NIP received for company car - any advice appreciated! Options

[purple196]

I have received an NIP for driving at 82 in a 70 speed limit. I have a company car, which i understand allows the police more than 14 days to find the driver of the vehicle. However, i received the NIP myself as i own the company as well - the NIP itself is dated 16 days after the alleged offence. On this basis do i have a legitimate claim for the prosecution to be dropped - if so how do i go about this? do i still send the form in? any advice musch appreciated!!!

[Advertisement]

[firefly]

Hi purple196,

Who is the vehicle registered to? Do you lease the car from a leasing firm or is it owned by you/your company?

[purple196]

thanks for reply - the vehicle is registered to the company and is leased

[firefly]

thanks for reply - the vehicle is registered to the company and is leased

Then you must speak to the leasing company and find out when the NIP arrived with them (which it undoubtedly did).

I have to say that given the date you received your NIP (dated 16 days after the offence), it is almost 100% certain the leasing company received the first NIP well within the permitted time.

[andy_foster]

thanks for reply - the vehicle is registered to the company and is leased

Is your company or the leasing company the Registered Keeper?

Andy

[jeffreyarcher]

i own the company as well

When considering your options, you should bear in mind that companies do not get points for failing to supply, although the fine is usually higher than for an individual.

[Mika]

In an attempt to sever NIPs as quickly as possible, to the users of leased vehicles, the following procedure is quite commonly used:

The vehicle registration document – V5 says the following:

Name (or company name) - user of the vehicle - c/o (care of) lease Company name and address.

This suggests that the first NIP in the chain could be issued to the user of the vehicle.

[gassit]

Jeffrey for once you are wrong ! I have spoken to an individual who is an MD of his own small company. When he "wasn't able" to identify a driver of one of his company cars he got a £300 fine, costs and 3 penalty points on his licence. It saved his rep, who was on 9 points, from being banned but was a most unpleasant surprise to him.

This happened in West Midlands.

So, as with all things related to speeding, it really is a postcode lottery what your punishment will be.

Cheers


Gas

[jeffreyarcher]

In an attempt to sever NIPs as quickly as possible to the users of leased vehicles, the following procedure is quite commonly used:
The vehicle registration document – V5 says the following:
Name (or company name) - user of the vehicle - c/o (care of) lease Company name and address.
This suggests that the first NIP in the chain could be issued to the user of the vehicle.

In my opinion, that is not a valid method of service for a NIP, unless that is how the vehicle is registered at the DVLA.
Arnold v DPP.
6. <...> On the first submission, relating to the fourth summons only, we took the view that it was lawful service of the notice when it was sent to the address disclosed by the DVLA records, because that is the only method that the police can demonstrate compliance with section 172(9)(B) of the Road Traffic Act 1988."
7. That seems to me the plain answer to the point and it is a matter of surprise that counsel today should have been instructed by his client, an officer of this court, to reiterate the argument raised below.
And although the point is slightly different, note the withering terms of the judge's comments in 7.

[Mika]

In my opinion, that is not a valid method of service for a NIP, unless that is how the vehicle is registered at the DVLA.

That’s my point – this is how the vehicles are registered at the DVLA.

I am not sure that this is the reason they register the vehicles like that; however, it has probably got something to do with liability for motoring offences.

[jeffreyarcher]

Jeffrey for once you are wrong ! I have spoken to an individual who is an MD of his own small company. When he "wasn't able" to identify a driver of one of his company cars he got a £300 fine, costs and 3 penalty points on his licence. It saved his rep, who was on 9 points, from being banned but was a most unpleasant surprise to him.
This happened in West Midlands.
So, as with all things related to speeding, it really is a postcode lottery what your punishment will be.

Who had been charged with S172, him or the company?
It is certainly possible for a director (or any other employee of the company) to be personally pursued, but, for that, the prosecution have to demonstrate 'connivance'.

[jeffreyarcher]

This suggests that the first NIP in the chain could be issued to the user of the vehicle.

In my opinion, that is not a valid method of service for a NIP, unless that is how the vehicle is registered at the DVLA.

That’s my point – this is how the vehicles are registered at the DVLA.
I am not sure that this is the reason they register the vehicles like that; however, it has probably got something to do with liability for motoring offences.

IMO, where the leaser is a corporate body (it is different for an individual), they cannot 'short circuit' one stage by doing that.
The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 172.
172.-(9) For the purposes of section 7 of the [1978 c. 30.] Interpretation Act 1978 as it applies for the purposes of this section the proper address of any person in relation to the service on him of a notice under subsection (7) above is—
(a) in the case of the secretary or clerk of a body corporate, that of the registered or principal office of that body or (if the body corporate is the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned) the registered address, and
(B) in any other case, his last known address at the time of service.
Therefore,
1) a lessee, handed such a NIP by the lessor, has not been served with the notice.
2) (although, this is a bit less definite) it must be the lessor who has been served, because that is whose address is on the notice. So, if the leasing co. hands such a NIP to the lessee, and the lessee fails to supply, it is the lessor (RK) who will be prosecuted.

[gassit]

Hi Jeffrey

Long time no speak !!

The company secretary was pursued which I believe is common practice as the is deemed to be "the human face of the company". His dual role included him as CS. It was in this position as the face of the company that he was prosecuted.

He turned up at court with his cheque book and no brief thinking it would be a pay up and go away day. he was shocked when it happened. Whether he could have appealed is a whole other issue.

Cheers


Gas

PS Hows about a Scottish "naughty boys" pint night ?

[firefly]

Hi gas,

PS Hows about a Scottish "naughty boys" pint night ?

Myself, jeffreyarcher and The General are meeting up next week to go over the finer points of my case to separate the 'wheat from the chaff'.

A Scottish night would be most welcome sometime however...

[jeffreyarcher]

Long time no speak !!

Likewise!

The company secretary was pursued which I believe is common practice as the is deemed to be "the human face of the company". His dual role included him as CS. It was in this position as the face of the company that he was prosecuted.
He turned up at court with his cheque book and no brief thinking it would be a pay up and go away day. he was shocked when it happened. Whether he could have appealed is a whole other issue.

From what you say, it appears that he, and not the company was prosecuted, and that he pled guilty.
If that is the case, he would get the points.
Sub-section (5) is a bit confusing, however, it is clear that
1) a director cannot be guilty without the company itself also so being.
2) He has to be proceeded against separately, and they have to prove consent, connivance or neglect, and on his part, not just that of the company.
It looks like he may have fu*ked it up.
Idris Francis has a letter fron the (Deputy?) CC of Hampshire confirming that an incorporated body cannot get points.
(Idris had protracted correspondence (he may even have made an official complaint) with Hants. Constabulary in his capacity as a council tax payer about why the constabulary went 'guilty' when they had clearly excercised more than reasonable diligence.)

PS Hows about a Scottish "naughty boys" pint night?

Great. Driving back would be a problem, though! The General, firefly and I will give a suitable venue some thought next week.