Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wrong Address On NIP
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
swisstony
Hi all,

I have just received an NIP today delivered through my letterbox but with a completely different address to mine which happens to be the next street along but a totally different address (ie delivered to 14 Molyneaux Drive where as I live at 14 Bispham Square.(Not correct addresses, but same context)). Would this qualify under the 'slip rule'? 14 Bispham Square is on the V5 by the way. I believe either someone from Molyneaux drive delivered it to my address although I do not know these people or the postman delivered it with a batch of letters in my uncommon name! Please advise where to progress with this. Many thanks. (I have never lived at Molyneaux Drive by the way!)
Gan
Was it served within 14 days of the alleged event ?

Keep the envelope
swisstony
QUOTE (Gan @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 19:41) *
Was it served within 14 days of the alleged event ? Keep the envelope
Yes, unfortunately
Hellfire8
QUOTE (swisstony @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 19:47) *
QUOTE (Gan @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 19:41) *
Was it served within 14 days of the alleged event ? Keep the envelope
Yes, unfortunately



I'd hazard a guess but it's been served and you've not been disadvantaged by the mistake, I don't think it would be a viable defense, However other more experienced members may feel otherwise.
BaggieBoy
QUOTE (swisstony @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 19:38) *
Would this qualify under the 'slip rule'? 1

Nope, the "slip rule' only applies to court documents.

What address is on your V5C?
peterguk
QUOTE (swisstony @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 19:38) *
Would this qualify under the 'slip rule'?


The slip rule applies to court documents, not NIPs.

IMHO, whilst the address is incorrect, it has been served within time and is therefore valid.
Jlc
So just to clarify, the address on the NIP is that on the v5 and it found its way to you within 14 days of the offence? Or reading it again the address is different to that on the v5 but has been put through your door?
Hellfire8
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 20:06) *
So just to clarify, the address on the NIP is that on the v5 and it found its way to you within 14 days of the offence? Or reading it again the address is different to that on the v5 but has been put through your door?



I read it as NIP had wrong address on, V5 has right address on, NIP put through correct door anyway
swisstony
QUOTE (Hellfire8 @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 20:24) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 20:06) *
So just to clarify, the address on the NIP is that on the v5 and it found its way to you within 14 days of the offence? Or reading it again the address is different to that on the v5 but has been put through your door?
I read it as NIP had wrong address on, V5 has right address on, NIP put through correct door anyway


My V5 has the correct address on, the NIP has the wrong address on and has been put through my door





Jlc
Indeed, that's what I thought.

If the NIP has found its way to the OP after 14 days then there's an argument it wasn't served correctly. But as noted it appears to have found the right person and has not been disadvantaged and ignoring it would cause a heap of trouble. (Likely to see a court conviction that will be a pain to sort regardless of the incorrect address)

Going for the 'embarrassment' route is an option to see if they would rescind.

What's the alleged offence?
swisstony
QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 20:30) *
What's the alleged offence?


48 in a 40...must have been away with the faeries that morning, a route I drive every day

paulajayne
wink.gif wink.gif wink.gif If it has the wrong address on it "Did it arrive"?
peterguk
QUOTE (paulajayne @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 20:34) *
wink.gif wink.gif wink.gif If it has the wrong address on it "Did it arrive"?


According to his posts on this very public forum it did. rolleyes.gif
Jlc
I would respond to the s172 (name the driver) request as there's no 14 day limit to request this information and it has been received.

Then, after 14 days, point out that the NIP has failed to meet the 'last known address' requirements of s1 RTOA.

It depends how far you want to push a 'technical defence' versus a course/fixed penalty.

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 20:36) *
QUOTE (paulajayne @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 20:34) *
wink.gif wink.gif wink.gif If it has the wrong address on it "Did it arrive"?


According to his posts on this very public forum it did. rolleyes.gif

Indeed, that's not a good way of dealing with it as I have noted already...
Kickaha
Just a thought on the addresses, is the postcode on the V5 correct? As some addressing systems lift just the house number and the postcode then generate the address from that.
oldstoat
is it possible that some muppet has given the OP name but used there own address. nothing in the OP post suggests they know anything about the reason for the NIP
Jlc
QUOTE (Kickaha @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 20:51) *
Just a thought on the addresses, is the postcode on the V5 correct? As some addressing systems lift just the house number and the postcode then generate the address from that.

The DVLA info (presuming that's where the address was sourced) would normally be used verbatim although it's not beyond the possibility that a PAF was used. But one letter difference in the post code could cause a 1 street change...

