NIP not driving |
NIP not driving |
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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:14
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 20:53
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:05
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:11
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
And you owe me a new irony meter - a mistake in transcibing the adddress... Is "transcibing" like transcribing?? -------------------- |
|
|
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 ?? |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 - 21:49
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:45
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
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. -------------------- |
|
|
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 |
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. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:56
Post
#16
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 14 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,647 |
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 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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:25
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
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 |
|
|
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 13:43
Post
#19
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 8 Joined: 14 Jan 2017 Member No.: 89,647 |
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 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 |
|
|
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 14:44
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
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 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:22 |