[NIP Wizard] NIP 4 months late claiming they have complied with requirement to serve NIP within 14 days |
[NIP Wizard] NIP 4 months late claiming they have complied with requirement to serve NIP within 14 days |
Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 12:17
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 2 Jun 2012 Member No.: 55,268 |
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Date of the offence: - August 2018 Date of the NIP: - 137 days after the offence Date you received the NIP: - 138 days after the offence Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - New Cut Lane, Halsall Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - How many current points do you have? - 6 Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - NIP Wizard Responses These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation: Have you received a NIP? - Yes Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - No Was there a valid reason for the NIP's late arrival? - No NIP Wizard Recommendation Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 12:10:40 +0000 So this NIP arrived yesterday for an alleged offence on 20th August but it contains a box in which it states: "Please be advised we have already complied with the requirement to serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution on the last known keeper of this vehicle within 14 days of the alleged offence. You are now required to respond to the S172 request for information as noted below." This is the first Ive heard of it. I assume I have to supply the S172 details but should I also send a letter with it? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 12:17
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 21:59
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 2 Jun 2012 Member No.: 55,268 |
|
|
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 22:56
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Basically it's your 'error' which caused the issue - although it's strictly unconnected with the offence itself they may not be minded to impose a fixed penalty equivalent sentence. (But don't ask, don't get)
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 22:57
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
While it’s of the OPs making it’s still for unreasons unconnected with the offence. Im sorry I dont understand what that means The sentencing guidelines say you can receive the fixed penalty level sentencing rather than income related.only qualified by the "unconnected to the offence". There isn't any concept of fault. The reduction is at the magistrates discretion however, so you need to ask politely - either in writing - and tactfully remind the. It is in their sentencing guidelines. |
|
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 23:51
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
The sentencing guidelines say you can receive the fixed penalty level sentencing rather than income related.only qualified by the "unconnected to the offence". There isn't any concept of fault. The reduction is at the magistrates discretion however, so you need to ask politely - either in writing - and tactfully remind the. It is in their sentencing guidelines. It is also qualified by the words "outside the control of the offender" which do rather introduce a concept of fault. QUOTE ….where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender This post has been edited by Logician: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 23:53 -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 23:59
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
The ‘outside the control of the offender’ is however merely part of the example of ‘an administrative difficulty’ and not a caveat on unconnected with the offence. Though I would accept in this case the reason is an administrative difficulty and thus the caveat can be argued as applicable, however the old adage of ‘don’t ask, don’t get’ holds true and courts seem reasonably amenable to the request in most cases.
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 09:18
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 2 Jun 2012 Member No.: 55,268 |
Basically it's your 'error' which caused the issue - although it's strictly unconnected with the offence itself they may not be minded to impose a fixed penalty equivalent sentence. (But don't ask, don't get) ok, thank you. could I ask for proof that NIP was originally sent out within 14 days? |
|
|
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 09:52
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
You could, but as its greater than 99% certain it was it will achieve little. The chain of NIPs will usually be included in with the 'summons' (SJPN).
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 13:39
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
It is also qualified by the words "outside the control of the offender" which do rather introduce a concept of fault. QUOTE ….where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender That reads to me like an example, not necessarily a qualification. Judges may read it differently, however. --Churchmouse |
|
|
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 19:31
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
Certainly administrative difficulties are an example, but not all administrative difficulties, only those outside the control of the offender, so administrative difficulties is qualified.
-------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 03:29
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
That's one interpretation of the 'such as', but it doesn't actually exclude administrative difficulties within the control of the defender, though I concede that's an implication that can be drawn, we don't know the intent in the wording.
I agree the defendant shouldn't EXPECT the fixed penalty tariff but there is no harm in asking and we've seen it given in similar circumstances. -------------------- 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, 12 Feb 2019 - 15:37
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Certainly administrative difficulties are an example, but not all administrative difficulties, only those outside the control of the offender, so administrative difficulties is qualified. The guidelines do not include a fault element outside of the "administrative difficulties" example. Potential non-administrative difficulties, among others, are completely unqualified. It could be that the qualified example was included in order to emphasise the fault element, but that is not what is actually written in the guidelines. --Churchmouse |
|
|
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 19:39
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,213 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
could I ask for proof that NIP was originally sent out within 14 days? You can ask for anything. However, you cannot simply put the prosecution to proof that a NIP was served - the requirement to serve a NIP is deemed to have been complied with unless the contrary is proven. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 10:16
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
It is also qualified by the words "outside the control of the offender" which do rather introduce a concept of fault. QUOTE ….where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender I have always read that as being a qualifier only to third parties. After Whiteside it would be very rare for any administration required by the driver not to be under their control. Ergo it is not an exhaustive list of which administrative issues would qualify. It could be interpreted as essentially excluding any administrative issue the defendant is responsible for, but in that it would have been much clearer to say administrative difficulties by third parties. However, of course it is ultimately for a magistrate to decide. |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 14:38
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
The sensible and straightforward meaning is that if the administrative difficulties are caused by the offender, then he should not get the benefit of this provision, if they are not his fault then he can get the benefit.
-------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 15:33
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Except it really doesn't. The phrase "such as" implies it is one of a number of qualifiers. If it was a simple fault/not fault this could have been stated.
If we assume that in this case "an example of which is" is interchangeable with "such as" it makes it easier to read. This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 15:34 |
|
|
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 - 16:46
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
This is getting pointless now. People have said their piece so leave it at that.
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:22 |