you to do so by return of post.

Your liability remains outstanding and you are advised to contact this office without further delay.

I await your early response.

If they don't realise they've got it 'though, will they send the boys round ?

When they sent the boys (boy) round in my case, I was out. That's what happens when they choose to call unannounced.

Pity really because before having a conversation, they'd have been rather obliged to caution me at which point they'd have to have told me that I had the right to remain silent, an option that I would have welcomed!

David.

[Davey]

When they sent the boys (boy) round in my case, I was out. That's what happens when they choose to call unannounced.

Pity really because before having a conversation, they'd have been rather obliged to caution me at which point they'd have to have told me that I had the right to remain silent, an option that I would have welcomed! ;)

David.

Hi David,
Did they come round for the same reason in your case ?
Surely then it would be better to mention that I had already replied (ie. the something one might later rely on in court) & even show the proof if requested, to avoid it 'escalating'.
Davey

This post has been edited by Davey: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 - 19:43

[Davey]

If it gets to court, follow this excellent link, from Mika:

Thanks for that Sherwood,
I'll save that for later, if it ever comes to that, as I don't seem to have the access privileges to read it at the moment.
Regards,

Davey