PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP not driving
ljwats
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:14
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,647



I am posting this in need of help.

I remember 3 years ago receiving (what I think back was an NIP) with a photo of my car going over a red light. I am the registered keeper and owner of the vechicle

I was not driving (my partner was) so I sent it back with his name his address. I heard nothing else. I presume they had sent it within 14 days of offence. I sent this back straight away

My partner did not receive any correspondence at all at his address

His employed has now been instructed to take £461 and £500 directly from his bank account (one last month and this month)

He knew nothing about this until his received his last may packet to his surprise.

He has called the DVLA today who has said it was from April 2015

MS90: Failure to give information as to identity of driver etc
Penalty points: 6 Fine: £660.00

I did give them his details, he never received anything to say he was being fined or that it was going to court .... Help... what can he do? The fine seems to also have added £300 extra pounds on .

This post has been edited by ljwats: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:29
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



He makes a statutory declaration that he was unaware of the court proceedings.

He can do that via a solicitor (cheap) or a local court (needs to make an appointment) for free. He has 21 days from becom8ng award of the conviction to make it unchallenged, if the court set a date just outside that i5 won’t be an issue.

He should be able to do a plea bargain to the red light offence in lieu of the MS90 which will be a lower fine, less points, and less impact on insurance costs.

I’m guessing a mistake was made in transcribing the adddress somewhere, not that it’s relevant.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:29


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:34
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



And the points will instantly (or thereabouts) not count for totting purposes, if it was 3 years ago.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ljwats
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:50
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,647



The points are already spent as it was 2015 still on licence for 1 more year. He would not have been insured in the car as we did not declare the 6 points as we did not know.. which is scary.

I think the 21 days has past as he has been trying to contact the DVLA for the best part of a week with no joy as instructed by the court. He got through today and they said he needs to contact the court, so has been going around in a circle.

I will get him to do a statutory declaration asap. thank you ..

They would have his address and his name as the original NIP was sent to me.. so they must have had his details to fine him.. as I got nothing after that

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:53
Post #5


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:29) *
He should be able to do a plea bargain to the red light offence in lieu of the MS90 which will be a lower fine, less points, and less impact on insurance costs.

I’m guessing a mistake was made in transcribing the adddress somewhere, not that it’s relevant.


The OP's partner has been convicted in his absence of failing to provide the driver's details. If the NIP/s. 172 was sent to the wrong address, that would seem to be kinda relevant.
*If* he has a solid defence to the s. 172 charge, I would not recommend a plea bargain. If he does not have a viable defence, I would.

And you owe me a new irony meter - a mistake in transcibing the adddress...

BTW, for discrete quantities, it is "fewer", not "less".


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:55
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (ljwats @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:50) *
The points are already spent as it was 2015 still on licence for 1 more year.


If it was before 24 April 2015 I agree.

QUOTE
He would not have been insured in the car as we did not declare the 6 points as we did not know.. which is scary.


Not convinced on that one.

QUOTE
They would have his address and his name as the original NIP was sent to me.. so they must have had his details to fine him.. as I got nothing after that

“They" don’t just fine him though, he needs to accept it first.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:05
Post #7


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (ljwats @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:50) *
They would have his address and his name as the original NIP was sent to me.. so they must have had his details to fine him.. as I got nothing after that


Based on what you have told us...

You sent off the s. 172 form naming your partner. They received and processed that form.
An s. 172 requirement was sent to your partner. We do not know whether it was sent to the correct address, whether it was lost in the post, or whether he simply buried his head in the sand.
A reminder is likely to have been sent when no response was received. We still don't know what we didn't know previously.
An SJPN would have been issued for the s. 172 offence (and possibly the red light offence). We still don't know what we didn't know previously.

In general, we find that having an intermediary give their version of what they think the person concerned told them does not help as much as the intermediary might think. A first hand account is often far better. (Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance).


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:11
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:53) *
And you owe me a new irony meter - a mistake in transcibing the adddress...