QUOTE (oldstoat @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 21:12) *
is it possible that some muppet has given the OP name but used there own address. nothing in the OP post suggests they know anything about the reason for the NIP

Unlikely given the timings?
Hellfire8
QUOTE (oldstoat @ Thu, 19 Nov 2015 - 21:12) *
is it possible that some muppet has given the OP name but used there own address. nothing in the OP post suggests they know anything about the reason for the NIP


Possibly but the OP does say the details on his V5 were correct so one would assume the NIP was for his own vehicle.

I am sure if the NIP was for another vehicle then he would have said so.
albert2008
can't he just post it back complete with envelope, with a note " not known at this address "

but post it over 14 days and before 28 days,
Kickaha
QUOTE (albert2008 @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 11:06) *
can't he just post it back complete with envelope, with a note " not known at this address "

but post it over 14 days and before 28 days,

Only if he wants to PCOJ, not the best thing to do (or indeed advise).
Jlc
The OP has received it, is aware it is for them and should therefore work on that basis.

Depending on how the mail was delivered (i.e. the postman recognised the name or the people at the other address delivered it) then it could backfire spectacularly.

I still suggest ensuring 14 days has passed, respond the s172 request unequivocally and point out that the address on the NIP is different to that on the v5 and therefore fails to meet the necessary requirement of s1 Road Traffic Offenders Act were it was not sent to the 'last known address'. They may retract or they may not - it's up to the OP whether it's worth a court fight with the usual risks. (Although, it would be good to clarify how the 'error' occurred just in case this is something that could reoccur)
RottenToTheCore
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 10:21) *
I still suggest ensuring 14 days has passed, respond the s172 request unequivocally and point out that the address on the NIP is different to that on the v5 and therefore fails to meet the necessary requirement of s1 Road Traffic Offenders Act were it was not sent to the 'last known address'. They may retract or they may not - it's up to the OP whether it's worth a court fight with the usual risks.


Seems reasonable to assert that the wrong address falls foul of the RTOA, in the hope that the police may withdraw.

However, I think the OP would be bonkers to consider going to court.

Section 1A says:

QUOTE
A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person—

(a)by delivering it to him;

(b)by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or

©by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.


It clearly was "delivered" to him within 14 days, and I think he would be hard pushed to convince the court that the legal meaning of the wording would exclude the specifics of delivery in this case.
Jlc
Agreed. The key is not to point this out and hope they do withdraw.
andy_foster
QUOTE (RottenToTheCore @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 14:23) *
It clearly was "delivered" to him within 14 days, and I think he would be hard pushed to convince the court that the legal meaning of the wording would exclude the specifics of delivery in this case.


Was it?
peterguk
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 22:12) *
QUOTE (RottenToTheCore @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 14:23) *
It clearly was "delivered" to him within 14 days, and I think he would be hard pushed to convince the court that the legal meaning of the wording would exclude the specifics of delivery in this case.


Was it?


According to OP, it was delivered to him within 14 days. So no dispute there.

However, whether it's allowed to take a roundabout route within those 14 days might be a different matter.
Logician
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 23:47) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 22:12) *
QUOTE (RottenToTheCore @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 14:23) *
It clearly was "delivered" to him within 14 days, and I think he would be hard pushed to convince the court that the legal meaning of the wording would exclude the specifics of delivery in this case.
Was it?
According to OP, it was delivered to him within 14 days. So no dispute there. However, whether it's allowed to take a roundabout route within those 14 days might be a different matter.


I do not see why that should make a difference, a letter never goes direct from the police to the RK, it goes via a couple of sorting offices at least, if in addition it goes via the next street, and thereby follows an unexpected route, why should that make a difference?

peterguk
QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 23:16) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 23:47) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 22:12) *
QUOTE (RottenToTheCore @ Fri, 20 Nov 2015 - 14:23) *
It clearly was "delivered" to him within 14 days, and I think he would be hard pushed to convince the court that the legal meaning of the wording would exclude the specifics of delivery in this case.
Was it?
According to OP, it was delivered to him within 14 days. So no dispute there. However, whether it's allowed to take a roundabout route within those 14 days might be a different matter.


I do not see why that should make a difference, a letter never goes direct from the police to the RK, it goes via a couple of sorting offices at least, if in addition it goes via the next street, and thereby follows an unexpected route, why should that make a difference?


I'm with you on this. It was clearly delivered to the OP within 14 days.
bm1957
How would the prosecution prove that it had been delivered? Would they be allowed to 'extract' the required info from the OP?

Or would they for some reason not have to prove that it had been delivered?
peterguk
QUOTE (bm1957 @ Sun, 22 Nov 2015 - 23:28) *
How would the prosecution prove that it had been delivered? Would they be allowed to 'extract' the required info from the OP?

