PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Time barred and "deemed served", 79 in a 70, out of 14 day limit?
mr_merc
post Mon, 23 Oct 2006 - 09:37
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Member No.: 8,450



Dear All

Hoping to use your collective knowledge, and please only reply if you have had experience of this or understand the necessary intricacies thank you.

I have 6 years+ clean licence and 6 years+ ncb, 23 years old and I don't speed in 30 or 40 limits. I use "appropriate speed" in 60/70 limits and on motorways (that said I never break 85 mph in a 70 although I am happy to admit that where appropriate I think it farcical to sit at 70 on the motorway in certain circumstances).

In July I was travelling along the A5 in Milton Keynes doing 80 mph, Sunday evening after 8 pm driving back from a badminton match. I was caught by a mobile unit.

My car is currently registered to my parents' address in Essex and they received nothing until late August when a "second letter" came with a "copy" of the initial NIP. The copy of the initial NIP was actually dated the same date as the covering letter, and said I was caught doing 79 mph in a 70 mph. Fair enough.

However, I understand the 14 day time limit applies and my parents never received the initial NIP. No word of a lie, it never came. I wrote to the Police very politely, asking for proof that they sent it within the 14 day limit to which I received another "copy NIP" with the "correct" date on it this time (within 14 days of the offence) and stating they sent it first class and that doesn't negate the offence.

What I want to know is whether that letter and the "Safety Officer's" word that it was sent on that date are enough to show it was deemed served within the 14 day limit.

If they are then I'll take the 3 points and £60. My issue is that I think they were late in sending the NIP and can't prove, other than potentially to change the date on the initial NIP to within 14 days that they sent it and this bugs me.

Aside from my anger that they are catching the likes of me instead of people doing 40 outside a school at 3 in the afternoon in Milton Keynes... I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Thank you in anticipation.

James.

This post has been edited by mr_merc: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 - 10:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 52)
Advertisement
post Mon, 23 Oct 2006 - 09:37
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
firefly
post Thu, 16 Nov 2006 - 12:40
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,714
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
From: ex-Scotland
Member No.: 298



QUOTE (jeffreyarcher @ Mon, 23 Oct 2006 - 16:02) *
The Officer in Charge,
Scam Central,
Big Town,
Oxfordshire.

Dear Sir,

NIP ref. no.: XXXXXXXXXX

I am in receipt of your letter of XXth May, and note its contents.
I would, however, disgree with your assertions.
I would refer you to section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1988. Whilst the posting of a notice in time creates a presumption of service, this presumption is rebuttable (I.e. "unless the contrary is proved").
As I explained to you in my previous letter of XXth May, the original notice was not, in fact, delivered at all, and I shall produce evidence to that effect, incourst, should it become neccesssary.

I await your response.


Yours Faithfully,

Mr Merc.
Seeing this reminded me of an argument on another site where a serving fed (who reckons he's only backing up the opinion of senior members of the judiciary) says that the 1994 insertion of section (1A) into the RTOA creates a 'contrary intention' as per the Interpretation Act 1978:

INTERPRETATION ACT 1978
Section 7
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.


So the phrase "[c] by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address." means that the mere 'sending' of the NIP by first class post is enough to create an irrebuttable presumption of service.

This is, in my opinion, nonsense. The phrase 'sending by' has been in the Road Traffic Act for at least 70-odd years and it has never been taken to mean a 'contrary intention'.

Plus, he reckons that Wilkinson's Road Traffic is wrong when it says the presumption of service is rebuttable. He says the authors wrote it as they would like the law to be, not as it is. I kid you not. ohmy.gif
I've attached my argument to him. He thinks it's nonsense. rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by firefly: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 - 12:46
Attached File(s)
Attached File  5ive_0_Analysis_Non_Received_NIPs.doc ( 55K ) Number of downloads: 81
 


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MartinHP71
post Thu, 16 Nov 2006 - 13:00
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,733
Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Member No.: 6,622



Not that it means much but I think your arguement is brilliant smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
firefly
post Thu, 16 Nov 2006 - 20:12
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,714
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
From: ex-Scotland
Member No.: 298



QUOTE (MartinHP71 @ Thu, 16 Nov 2006 - 13:00) *
Not that it means much but I think your arguement is brilliant smile.gif
Ta!

