PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Speeding, NIP well after 14 days.
Ben DIGi
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 13:21
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 1 Aug 2015
Member No.: 78,649



Hi People, i'm in need of help .

I received a NIP in the post dated 08.05.2019 but the "offence" happened on 10.01.2019

I'am and was the registered keeper at the time and been living at the same
address. I heard about this 14 day rule but not sure how it all works, do i reject the NIP
from now or fill out the form ? It says i got 28 days so have i got few weeks to get a
response back to them?

Any help or pointed in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 54)
Advertisement
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 13:21
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
henrik777
post Mon, 27 May 2019 - 20:51
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,807
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 21:31) *
The words of the statute are

QUOTE
in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.


Is the argument

(a) that a person ceases to be “registered as the keeper” when the DVLA marks the vehicle as being in trade?

(b) that “registered as the keeper” has some gloss on it to be something synonymous with “keeper”?

(c) something else?

Nobody has put forward a convincing argument for (a) or (b) yet.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2742/made


Change of keeper: obligations of vehicle traders where registration document issued in Great Britain on or after 24 March 1997
24.—(1) This regulation applies where a vehicle trader becomes the keeper of a vehicle in respect of which a vehicle registration document has been issued in Great Britain on or after 24 March 1997.

(2) Where this regulation applies the vehicle trader shall, on or before the appropriate date and on that part of the registration document which relates to a change of keeper or otherwise in writing, notify the Secretary of State as to—

(a)the transfer of the vehicle to him; and
(b)the date on which he became the keeper of the vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 27 May 2019 - 20:54
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,745
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (henrik777 @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 21:51) *
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2742/made


Change of keeper: obligations of vehicle traders where registration document issued in Great Britain on or after 24 March 1997
24.—(1) This regulation applies where a vehicle trader becomes the keeper of a vehicle in respect of which a vehicle registration document has been issued in Great Britain on or after 24 March 1997.

(2) Where this regulation applies the vehicle trader shall, on or before the appropriate date and on that part of the registration document which relates to a change of keeper or otherwise in writing, notify the Secretary of State as to—

(a)the transfer of the vehicle to him; and
(b)the date on which he became the keeper of the vehicle.

And?


--------------------
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 Mon, 27 May 2019 - 21:14
Post #43


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,585
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



(a) and a little bit of (b).

We tend to work on the principle that "the person, if any, registered as the keeper" and "the person keeping the vehicle" are separate concepts - but the Privy Council in Brown v Stott were of the opinion that they were the same thing. There is much scope to argue that if the record shows that the person named is no longer the keeper of the vehicle, he is in a very real way now recorded as the previous keeper and no longer recorded as the keeper. The words "if any" tend to contradict the apparent assertion that once registered as the keeper a person must remain so until another person is registered as the keeper.

It does not say "the person whose name is shown on the DVLA records, regardless of any annotations", it say "registered as the keeper" (my emphasis). The annotation "in trade" means that whilst the person is still in some sense "registered" he is no longer so "as the keeper".

If we look at the legislative purpose for the requirement to serve a NIP - it is to warn the driver in a timely manner that proceedings are contemplated, so that he may recall the incident and gather whatever evidence may assist him, while the incident is still relatively fresh in his mind. This is balanced by the need not to make successful prosecutions impractical, so the obligations placed upon the police were chosen as a sensible compromise. Allowing the police to discharge their responsibilities and deny the accused the right to be warned in a timely manner by serving a NIP on somebody they know not to be the keeper is not a sensible compromise.


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

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Mon, 27 May 2019 - 22:22
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,991
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (Fredd @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 19:25) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 20:10) *
Quite logical, Captain.
It isn't logical at all. Having informed DVLA that the car is in trade, the last registered keeper is no more the keeper than any previous registered keeper, so other than "because we say they are" what is the logic for DVLA saying that the registered keeper is unchanged, rather than unknown? With respect, you seem to be be failing to distinguish between logic and the semantics of the DVLA.


It is actually the semantics of the legislation, not the DVLA. I refer you to the definition of "registered keeper" in s.172(10) RTA 1988:

“registered address”, in relation to the registered keeper of a vehicle, means the address recorded in the record kept under the Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994 with respect to that vehicle as being that person’s address, and “registered keeper”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under that Act;

The registered keeper will only change when the DVLA receive information on the V5C for the vehicle that the registration should be changed.

The registered keeper may never be the keeper of the vehicle at all, as for instance in the case of a leased vehicle.



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 19:31) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 20:10) *
The registered keeper will continue as such until the DVLA change their record, regardless of what has happened to the car and that the keeper may have changed.
If the DVLA put a note on the record stating that the person named is no longer the keeper, would that constitute a change?