Or would they for some reason not have to prove that it had been delivered?


They could use OP's posts from this forum.....

But first, OP has to risk jail time claiming it never arrived.
bm1957
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 22 Nov 2015 - 23:41) *
But first, OP has to risk jail time claiming it never arrived.

So they don't have to prove it was delivered, unless it's raised as a defence point that it wasn't? Got it
thisisntme
QUOTE (bm1957 @ Mon, 23 Nov 2015 - 00:07) *
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 22 Nov 2015 - 23:41) *
But first, OP has to risk jail time claiming it never arrived.

So they don't have to prove it was delivered, unless it's raised as a defence point that it wasn't? Got it


I believe that the defence has to refute the claim that the NIP was effectively served. Something that isn't necessarily easy even with the postman as witness (see PeterGuk's signature).
big_mac
QUOTE (thisisntme @ Mon, 23 Nov 2015 - 00:50) *
I believe that the defence has to refute the claim that the NIP was effectively served. Something that isn't necessarily easy even with the postman as witness (see PeterGuk's signature).

As far as I can see, if it was not properly addressed then there can be no presumption of service.
Without that, what are they going to say if they are asked to prove that it was served correctly?
RottenToTheCore
QUOTE (big_mac @ Mon, 23 Nov 2015 - 01:04) *
QUOTE (thisisntme @ Mon, 23 Nov 2015 - 00:50) *
I believe that the defence has to refute the claim that the NIP was effectively served. Something that isn't necessarily easy even with the postman as witness (see PeterGuk's signature).

As far as I can see, if it was not properly addressed then there can be no presumption of service.
Without that, what are they going to say if they are asked to prove that it was served correctly?


Wouldn't it go something like this:

1) Prosecution claim that it was served to his last known address
2) Defence rebut the claim that the address on the NIP is his last known address
3) Prosecution ask OP if it was delivered
4) OP either;
------- a) Admits it was delivered (guilty of original offence and FtF), or
------- b) Refuses to answer (probably found guilty of original offence and FtF)
HerbieM
If a letter arrives through your letter box that is incorrectly addressed would the right thing to do be to mark it as 'not know at this address' and pop it back in a postbox?

It's a judgement call when the letter arrives I suppose but I'd certainly be inclined to return it in these circumstances and wait to see what happens next.

Once opened that option has obviously passed but should you open mail that is not addressed to you in the first place?

We 'lose' a lot of our mail to a different part of the locality due to the city expanding and subsuming small villages with the same street names - we receive some of the mail for the other area and some of ours appears at our address late with try 'our location' hand written on it. Almost all of the 'lost' mail has the correct postcode on it.
Jlc
There's a chance the postie noticed (apparently distinctive) name on the letter and posted it through the 'correct' door.

With one's name on top I suspect the majority would open it.

'Ignoring' it is likely to see proceedings commenced for failing to furnish. Although, a defence may well be available, it's still a lot of hassle to jump through hoops with a Statutory Declaration and attendance at court. (Assuming any reminder/summons is not received - of course a summons/requisition dropping through the door under the same circumstances cannot be ignored)

Fighting it on the 'front foot' would be better than the 'back foot' imho.
NewJudge
QUOTE (RottenToTheCore @ Mon, 23 Nov 2015 - 01:48) *
Wouldn't it go something like this:

1) Prosecution claim that it was served to his last known address
2) Defence rebut the claim that the address on the NIP is his last known address
3) Prosecution ask OP if it was delivered
4) OP either;
------- a) Admits it was delivered (guilty of original offence and FtF), or
------- b) Refuses to answer (probably found guilty of original offence and FtF)

A conviction for the original offence (speeding) under the above scenario cannot be secured. Accepting the NIP had been delivered (or refusing to say whether it had been or not) does not provide evidence of who was driving.

So long as the truth is told by the OP there is little chance of avoiding at best a penalty for speeding (unless the matter is dropped under “embarrassment”) and at worst a conviction for FtF. He cannot say he did not receive the NIP. He cannot say it was not delivered to him. He cannot swear a Statutory Declaration that he knew nothing of the matter. The plain fact is that the NIP was delivered to him (by whatever means) and it was in time. Section 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act (which deals with the service of the NIP) says this:

The requirement of subsection (1) above [which deals with the various methods of serving a NIP] shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.

One of the options to deliver the NIP under subsection (1) is (a) “By delivering it to him”. It was delivered to him. Albeit not by the conventional route but subsection 1(a) does not restrict the method of delivery or who should undertake it. This puts the onus on to the OP to prove that the NIP was not delivered and he cannot do so without lying.