If you managed to wade through the full text without falling asleep then fair play!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Puntoboy
post Sun, 19 Nov 2006 - 09:48
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Member No.: 8,979



Good luck James, sounds like you have all the bases covered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mr_merc
post Tue, 21 Nov 2006 - 16:39
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Member No.: 8,450



Firefly, I've been doing some of my own research (given that I will have to do a seat in Criminal eventually) and Wilkinson's provides some very good commentary on matters relating to "deemed served".

In any event, case law on what presumption of service is in Civil law does not back up the point that the mere sending of the item by first class creates an irrebuttable presumption of service.

In any event, I have until 14 January to receive Court papers or it's time barred in any event. Nothing yet.

As I've said before, if I had have been speeding in a 30 limit, or using innappropriate speed then that is one thing and I would genuinely take the penalty. To be caught on a Sunday night, with excellent road conditions, a good deal of experience under my belt (RoSPA, IAM and so on) at marginally over the limit is quite frustrating as I feel this can only be a revenue exercise and not a deterrent or safety exercise.

My thoughts anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Puntoboy
post Tue, 28 Nov 2006 - 20:13
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Member No.: 8,979



I agree James.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mr_merc
post Sat, 6 Jan 2007 - 15:28
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Member No.: 8,450



By way of an update, I have been sent several s172 notices, to which I replied to the most recent one showing that I'd already sent it to them recorded delivery a while back.

In any event, they have now served me with a conditional offer (how kind of them) for £60 and 3 points. They have given me 28 days to reply, by which time if I don't then they are going to take me to court apparently.

Now it was my understanding that given my situation they have 6 months from the date of the alleged offence to serve court papers on me. I will check that when I'm next in work, but is that correct to your knowledge?

If the above is correct then I must be getting close, or if not already, have them time barred from making an action against me given that this proposed offence was 02/07/06?

Thanks in anticipation.

James.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kingjohn
post Sat, 6 Jan 2007 - 16:01
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 247
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
From: South West
Member No.: 9,238



Sounds to me like you're home and dry. They can't take action against you until the 28 days are up, by which time the 6 month time out will have occurred.

Result. Now I'm hoping for the same with mine.

John

Just noticed the 6 months ran out on 02/01/07. I'd wait until the last few days of the CoFP and then phone the mags and ask if anything has been laid before them.

This post has been edited by kingjohn: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 - 16:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peter_D
post Sat, 6 Jan 2007 - 16:04
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 536
Joined: 15 Sep 2004
Member No.: 1,647



Speeding is 6 months from the date of the offence. S172 Failure to Furnish is 6 months plus 28 days, and even then there may be a few weeks pass before the court actually issues a summons. Regards Peter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mr_merc
post Sat, 6 Jan 2007 - 16:12
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Member No.: 8,450



Thank you for the above but how certain are you?

I'm trying to find the statute for it currently.

*edit* Just found the statute in my book - Mag Courts Act 1980 - s127 (1). Bingo.

I just read this below (*edit* which I presume is wrong now?):

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm

What is the time limit, within which you can be prosecuted. The police have to serve a summons on the defendant within 6 months of the date on which the prosecutor (normally the CPS) certify that they have collated enough evidence to bring a charge. This does not mean that the police have 6 months from the date of the offence to charge the accused. My advice to anyone who has received a summons more than 6 months after the alleged offence is to request a copy of the signed and dated certificate of prosecution from the Police/CPS. For a normal common or garden speeding offence with no complications I can think of absolutely no reason why the prosecution should not issue a summons within 6 months of the offence. Notwithstanding the above, the Prosecution must bring proceedings within 3 years of the alleged offence.

This post has been edited by mr_merc: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 - 16:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Sat, 6 Jan 2007 - 23:20
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (mr_merc @ Sat, 6 Jan 2007 - 16:12) *
I just read this below (*edit* which I presume is wrong now?):

It's wrong now, and always has been.

This post has been edited by jeffreyarcher: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 - 23:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 8 Jan 2007 - 12:50
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46,126
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Its six months from the date of the offence, full stop, no get outs or anything....you sent back the little form so S172 is very unlikely, besides SGL has just won his appeal on exactly this type of case which will create a pursuasive argument........

Simon


--------------------
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
sgl
post Sat, 20 Jan 2007 - 16:56
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 397
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
From: Lancs
Member No.: 3,758



Yep....home and dry by the looks of it biggrin.gif

Well done you! wink.gif


--------------------
"Smoke me a Kipper........I`ll be back for Breakfast"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Friday, 30th October 2020 - 13:43
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.