The DVLA do not know or need to know who is the keeper of the vehicle, they know who the registered keeper is and do not change that until they receive page 2 of the vehicle's V5C informing them of a new keeper.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Mon, 27 May 2019 - 23:01
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,991
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 21:14) *
(a) and a little bit of (b). We tend to work on the principle that "the person, if any, registered as the keeper" and "the person keeping the vehicle" are separate concepts - but the Privy Council in Brown v Stott were of the opinion that they were the same thing.


Unfortunately I could only find a summary of that case online, which contained no reference to the issue. It was all about the application of Human Rights law to s.172 cases.

QUOTE
There is much scope to argue that if the record shows that the person named is no longer the keeper of the vehicle, he is in a very real way now recorded as the previous keeper and no longer recorded as the keeper. The words "if any" tend to contradict the apparent assertion that once registered as the keeper a person must remain so until another person is registered as the keeper.


I think rather the wording recognises the reality that the vehicle may not be registered at all, as in the case of the drunk who drove a golf cart down a motorway, or a new or imported unregistered car being driven on trade plates.

QUOTE
It does not say "the person whose name is shown on the DVLA records, regardless of any annotations", it say "registered as the keeper" (my emphasis). The annotation "in trade" means that whilst the person is still in some sense "registered" he is no longer so "as the keeper".


Oh come now, the DVLA records are of registered keepers, not registered persons having some connection to the vehicle.

QUOTE
If we look at the legislative purpose for the requirement to serve a NIP - it is to warn the driver in a timely manner that proceedings are contemplated, so that he may recall the incident and gather whatever evidence may assist him, while the incident is still relatively fresh in his mind. This is balanced by the need not to make successful prosecutions impractical, so the obligations placed upon the police were chosen as a sensible compromise. Allowing the police to discharge their responsibilities and deny the accused the right to be warned in a timely manner by serving a NIP on somebody they know not to be the keeper is not a sensible compromise.


Following that line of argument, the police should never serve a NIP on a leasing company because they know they are not the keeper of the vehicle. Squaredeal has explained what happens at least in his area, in post #21. I think other areas may not bother with a covering letter, because I am sure we have had posts from people baffled as to why they have received a NIP for a car they have disposed of. The police are given two choices by the act, serve the NIP on the driver or the registered keeper, you may think it would be good if someone they have reason to believe might now be the keeper were also included, but that is not so. The registered keeper is at least the start of a trail that should lead to the driver, the leasing company can reply that they lease the vehicle to Amalgamated Consolidated plc, the former owner can reply that they part exchanged the car with Arthur Daley Motors Ltd, and the police can carry on from there.

This post has been edited by Logician: Tue, 28 May 2019 - 06:27


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
henrik777
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 07:24
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,807
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,123



QUOTE (Logician @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 23:22) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 19:25) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 20:10) *
Quite logical, Captain.
It isn't logical at all. Having informed DVLA that the car is in trade, the last registered keeper is no more the keeper than any previous registered keeper, so other than "because we say they are" what is the logic for DVLA saying that the registered keeper is unchanged, rather than unknown? With respect, you seem to be be failing to distinguish between logic and the semantics of the DVLA.


It is actually the semantics of the legislation, not the DVLA. I refer you to the definition of "registered keeper" in s.172(10) RTA 1988:

“registered address”, in relation to the registered keeper of a vehicle, means the address recorded in the record kept under the Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994 with respect to that vehicle as being that person’s address, and “registered keeper”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under that Act;

The registered keeper will only change when the DVLA receive information on the V5C for the vehicle that the registration should be changed.

The registered keeper may never be the keeper of the vehicle at all, as for instance in the case of a leased vehicle.



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 19:31) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Mon, 27 May 2019 - 20:10) *
The registered keeper will continue as such until the DVLA change their record, regardless of what has happened to the car and that the keeper may have changed.
If the DVLA put a note on the record stating that the person named is no longer the keeper, would that constitute a change?


The DVLA do not know or need to know who is the keeper of the vehicle, they know who the registered keeper is and do not change that until they receive page 2 of the vehicle's V5C informing them of a new keeper.




How does one inform the DVLA that a vehicle is "in trade" and what purpose does it serve ?

Appears to me that the V5 is sent to the DVLA to infrom them.

What appears to be being said is -

DVLA are informed that a vehicle is no longer anything to do with person A.