I have to say that to consider going to court with this, which is almost certain to fail (unless lies are told under oath) is foolhardy. To risk a financial penalty of >£1k (and three points) for a matter that would normally be dealt with by a SAC (cost of around £100 and no points) is not very good odds.`

thisisntme
QUOTE (HerbieM @ Mon, 23 Nov 2015 - 15:49) *
If a letter arrives through your letter box that is incorrectly addressed would the right thing to do be to mark it as 'not know at this address' and pop it back in a postbox?

It's a judgement call when the letter arrives I suppose but I'd certainly be inclined to return it in these circumstances and wait to see what happens next.

Once opened that option has obviously passed but should you open mail that is not addressed to you in the first place?

We 'lose' a lot of our mail to a different part of the locality due to the city expanding and subsuming small villages with the same street names - we receive some of the mail for the other area and some of ours appears at our address late with try 'our location' hand written on it. Almost all of the 'lost' mail has the correct postcode on it.


Even if the OP then gets a visit re a possible PCOJ charge? Doesn't sound like good advice to me. Remember this forum is monitored. Once the OP came here, he is bound to follow the lawful and honest direction even though that might not be to his advantage.
HerbieM
My question was just that a question not advice - if you think/assume the letter received is for you it could be proved it was or was not but only AFTER it was opened.

The OP has opened the letter even though it was not correctly addressed to him so any thought of returning it was, as I stated, not an option.

I'd still be interested to get an opinion on the question raised though smile.gif
NewJudge
I think if it was clearly addressed to me by name but to the wroing address - as seems to have happened here - I may be inclined to open it. If, however, it was wrong in both name and address I'd mark it "not known" and shove it back in the post.
Jlc
Indeed, and you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

However, the OP hasn't been back for a while so we'll have to wait and see what happened if they do come back.
Logician
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 24 Nov 2015 - 10:20) *
I think if it was clearly addressed to me by name but to the wroing address - as seems to have happened here - I may be inclined to open it. If, however, it was wrong in both name and address I'd mark it "not known" and shove it back in the post.


I agree with that. What is very mysterious is how this wrong address came to be used, since the police use the DVLA database to pick up the name and address of the registered keeper, to pick up the correct name but the wrong address with which the keeper has never been associated is bizarre, and the first time I can ever remember such a thing being reported here.

gilan02
QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 24 Nov 2015 - 11:05) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Tue, 24 Nov 2015 - 10:20) *
I think if it was clearly addressed to me by name but to the wroing address - as seems to have happened here - I may be inclined to open it. If, however, it was wrong in both name and address I'd mark it "not known" and shove it back in the post.


I agree with that. What is very mysterious is how this wrong address came to be used, since the police use the DVLA database to pick up the name and address of the registered keeper, to pick up the correct name but the wrong address with which the keeper has never been associated is bizarre, and the first time I can ever remember such a thing being reported here.


He does not say he has never been associated with the address?
Kickaha
QUOTE (gilan02 @ Tue, 24 Nov 2015 - 13:13) *
He does not say he has never been associated with the address?

Last line of the first post.

Given that the house number was correct I still think that the DVLA have the wrong postcode and the police system extracted the address using house number and postcode.

Until the OP returns all is just guesswork.
CuriousOrange
For all the discussion about the NIP, nobody appears to have considered whether the S172 requirement has been served or not.

S172 makes no reference to delivering a written requirement, only to serving it by post, properly addressed (to the "last known address").

Has the OP been served a S172 requirement? If so, by what reasoning?

And if so, when does/did the OP have to respond to it by, given that the 28 day period only applies to a properly-addressed notice served by post?
Jlc
He has it, he is aware it's for him and it's his car. (It doesn't appear to have been 'delayed' either so normal rules apply)

Fighting the fact it hasn't been 'served' won't be easy.
CuriousOrange
He has it, yes, but has it been served by post?

Over three pages people have decided that the NIP was delivered rather than served by post. But now the S172 requirement, that was in the same envelope, and arrived by the same method, is being claimed to have been served by post even though the NIP wasn't?

RTOA 1988 S.12 states that for an S172 reply to be accepted as identity of the driver, the court firstly has to be satisfied "that a requirement under section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988...has been served on the accused by post". If the S172 requirement hasn't been served by post, on what basis would the OP's reply be legal evidence of the driver that wouldn't render S.12 entirely redundant?