Is "transcibing" like transcribing?? tongue.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ljwats
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:29
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,647





QUOTE
You sent off the s. 172 form naming your partner. They received and processed that form.
An s. 172 requirement was sent to your partner. We do not know whether it was sent to the correct address, whether it was lost in the post, or whether he simply buried his head in the sand.


They received it, but nothing was sent to his address. He assures me he did not just ignore it ( I have asked)

QUOTE
A reminder is likely to have been sent when no response was received. We still don't know what we didn't know previously.
An SJPN would have been issued for the s. 172 offence (and possibly the red light offence). We still don't know what we didn't know previously.


He has received a court letter with his address on which says how much is coming from his account. This was received last month so they do have the correct address, but this was the only correspondence received.

Who would send the s172? would it be the same people as the court letter?

I am confused why the MS90 is failing to give information on the identity of the driver, which is incorrect as we did give the details of the driver or how else would they have fined him?



QUOTE
They would have his address and his name as the original NIP was sent to me.. so they must have had his details to fine him.. as I got nothing after that
“They" don’t just fine him though, he needs to accept it first.


The have, the only correspondence he has has was the original NIP which was address to me as the car in in my name. This was sent back with his name on... unless they have taken that as acceptance? I thought that they would have to issue a new NIP in his name ??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:43
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (ljwats @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 22:29) *
I am confused why the MS90 is failing to give information on the identity of the driver, which is incorrect as we did give the details of the driver or how else would they have fined him?


There is no "we". You were required to provide his name and address and did so. He didn’t.

QUOTE
The have


Not for speeding though.

QUOTE
I thought that they would have to issue a new NIP in his name ??

Correct and they almost certainly did.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:49
Post #11


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,214
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (ljwats @ Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 22:29) *
QUOTE
You sent off the s. 172 form naming your partner. They received and processed that form.
An s. 172 requirement was sent to your partner. We do not know whether it was sent to the correct address, whether it was lost in the post, or whether he simply buried his head in the sand.


They received it, but nothing was sent to his address. He assures me he did not just ignore it ( I have asked)


Please don't 'invent' facts. How can you know that nothing was sent to his address? There is a clue in my comment above.

QUOTE
Who would send the s172? would it be the same people as the court letter?


The s. 172 requirement (NIP) would be sent by the police (CTO or SCP).

QUOTE
I am confused why the MS90 is failing to give information on the identity of the driver, which is incorrect as we did give the details of the driver or how else would they have fined him?


There is no "we". You received a requirement under s. 172 to name the driver, which you apparently did. A subsequent and separate requirement was apparently sent to your partner, and he didn't. The system requires the driver to admit to being the driver in order to prove that he was driving.



QUOTE
QUOTE
They would have his address and his name as the original NIP was sent to me.. so they must have had his details to fine him.. as I got nothing after that
“They" don’t just fine him though, he needs to accept it first.


The have, the only correspondence he has has was the original NIP which was address to me as the car in in my name. This was sent back with his name on... unless they have taken that as acceptance? I thought that they would have to issue a new NIP in his name ??


There are too many "they"s. Presumably Southpaw is talking about accepting a fixed penalty from the police - which would have required him to accept it by paying the fixed penalty and sending off his licence. The court can and did fine him after convicting him in his absence.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 22:10
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



Each person gets their own s.172 request. You got one, you responded, so you're out of the game. Then he got one (or didn't), and until he responds, it's game on for him.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ljwats
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:25
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,647






[/quote]There is no "we". You received a requirement under s. 172 to name the driver, which you apparently did. A subsequent and separate requirement was apparently sent to your partner, and he didn't. The system requires the driver to admit to being the driver in order to prove that he was driving.[/quote]





There are too many "they"s. Presumably Southpaw is talking about accepting a fixed penalty from the police - which would have required him to accept it by paying the fixed penalty and sending off his licence. The court can and did fine him after convicting him in his absence.
[/quote]

Despite receiving 6 points and a fine in his absence and never accepting anything, he was never contacted by the DVLA to send off his licence either? Would that have normally happened? The court had his name and address from me so presumably they would have sent it to the DVLA?


