PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP Received for car I sold, I received a NIP for speeding for a car I have already sold
gettingituptodat...
post Sat, 7 Dec 2019 - 22:39
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 17 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,659



I bought a car four months ago, didn't fill the logbook in as I was decided to sell it on again (was just helping a friend out who needed some money)

I sold the car on the 1st October 2019, sent the log book off myself.

There was a speeding incident on the 6th October

I received a call from the previous owner to say he had a NIP for a speeding offence, I told him to give my details as it was myself who bought it, I am about to fill out the NIP form however I only have his name and no address.

I assume the logbook never arrived at DVLA or that the record was not updated in time (6 days from when the guy bought it from myself)

I have proof of sale only in as much as messages to say he is on his way etc, my Google location. Do I just put his name and home town which is all the details I remember?


Thank you in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 6)
Advertisement
post Sat, 7 Dec 2019 - 22:39
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Kickaha
post Sat, 7 Dec 2019 - 23:26
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,382
Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Member No.: 38,126



You say you sent the log book off. Did it have the buyers full details on it? If so you could always put a note with the form saying you do not have the buyers full details but you supplied the information to the DVLA on (the date you sent the form). This should allow them to get the details from the DVLA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 11:23
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,338
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Does this not have shades of Debbie Atkinson and her scooter:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/3363.html

That ruling suggests that the "diligence" required to identify the driver only begins when the S172 request is served and any shortcomings evident before that do not matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 12:24
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,796
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 12:23) *
Does this not have shades of Debbie Atkinson and her scooter:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/3363.html

That ruling suggests that the "diligence" required to identify the driver only begins when the S172 request is served and any shortcomings evident before that do not matter.

I completely agree, in addition it’s not impacted by Whiteside in my opinion which required ongoing diligence (reasonably practicable) after the S172 is served to make sure you get it. Even though in effect it places an ongoing obligation as you don’t know your getting one until, well, you do.


--------------------
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TonyS
post Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 14:26
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 912
Joined: 24 Mar 2013
From: Scotland
Member No.: 60,732



He wasn't the "person keeping the vehicle" at the time, doesn't that make a difference?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 15:20
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,338
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (TonyS @ Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 14:26) *
He wasn't the "person keeping the vehicle" at the time, doesn't that make a difference?

Yes. He has a slightly less onerous burden. Section 172 (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 seems that the only information the OP has which is "in his power to give" is the name of the person to whom he sold the car.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 15:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lodesman
post Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 17:53
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 436
Joined: 18 Sep 2008
From: Kent
Member No.: 22,623



I had a similar experience a few years ago.
Nine months after trading in a car I received a 172 request concerning multiple speeding matters from the midlands accompanied by a covering letter acknowledging that I was no longer the keeper but would I please let them know to whom I sold the car. I gave them the name of the dealer and that was the last I heard of it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Tuesday, 28th January 2020 - 19:35
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.