PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

S172 Notice of Intention received late by employer
werdcon
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 12:32
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,264



Hi Folks,

I have just been in the office and we have received a S172 letter to provide driver information for "Drive motor vehicle fail comply with red / green arrow / lane closure traffic light signals - manual detection."

It turns out that this was in fact myself, I believe this to have been an RTC in lane 2 of a dual carriageway, I was merging in to the left lane, however, was not given a space to move in until reaching near the end of the lane where the section of road was coned off and blocked by a police vehicle. I was not spoken to by any police officer on site and continued on my journey as normal.

Also, more to the point, the offence date as stated on the letter is 06/05/2018, however, the S172 letter to the company is dated 04/06/2018 and is therefore outside of the usual 14 day window.

Obviously, the company has to respond with driver details, which is fine; I have taken a copy of the letter for my own evidence.

Would I be correct in contesting this on the rules of time barring and, if so, how do I go about this?

Many Thanks,
WC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 12:32
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
StuartBu
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 12:40
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,123
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



Is "the company" named on the V5c as the registered keeper as that is where the first notice would be sent to ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
werdcon
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 12:43
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,264



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - May 2018
Date of the NIP: - 29 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 30 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - M67 W/B APPROACHING JUNC 1 WESTERN TERMINAL ROUNDABOUT, UNITED KINGDOM
Was the NIP addressed to you? - No
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - Access via workplace
How many current points do you have? - 3
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)? - No
Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - No

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • Do nothing!

    The police are not requesting the information from you, they are requesting it from the person the NIP is addressed to.
    Wait until you receive a NIP addressed to you personally, then come back here.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 12:42:40 +0000

QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:40) *
Is "the company" named on the V5c as the registered keeper as that is where the first notice would be sent to ?

Yes, the company name is on the V5c.

Due to where I work in the company, I have taken receipt of the letter; this is the first notice.

This post has been edited by werdcon: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 12:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 12:44
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,585
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



An NIP has to be served on the registered keeper within 14 days. Did this happen?


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


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
NewJudge
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 12:45
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,558
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (werdcon @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:32) *
Also, more to the point, the offence date as stated on the letter is 06/05/2018, however, the S172 letter to the company is dated 04/06/2018 and is therefore outside of the usual 14 day window.

Would I be correct in contesting this on the rules of time barring and, if so, how do I go about this?


The notice has to be responded to (by your company and then yourself when you receive your own notice) regardless of any defence you might mount on the grounds of a late NIP. Each of you has 28 days from the date the notice was served to respond.

Note that it is the NIP - Notice of Intended Prosecution - that is subject to the 14 day rule. The Section 172 Notice is a separate document (although they are usually printed on the same piece of paper) and there are no time limits on that. It is only the first NIP (to the Registered Keeper - RK) that is subject to the 14 day rule. Before you embark on any challenges to it you should ensure that your employer is in fact the RK. Many companies lease their vehicles and the leasing company will receive the first NIP. It is very rare to see a late NIP these days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 12:47
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,123
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (werdcon @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:43) *
Yes, the company name is on the V5c.

Due to where I work in the company, I have taken receipt of the letter; this is the first notice.


So YOU have seen the V5C ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
werdcon
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 12:55
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,264



QUOTE
An NIP has to be served on the registered keeper within 14 days. Did this happen?


No, the offence date was 06/05/18 and the registered keeper has received the NIP dated 04/06/18 on 05/06/18.

QUOTE
The notice has to be responded to (by your company and then yourself when you receive your own notice) regardless of any defence you might mount on the grounds of a late NIP. Each of you has 28 days from the date the notice was served to respond.

Note that it is the NIP - Notice of Intended Prosecution - that is subject to the 14 day rule. The Section 172 Notice is a separate document (although they are usually printed on the same piece of paper) and there are no time limits on that. It is only the first NIP (to the Registered Keeper - RK) that is subject to the 14 day rule. Before you embark on any challenges to it you should ensure that your employer is in fact the RK. Many companies lease their vehicles and the leasing company will receive the first NIP. It is very rare to see a late NIP these days.


I can 100% guarantee that the vehicle is owned by our company. I have access to all of the V5c's for our vehicles and this vehicle is not leased.

QUOTE
So YOU have seen the V5c ?


I have, I have full access to all of the company V5c documents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 12:59
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,501
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Is the car recently bought or registered such that the details may have not been on the DVLA computer at the relevant time?

What is the date by the ‘docref’ Number towards the bottom of page 2? That is the date the DVLA last amended the details.

