NIP received 23 days after alleged offence. Out of time? Options

[rp.]

NIP received today, issued on 02/12/2019, for alleged offence on 11/11/2019.

Vehicle is leased under a personal contract hire agreement, which states that "[the Lessor] will remain the registered keeper of the Vehicle..." and "the Customer is responsible for the use and safekeeping of the Vehicle".

Yet the Avon and Somerset Constabulary's 'Public Access System' states: "New driver nominated on 03/12/2019". How can that be correct, when the NIP states that it was issued on 02/12/2019?

Considering the 23 days now elapsed, and the impossibility of a second NIP being issued before a new driver could have been nominated, could this NIP be incorrectly issued or out of time?

[Advertisement]

[Fredd]

But how could the Constabulary have written to me on 02/11/2019 as the keeper named by the leasing company, when the leasing company clearly did not provide any such details of me until 03/11/2019?

Why else do you imagine they've written to you? Even if they had got your name from some alternative source (which they wouldn't have bothered to do in the short period of time since the alleged offence) they could still send you a lawful s172 notice. Your only basis for saying the leasing company didn't nominate you seems to be a date on the police website that might be inaccurate or poorly described, and which doesn't in any case affect your responsibilities under s172.

[disgrunt]

Working in IT it seems likely to me that the date 3rd December is either a processing date, updated by an overnight batch schedule or perhaps the RK went back into the website and clicked on the nominated driver tab to check they had done it and you are seeing the fact they accessed the ticket.

[nosferatu1001]

They have not written to you as the registered keeper, however
They have written to you as the keeper, because the leasing firm wil lhave named you as such a person
That is their "reasonable basis".

But how could the Constabulary have written to me on 02/11/2019 as the keeper named by the leasing company, when the leasing company clearly did not provide any such details of me until 03/11/2019?

2nd December, not November.

How could they have done so? well, clearly they didnt
They got told sometime between 14.11 and 02.12, by the leasing company, that you were the keeper.
They then wrote to you

That this irrelevant - utterly - system quotes a date of 03.12 doesnt alter this in any way shape or form, does not provide you any sort of "defence" or reason to say the NIP is "invalid", and so your continued discussion is, alas, pointless. Thats my view on this.,

Understand this: we totally and utterly fully comprehend the point you are making> Its just that this point is meaningless.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 13:02

[andy_foster]

Should've stuck with accountancy...

S. 172 RTA 1988 imposes (potentially) different obligations on the recipient of an 's. 172 notice' depending on whether that person is " the person (if any) keeping the vehicle" or "any other person" (which as a matter of law also includes the person keeping the vehicle). There are no explicit restrictions on who they can serve such a requirement on. If s. 172 notices were being issued totally randomly, or entire towns were being carpet-bombed with them, it could probably be argued under public law grounds that they were unlawful as such actions were Wednesbury unreasonable. However, to suggest that a notice sent to you, in relation to the vehicle that you are leasing, after being nominated by the leasing company was somehow unlawful because a webform with no legal standing whatsoever shows seemingly incorrect information is utterly without merit.

[NewJudge]

But how could the Constabulary have written to me on 02/11/2019 as the keeper named by the leasing company, when the leasing company clearly did not provide any such details of me until 03/11/2019?

You seem to be losing the plot a bit here. S172(2) of the RTA says this:

2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a) The person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police and

(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver

It says nothing about NIPs, nothing about driver nominations or the dates of them. It is plain and simple: if the police have reason to allege that the driver of a vehicle is guilty of an offence (which they clearly have) the person to whom the S172 notice is addressed (whether he is the person keeping the vehicle or any other person) he has an obligation to respond. It doesn't matter how or when the police were provided with his details.

You keep mentioning NIPs. Only one NIP is required and that is the one to the RK which must be served within 14 days. No other NIP is necessary and any that are served are served out of courtesy and there is no time limit on them. There is no time limit on S172 requests. Whatever the reason for the date anomaly you describe has no bearing whatsoever on the S172 request. You have been served with one and you need to respond. As I said earlier, if you fail to do so you will be prosecuted for a S172 offence. If you defend it on the basis you suggest you will be convicted. What you mention is no defence whatsoever to the charge.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 22:53

[blackcross]

You keep mentioning NIPs. Only one NIP is required and that is the one to the RK which must be served within 14 days. No other NIP is necessary and any that are served are served out of courtesy and there is no time limit on them. There is no time limit on S172 requests. Whatever the reason for the date anomaly you describe has no bearing whatsoever on the S172 request. You have been served with one and you need to respond. As I said earlier, if you fail to do so you will be prosecuted for a S172 offence. If you defend it on the basis you suggest you will be convicted. What you mention is no defence whatsoever to the charge.

+1
There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that the police failed to serve a NIP on the leasing company within the 14 days allowed.

Those next in the chain, including the known lessee and anyone identified as likely driver (both you in this case), receive a s172 rather than a NIP. Subject to the police having a reasonable basis for issuing a s172, and then proceeding within the time limit if they don’t receive a satisfactory response I don’t see a way that the recipient can legitimately avoid the obligation to respond.

Arguments about date errors on the police admin system might have undermined valid service of the NIP, but there is proof it was received in time. As you logged on to the system yesterday the court is almost certain to find that you received your s172 by 5th December. The police often offer another chance by issuing a reminder, but if they don’t the s172 offence will be complete on day 28.

This post has been edited by blackcross: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 - 18:59

[Gaza]

For the sake of argument, let's say that it was my wife driving at the time of the alleged offence.

Now, the Constabulary have written to me, using details that they cannot have received one day prior to receiving them from the registered keeper, as is admitted by their own public records. So they have written to me without any reasonable basis for believing that I was the registered keeper or person acting as registered keeper.

How can somebody, who was neither the registered keeper nor the person acting as the registered keeper, be required to give information in response to a NIP?

Please don't just shoot this down off-hand. Let's give it some thought. It might help other people.

You are really clutching at straws here. You have come up with a theory as to how you might be able to declare the NIP invalid and want people to agree with you. However, everyone on here is in agreement that the NiP you have received is perfectly valid and you have to respond or face a S.172 charge, 6 points and hefty fine. The A&S portal is not part of the legal process. It is purely an online tracking system. Perhaps poorly coded so that when a nomination is made on 2/12 (when the new NiP was issued) it doesn't update the 3/12.

If you wife was driving then all you have to do is nominate her within 28 days. A&S Scamera unit will then issue her with a NiP/S.172 notice. They are also likely to review the video footage from the mobile camera and there is likely to be a very clear image of the driver.

For the sake of argument, let's say that it was my wife driving at the time of the alleged offence.

How can somebody, who was neither the registered keeper nor the person acting as the registered keeper, be required to give information in response to a NIP?

If your argument was valid then the police would be unable to issue a NiP where the RK was a company, leasing co, car rental co, or anything like that. The RK will provide information to the best of their knowledge. In your case, you lease a car through them so you are best placed to advise who was driving it at the time of the offense.

Roughly how far over 70 mph were you? Above 100 mph?


This post has been edited by Gaza: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 15:33

[rp.]

How nice to see that the Avon & Somerset Constabulary care:

[The Rookie]

So telling us what we already knew.......

[TonyS]

How nice to see that the Avon & Somerset Constabulary care:

This all seems a real red herring to me. Surely the important questions are (1) have you received a valid request under S.172. Everyone is saying that you have, and I can't see any reason to think otherwise. And (2) where you the "person keeping the vehicle" or not, which determines the information you're required to provide.

I can't see any indication that the process by which it was decided to serve the S.172 request has any bearing on its validity.