PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

NIP received 23 days after alleged offence. Out of time?
rp.
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 16:28
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
From: Cardiff
Member No.: 4,510



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?





--------------------
"In that two-bit town, he was the law..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 16:28
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 16:32
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,460
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Are you the registered keeper? If not, it is highly unlikely that this is the first NIP.


--------------------
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
The Rookie
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 16:42
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,389
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



So if the lessor is the registered keeper, you are not.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lessor+mean...le&ie=UTF-8

The first notice has to be sent to the registered keeper or driver (who at that point realistically they almost never know).

You’ve presumably been named by the leasing company and now have a notice in your name, all normal and above board.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 16:53


--------------------
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
BaggieBoy
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 16:43
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,385
Joined: 3 Apr 2006
From: North Hampshire
Member No.: 5,183



What is the name and address on the V5C?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rp.
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 16:53
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
From: Cardiff
Member No.: 4,510



QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 16:43) *
What is the name and address on the V5C?

We do not have the V5C. Only the registered keeper has the V5C.


--------------------
"In that two-bit town, he was the law..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 16:55
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,229
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



If you think about it, the first NIP and request for driver's details goes to the Registered Keeper (in your case the lease company, the only people the police know about in connection with your vehicle). They have 28 days to respond to the request and they did so, naming you as the person they believed was either driving, or could tell the police who was. You got your notice and request after 23 days. Only the first NIP is subject to the 14 day rule there is no time limit on second or subsequent NIPs and no time limit on any requests for driver's details (even the first one).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rp.
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 17:01
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
From: Cardiff
Member No.: 4,510



Has anyone considered the point about the "new driver nomination" date of 03/12/2019 being logically impossible?


--------------------
"In that two-bit town, he was the law..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 17:09
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,229
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



I did notice it but it makes no difference. You have a Section 172 notice to respond to which you have properly received. All that you should be interested in is whether or not you were driving at the relevant time and if not who was. The mistake or typo (or whatever it was) does not help you. You need to respond to that request and the discrepancy you mention does not alter that responsibility.

This post has been edited by NewJudge: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 17:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 22:49
Post #9


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,773
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (rp. @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 17:01) *
Has anyone considered the point about the "new driver nomination" date of 03/12/2019 being logically impossible?


As it is not impossible (logically or otherwise), I'm struggling to see what we are expected to consider about it.


--------------------
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
Fredd
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 08:01
Post #10


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,724
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 22:49) *
QUOTE (rp. @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 17:01) *
Has anyone considered the point about the "new driver nomination" date of 03/12/2019 being logically impossible?


As it is not impossible (logically or otherwise), I'm struggling to see what we are expected to consider about it.

Presumably the point is that this second NIP was issued to the OP on 2/12 and the OP hadn't nominated themselves just one day later so there couldn't have been a new driver nomination by 3/12.

However that dodgy nomination seems to have come from a checklist on their online portal; I suspect the OP logged in to that on 3/12, and their system is merely logging that event?


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 08:05
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,389
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Or it means when they sent out the new request for nomination...... only the Police will know what that box actually means.


Even the OP isn't clear what it means (or even says it seems)
QUOTE (rp. @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 17:28) *
"New driver nominated on 03/12/2019".

is not the same as
QUOTE (rp. @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 18:01) *
"new driver nomination"


This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 09:03


--------------------
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
Slapdash
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 08:51
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 363
Joined: 2 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,040



I guess the question for the OP is when did the RK - the leasing company receive their nip since that is all that matters.

Avon and Somerset allows (or did when I last got one) a different keeper nomination to be made online. I assume that is what the RK did.

A bemused call to their ticket office may enable a bit of clarity on the curiosity of the nip issue 2-12 and nomination 3-12.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rp.
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:05
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
From: Cardiff
Member No.: 4,510



Please see the screenshot below, taken upon my first and only log-in yesterday to the Avon and Somerset 'Public Access System' where I made no nomination whatsoever:



If I had somehow nominated myself or another party already then the final box labelled "Respond to the Notice..." would surely have also been ticked.

Therefore, the nomination of driver details can only have been made by the Registered Keeper of the vehicle being the leasing company.

So how could this NIP have been properly issued on 02/12/2019 when the nomination was only made on 03/12/2019?

How could this NIP have been lawfully issued at a point in time before the Constabulary were put in possession of my details?


--------------------
"In that two-bit town, he was the law..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:13
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,389
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 08:05) *
Or it means when they sent out the new request for nomination...... only the Police will know what that box actually means.


Only of vague interest though as it changes the legal position NOT ONE IOTA.

The S1 NIP had to be with the registered keeper (or driver who they couldn't know at that stage) within 14 days, we know the lease company is the RK from your own posts, so did they get it in 14 days or not, that's all that matters. Phone them and ask when they got it perhaps?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:16


--------------------
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
rp.
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:24
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
From: Cardiff
Member No.: 4,510



It would surely be advantageous for us to explore whether grounds may possibly exist for a technical defence to a NIP of this nature. I appreciate the fundamental obligations imposed by s.172 but there is clearly something amiss here and the question is whether it is enough to undermine this NIP fatally.

Perhaps such a technical defence could be on the grounds that the information recorded on the A&S PAS is quite clearly self-contradictory and therefore wrong - i.e. it is simply not possible that such a NIP could have been properly issued one day before the registered keeper nominated my details and so the NIP can only be defective.

Any thoughts or suggestions on how an argument like this might play out would be very much appreciated and surely in the spirit of this forum as a bastion for technical defences no matter how far-fetched or contrived. We owe it to ourselves to consider every opportunity that presents itself to our fellow members.



--------------------
"In that two-bit town, he was the law..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:34
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,085
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



What technical defence do you think you have? An error on the system here doesnt, from my knowledge, matter one jot.
The NIP is not "defective"; it is only a notice, after all, and the information is mostly directory in nature. The S172 is a lawful request, and you woul dhave to comply regardless of the NIP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:37
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,389
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (rp. @ Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:24) *
Any thoughts or suggestions on how an argument like this might play out would be very much appreciated

The bench would possibly have a good laugh and then find you guilty......... What you have seen isn't part of the legal process and doesn't affect it, even if it did mean something.

Please explain how it either allows you to not reply to the S172 request or how it invalidated a NIP....... if you can do either then you may have a case.


--------------------
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
rp.
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:45
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
From: Cardiff
Member No.: 4,510



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.


--------------------
"In that two-bit town, he was the law..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:53
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,085
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



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".

Its not being shot down "off hand", you just don't like the answer that as this is a non-evidential system it doesn't matter one jot what it says, and does not in anyway invalidate the request made under S172, which you have to comply with as the person keeping the vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rp.
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:58
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
From: Cardiff
Member No.: 4,510



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 11:53) *
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?


--------------------
"In that two-bit town, he was the law..."
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: Sunday, 15th December 2019 - 05:36
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.