However person A still has duties for that vehicle post transfer. If that was indeed the case, why inform DVLA that the vehicle was "in trade" what purpose does it serve ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 10:53
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,546
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 28 May 2019 - 00:01) *
Unfortunately I could only find a summary of that case online, which contained no reference to the issue. It was all about the application of Human Rights law to s.172 cases.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2000/D3.html


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 12:40
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,087
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (henrik777 @ Tue, 28 May 2019 - 08:24) *
However person A still has duties for that vehicle post transfer. If that was indeed the case, why inform DVLA that the vehicle was "in trade" what purpose does it serve ?

Stops person A getting penalties / prosecutions for not taxing / insuring the vehicle, or indeed for leaving it parked on a road with no MOT. When the police pull the vehicle over on trade plates 500 miles from the address of person A, it saves them asking all sorts of questions about whether the person driving the vehicle has permission from person A. If the vehicle makes off in a pursuit which ends up being aborted, and person A has a nice acknowledgment letter from DVLA confirming they disposed of the vehicle months ago, corroborates that person A probably has nothing to do with the offender. I could keep thinking of scenarios but I think I've made the point.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwain
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 13:06
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 579
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Member No.: 6,174



Shouldn't this be in the Flame pit? Then any answers actually relevant to the OP can be added without them having to wade through this discussion?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 16:13
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,991
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 28 May 2019 - 10:53) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 28 May 2019 - 00:01) *
Unfortunately I could only find a summary of that case online, which contained no reference to the issue. It was all about the application of Human Rights law to s.172 cases.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2000/D3.html


Thanks.

In the case before them the registered keeper was also the person keeping the vehicle, and their lordships simply assumed that these were different ways of referring to the same person in order to say what a serious responsibility accepting registration as the keeper was and the obligations it imposed to name the driver when required to do so, possibly against the right not to self-incriminate. They did not in fact focus on the issue that separate persons might be involved. Had it been pointed out to them that for the vast majority of company cars the registered keeper would have no knowledge of who ever drove the vehicle, and most new cars were acquired as company cars, I doubt they would have commented in quite that way.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 29 May 2019 - 10:51
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,546
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 28 May 2019 - 17:13) *
Thanks.

No problem, I have it saved as it's always a mare to find.

QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 28 May 2019 - 17:13) *
In the case before them the registered keeper was also the person keeping the vehicle, and their lordships simply assumed that these were different ways of referring to the same person in order to say what a serious responsibility accepting registration as the keeper was and the obligations it imposed to name the driver when required to do so

I agree, they are using registered keeper as synonymous with keeper for the purposes of the S172 request (unless shown to be otherwise), I don't think it carries any legal weight in any other respect.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Wed, 29 May 2019 - 14:04
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 28 May 2019 - 00:01) *
The police are given two choices by the act, serve the NIP on the driver or the registered keeper...

But somehow I doubt that a court (recalling the ", if any," language in the statute), in a case in which there is no such person "in whose name the vehicle is registered under that Act", would hold that the police had been obliged to serve the NIP on the (unknown) driver within 14 days in order to comply with s.1 RTOA 1988.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Wed, 29 May 2019 - 16:32
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,991
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 29 May 2019 - 14:04) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 28 May 2019 - 00:01) *
The police are given two choices by the act, serve the NIP on the driver or the registered keeper...
But somehow I doubt that a court (recalling the ", if any," language in the statute), in a case in which there is no such person "in whose name the vehicle is registered under that Act", would hold that the police had been obliged to serve the NIP on the (unknown) driver within 14 days in order to comply with s.1 RTOA 1988. --Churchmouse


I quite agree, s.2(3) RTOA1988 would then come into play, namely:

Failure to comply with the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act is not a bar to the conviction of the accused in a case where the court is satisfied—

(a)that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for a summons or, as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ben DIGi
post Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 19:53
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 1 Aug 2015
Member No.: 78,649



Hi People, seem like you guys had your own thing going lol

Little correction, question and update thought.

I did send the logbook off after the offence but i'm not sure of the actual date.

And would the 14 day rule tool still apply or does sending the NIP to the trader satisfy it ???. ( I'm 100% sure I wasn't named by the trader or previous RK)


Little update..

The driver was named and form posted off.

One more thing to add I was insured fully comp two weeks before the offence.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 20:28
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,546
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The law says served in the driver (who they don’t know) or the person registered as the keeper. It seems likely they satisfied that requirement.

While your insurance may come into part of reasonable diligence, that’s about finding the person registered as keeper not ‘someone else who may be driving the car’ if it’s not the same person. But if they have a registered keepers details from DVLA then that to me is enough.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Wednesday, 19th June 2019 - 15:55
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.