Apologies for all the questions but I am trying to understand the process more clearly. Is the onus on the police to prove they sent the original s172 to him? Or on him to prove he did not receive anything, which will be near on impossible.. apart from why would he leave it 3 years from an original fine of maybe 100 to get a 1000 pound fine..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:45
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (ljwats @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:25) *
Despite receiving 6 points and a fine in his absence and never accepting anything, he was never contacted by the DVLA to send off his licence either? Would that have normally happened? The court had his name and address from me so presumably they would have sent it to the DVLA? Apologies for all the questions but I am trying to understand the process more clearly. Is the onus on the police to prove they sent the original s172 to him? Or on him to prove he did not receive anything, which will be near on impossible.. apart from why would he leave it 3 years from an original fine of maybe 100 to get a 1000 pound fine..


Which strongly suggests that the DVLA did not have his correct details. The court did not have his name and address from you, you provided those to the police or safety camera unit. As suggested above, it looks as though an error was made at some point in transcribing his details. The easiest way out of the mess is for him to make a statutory declaration, if necessary explaining why it was delayed and seeking permission to make it late, and then when the case returns to court, pleading guilty to the red light offence in exchange for the s.172 offence being dropped, which is a well established procedure. Defending a s.172 offence often faces the difficulty you mention, of trying to prove a negative. Doing the deal avoids that.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:48
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (ljwats @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:25) *
Is the onus on the police to prove they sent the original s172 to him? Or on him to prove he did not receive anything, which will be near on impossible.

The Police will almost certainly be able to evidence the sending of the request. It will be presumed delivered and it would be the defendant's job to show otherwise.

Yes, it's difficult but can happen, e.g. 'incorrect' address or known postal issues.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:51


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ljwats
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:56
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,647



QUOTE (Logician @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:45) *
Which strongly suggests that the DVLA did not have his correct details.


He has called the DVLA they have the correct details for him, which is why he wonders why the did not.

He will contact the magistrates and arrange an appointment.

Thank you

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:48) *
QUOTE (ljwats @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:25) *
Is the onus on the police to prove they sent the original s172 to him? Or on him to prove he did not receive anything, which will be near on impossible.

The Police will almost certainly be able to evidence the sending of the request. It will be presumed delivered and it would be the defendant's job to show otherwise.



Would he need to make a FOI request to the police force in question for their records of letters sent ? If not do you know who he would need to contact please
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:00
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



If he’s not contesting the s 172 offence (i.e. he intends to do a deal) then it’s irrelevant whether the s 172 notice was sent or not.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:25
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (ljwats @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:56) *
He has called the DVLA they have the correct details for him, which is why he wonders why the did not.

As the details didn't come from the DVLA but your returned form, how would that be at all relevant?

As in my first post, the most likely explanation is that there was an error when transcribing the details off your form onto the computer, whether that was an error on the form, dodgy writing or a reading or typing error.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ljwats
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:43
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,647



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 14:25) *
QUOTE (ljwats @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:56) *
He has called the DVLA they have the correct details for him, which is why he wonders why the did not.

As the details didn't come from the DVLA but your returned form, how would that be at all relevant?

As in my first post, the most likely explanation is that there was an error when transcribing the details off your form onto the computer, whether that was an error on the form, dodgy writing or a reading or typing error.



In respect ofwhy he was not asked for his licence to be sent in for his 6 points to be added

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 14:00) *
If he’s not contesting the s 172 offence (i.e. he intends to do a deal) then it’s irrelevant whether the s 172 notice was sent or not.



Oh yes that makes sense..... however it would be good for him to see what information they had on record and where it was sent .. to at least make sense of it all. (I would like to know too)

ty
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 14:44
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (ljwats @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 14:43) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 14:25) *
QUOTE (ljwats @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:56) *
He has called the DVLA they have the correct details for him, which is why he wonders why the did not.

As the details didn't come from the DVLA but your returned form, how would that be at all relevant?

As in my first post, the most likely explanation is that there was an error when transcribing the details off your form onto the computer, whether that was an error on the form, dodgy writing or a reading or typing error.



In respect of why he was not asked for his licence to be sent in for his 6 points to be added

It would go to that same address, they wouldn't go to the DVLA to get a different one.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:22
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here