If you do indeed have a ‘14 day defence’ then simply name the driver as required (company name you, you get a NIP in your own name you also MUST reply to confirming you were driving) and then you can contest it.


--------------------
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
Jlc
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:08
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,886
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



In relation to a RTC seems a stretch?


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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
werdcon
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:19
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,264



QUOTE
Is the car recently bought or registered such that the details may have not been on the DVLA computer at the relevant time?

What is the date by the ‘docref’ Number towards the bottom of page 2? That is the date the DVLA last amended the details.

If you do indeed have a ‘14 day defence’ then simply name the driver as required (company name you, you get a NIP in your own name you also MUST reply to confirming you were driving) and then you can contest it.


The vehicle is not new, it is a 2012 plate vehicle and has been with the company for at least 3 years.

QUOTE
In relation to a RTC seems a stretch?


3 lane motorway, condenses to 2 lanes. There is a slip road on to the stretch on lane 1 where the traffic was tailing back, the incident was in lane 2 at the upper end of the stretch of road leading on to a roundabout. I had indicated for a significant length of time to enter lane 1 to avoid the accident, with cars both in front and behind my vehicle, and was eventually able to merge in to lane 1 around 100 feet before reaching the coned area.

Note - this was a manual detection for a lane closure and not a red light camera or anything similar. I believe it to be the footage from the police vehicle that was attending the RTC.

This post has been edited by werdcon: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:35
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,617
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Taking your account at face value, the 1st NIP was out of time. The logical course of action would now be for you to answer the s172 naming yourself (you have to do this regardless or commit a more serious offence), plead not guilty to any subsequent charge, and in court make the case that you cannot be convicted as the first NIP was served outside the 14 day period. However I'd want to see the wording of the original NIP, and ideally the police video, before recommending this course of action.


--------------------
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
NewJudge
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:47
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,558
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Have we (including me) overlooked this from the Road Traffic Offenders' Act:


2 Requirement of warning etc: supplementary.

(1)The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act
[the requirement for a NIP to be served] does not apply in relation to an offence if, at the time of the offence or immediately after it, an accident occurs owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed.

Does the OP have a NIP or is it just a S172 request?

The exemption (for a NIP) might depend on just how "involved" in the accident the OP was, perhaps? Or I may have it completely wrong! rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 14:51
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,585
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 15:47) *
Have we (including me) overlooked this from the Road Traffic Offenders' Act:

No but the OP’s account doesn’t suggest the exception would apply.


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


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
NewJudge
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 15:02
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,558
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Yes on reading the OP's account (properly this time) I believe you are right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 15:08
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,886
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



I didn't think the exemption applies but just putting it out there.

On the face of it then it does appear the NIP is 'out of time'. Possibly very 'manually' processed and the 14 day requirement has been overlooked perhaps.


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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 16:33
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,123
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



I'm still confused as to what the OP actually did wrong during the lane merging process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
werdcon
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 17:25
Post #17


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,264



Hi folks, just to clarify, i was not involved nor did my actions cause an accident.

The accident had already occurred, hence the lane closure. I was simply caught up in the aftermath that was the traffic and trying to merge in whilst also making slow progress in lane 2, without coming to a stop.

I was not having much luck merging in to lane one as vehicles were not allowing me to go in to the lane, nor could i squeeze my way in as i was in a medium wheel base van and didn't want to collide with another vehicle.

I believe that the manual detection was the police vehicle's camera which was attending the RTC which was parked behind the coned section to filter lane 2 in to lane 1.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 17:46
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,123
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



I must be missing something here- I still don't see it spelled out exactly what you did wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
werdcon
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 18:00
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 5 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,264



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 18:46) *
I must be missing something here- I still don't see it spelled out exactly what you did wrong.


All i have to go off is "Drive motor vehicle fail comply with red / green arrow / lane closure traffic light signals - manual detection."

I can only assume this is because i was in the "closed" lane.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 18:05
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,481
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 18:46) *
I must be missing something here- I still don't see it spelled out exactly what you did wrong.


"Failure to comply with lane closure traffic light signals" I assume that on THIS gantry or a previous one, there was a red cross over lane 2, indicating that the lane was closed and having the same effect as a red traffic light, the OP was in that lane, but could not get into lane 1 because of the volume of traffic until he reached the scene of the RTC, therefore passing the red light. The police no doubt assumed he was trying to gain an advantage over the lane 1 traffic by failing to move across.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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, 26th September 2018 - 15:44
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.