S172 NIP "to whom it may concern" |
S172 NIP "to whom it may concern" |
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 19:54
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 20 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,979 |
Hi all
Unfortunately received a nip today. However, its addressed to "whom it may concern" My question - do I have to reply? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 19:54
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:02
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,506 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
What's the alleged offence?
What other detail does it give, such as car registration? Are you the registered keeper? -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:02
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
Hi all Unfortunately received a nip today. However, its addressed to "whom it may concern" My question - do I have to reply? Was it in a non- window envelope ..was that written on the envelope or was your name on the envelope? Does it refer to a vehicle that you are the Reg'd Keeper of. seems odd not to have a name on |
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:08
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 20 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,979 |
What's the alleged offence? What other detail does it give, such as car registration? Are you the registered keeper? Offence - Driving without due care and attention Reported to police by member of public Car registration given. Hi all Unfortunately received a nip today. However, its addressed to "whom it may concern" My question - do I have to reply? Was it in a non- window envelope ..was that written on the envelope or was your name on the envelope? Does it refer to a vehicle that you are the Reg'd Keeper of. seems odd not to have a name on Yes a non window envelope, with my surname only. However there are 3 people living at the address with same surname all insured to drive the car. This post has been edited by Dr.E: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:09 |
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:38
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Unless you're in it for the sport of it, the one who is the registered keeper of the vehicle should reply. Was a specific time and place mentioned? It's not too early to try to work out who was driving.
--Churchmouse |
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:50
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 20 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,979 |
Unless you're in it for the sport of it, the one who is the registered keeper of the vehicle should reply. Was a specific time and place mentioned? It's not too early to try to work out who was driving. --Churchmouse No I’m not the registered keeper, but I’m insured to drive the car as are 3 other people at the address who share the surname written on the envelope. An approximate time is given and a location |
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 20:57
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
An approximate time is given and a location So not too difficult to work out whether you were the driver. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:10
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 20 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,979 |
An approximate time is given and a location So not too difficult to work out whether you were the driver. This isn’t about who was driving. It seems the police have written to my address directly without writing to the registered keeper (lease company) to find out lease holders name. As a result, the letter has been addressed to a surname only / whom it may concern. This post has been edited by Dr.E: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:19 |
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:20
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Is it a Notice of Intended Prosecution or an S172 request to identify the driver ?
They're usually combined in one form Did it arrive within 14 days of the alleged event ? Is it definitely from the police or is a member of the public trying to be clever ? This post has been edited by Redivi: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:20 |
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 21:29
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 20 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,979 |
Is it a Notice of Intended Prosecution or an S172 request to identify the driver ? They're usually combined in one form Did it arrive within 14 days of the alleged event ? Is it definitely from the police or is a member of the public trying to be clever ? Hi, yes combined nip and s172. Arrived within 14 days. Has the name and pc number of officer dealing with the case. Definitely looks legit - has police station address, ext phone number and email address. |
|
|
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 22:15
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
Is it a Notice of Intended Prosecution or an S172 request to identify the driver ? They're usually combined in one form Did it arrive within 14 days of the alleged event ? Is it definitely from the police or is a member of the public trying to be clever ? Hi, yes combined nip and s172. Arrived within 14 days. Has the name and pc number of officer dealing with the case. Definitely looks legit - has police station address, ext phone number and email address. So why not call him to clarify who he sent it to |
|
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 01:28
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
This isn’t about who was driving. It seems the police have written to my address directly without writing to the registered keeper (lease company) to find out lease holders name. As a result, the letter has been addressed to a surname only / whom it may concern. It’s very unlikely it wasn’t sent to the registered keeper first (though not impossible of course). You could have a play, the issue is they then may be minded to make your life harder once they know who the driver was, such as not offering a course/fixed penalty or they could take action when otherwise just insurance details would be swapped, so it’s a bit of a double or quits gamble. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 08:01
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
What is the NIP requirement, exactly?
QUOTE 1 (1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person— (a) by delivering it to him; (b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or ( c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.] Arguably, a NIP addressed to a person by surname only is not properly "addressed to him" and, thus, not properly served on that person. That there are four possible drivers at the address with the same surname reinforces this view. After 14 days, it would be worth a call to the police asking which person they meant to serve, and asking them to re-send the NIP. Which NIP would then be late. --Churchmouse |
|
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 08:17
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Which NIP would then be late. Assuming a NIP is required in the circumstances, and assuming this is the first NIP in a chain? This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 08:21 -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 08:54
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,506 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
As leased, there doesn't appear to be a 'late' argument.
However, the s172 process doesn't have this time requirement. But it does appear it hasn't been served on a particular person. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 08:59
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 20 Sep 2018 Member No.: 99,979 |
What is the NIP requirement, exactly? QUOTE 1 (1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person— (a) by delivering it to him; (b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or ( c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.] Arguably, a NIP addressed to a person by surname only is not properly "addressed to him" and, thus, not properly served on that person. That there are four possible drivers at the address with the same surname reinforces this view. After 14 days, it would be worth a call to the police asking which person they meant to serve, and asking them to re-send the NIP. Which NIP would then be late. --Churchmouse Thank you very much. The most useful piece of information I've received. As leased, there doesn't appear to be a 'late' argument. However, the s172 process doesn't have this time requirement. But it does appear it hasn't been served on a particular person. Surely they have to write to the registered keeper (lease company) within 14 days? |
|
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 10:27
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,506 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Surely they have to write to the registered keeper (lease company) within 14 days? They may have done already? There is also an exception to the 14 day 'rule' under s2(3) of RTOA 1988 - but we don't know enough. But regardless, s172 requests are not time limited... -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 10:30
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 323 Joined: 6 Jul 2005 Member No.: 3,329 |
Which they no doubt did.
You might want to contact the leasing company and ask what name they gave. Maybe the handwriting on their form was indecipherable. Either way, I'd consider it very bad form for a supposedly professional public body to send any correspondence to TWIMC. |
|
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 10:35
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
What is the NIP requirement, exactly? QUOTE 1 (1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person— (a) by delivering it to him; (b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or ( c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.] Arguably, a NIP addressed to a person by surname only is not properly "addressed to him" and, thus, not properly served on that person. That there are four possible drivers at the address with the same surname reinforces this view. After 14 days, it would be worth a call to the police asking which person they meant to serve, and asking them to re-send the NIP. Which NIP would then be late. --Churchmouse Thank you very much. The most useful piece of information I've received. Its usefulness will very much depend on the circumstances. QUOTE As leased, there doesn't appear to be a 'late' argument. However, the s172 process doesn't have this time requirement. But it does appear it hasn't been served on a particular person. Surely they have to write to the registered keeper (lease company) within 14 days? Depends on whether the offence in question requires an NIP at all. If it does, then it depends on whether an exception applies. If not, then yes - have they? If you choose not to respond to the s 172 request then someone could end up being summonsed for the s 172 offence. Quite who that someone would be is an open question at the moment. Any defence would rely on the “not addressed to me” point. If you (or someone with your surname at your address) replies and names themselves as the driver (if that is indeed the case) and are subsequently prosecuted for an offence then the same argument can be run concerning the identity of the driver - though if they’re in the witness box they can simply be asked who was driving. If someone replies naming someone else then that latter someone may get a s 172 request in their own (full) name and the process proceeds as normal. There may be other permutations but those seem the most relevant. The best defence appears to be in relation to the first option, which relies on the court finding that no s 172 requirement was actually served on the defendant (and, preferably, anyone else). -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 10:38
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,506 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Depends on whether the offence in question requires an NIP at all. It's DWDCA (Careless), so yes. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:13 |