As the OP says that the V5C has the correct address, I'm unconvinced that the DVLA could have the right house number/street but wrong postcode: virtually all computerised address systems rely on the postcode being entered first and the number/street selected and autofilled accordingly, so I don't see how they could have generated such a V5C.
NewJudge
This is quite interesting. It is true that thusfar it has only been the NIP that has been the subject of discussion. The S172 notice is also due for consideration.

The difficulty as I see it is that S1 of the RTOA allows for service of the NIP to be made by any one of three methods (including “by delivering it to him” for which the concensus seems to be that for the NIP in this case this is acceptable) whereas S12 of the same act allows for service of a S172 notice only “by post”.

Section 172(7) itself says: “A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post;…”

S172(9) says this:

“…the proper address of any person in relation to the service on him of a notice under subsection (7) above is—

(a) in the case of the secretary or clerk of a body corporate,[irrelevant here]

(b) in any other case, his last known address at the time of service.

Although it defines how a service made by post must be addressed (and so in this case the S172 notice would not be seen as properly served) there seems no absolute requirement for a S172 notice to be served “by post” ("A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post).

So a requirement “by post” for the S172 notice seems arguable but in support of that argument is the fact that the notice was not sent to the last known address but got there by good fortune.

So, what to do? If the arguments above are valid (and I’m only really thinking out loud so feel free to shoot them down in flames) it seems the OP has a properly served NIP but arguably no properly served S172 notice (which arrived in the same envelope!).

His options to me seem to be:

1. To ignore the S172 notice (on the basis that it was not properly served). The speeding cannot then be charged (despite the valid NIP). Go to court (for the S172 offence) and plead not guilty on that basis (with all the associated risks).

2. Reply in time to the S172 request. Then go to court to defend the speeding on the basis that, since the S172 notice was not properly served his reply cannot be used to support the speeding charge - again with the associated risks. (I don’t know how his replying to it will jeopardise his contention that it was not properly served).

3. Or, of course, to reply to the S172 request and simply accept any SAC of FP that may be offered.

In my view, if faced with a defence using either of the first two options the Magistrates may well find that, in their opinion, either both the NIP and the S172 notice were properly served or neither were properly served and I would lean heavily towards the former. I don’t think they can reasonably find that one was served correctly but the other was not. The overarching aim of the legislation surrounding the service of NIPs and S172 notices is to prevent those accused from being disadvantaged by delay or non-service. Neither seems to have happened here and when faced with a situation not covered by the letter of the law Magistrates must consider the overriding aim of the law.

I know what I would do (option 3) but I’d be interested in other views which may be contrary to my ramblings.






Jlc
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Wed, 25 Nov 2015 - 10:55) *
Magistrates must consider the overriding aim of the law.

...that is to convict the 'guilty' as is oft said on here. Which is what I would suspect a Mag's court would do and it would require subsequent (expensive and time consuming) appeals to fight on a technicality. Of course, it might be a valid technicality but we don't have all of the information to hand to draw any firm conclusions.
CuriousOrange
If that were the overriding aim then the fourteen day requirement wouldn't exist. I think NewJudge understands it a lot better than you do.



They could find that the NIP was served but not the S172, because as discussed the NIP has the option of being delivered.

There isn't a absolute requirement to serve an S172 by post, but as I alluded to earlier, the 28 day leeway only applies to service by post, so if this wasn't served by post but still lawfully made, what are the legal timescales? Has the OP committed the offence by not replying as soon as possible?

Edit: Also, as I've already mentioned, S.12 re identity of driver does have an absolute requirement for service by post.

If the OP did not reply at all, how would they prove that the S172 requirement had been served? The OP would not have to take the stand and could not be compelled to. The V5C and their own copy of the NIP would show they had posted it to the wrong address. How would they prove that it had even got to the OP before they could get to the next hurdle of arguing that it had been served and so the non reply was an offence?
Jlc
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Wed, 25 Nov 2015 - 12:11) *
If that were the overriding aim then the fourteen day requirement wouldn't exist.

Indeed but as I noted we do not have the full facts yet.

QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Wed, 25 Nov 2015 - 12:11) *
They could find that the NIP was served but not the S172, because as discussed the NIP has the option of being delivered.

There isn't a absolute requirement to serve an S172 by post, but as I alluded to earlier, the 28 day leeway only applies to service by post, so if this wasn't served by post but still lawfully made, what are the legal timescales? Has the OP committed the offence by not replying as soon as possible?

If the OP did not reply at all, how would they prove that the S172 requirement had been served? The OP would not have to take the stand and could not be compelled to. The V5C and their own copy of the NIP would show they had posted it to the wrong address. How would they prove that it had even got to the OP before they could get to the next hurdle of arguing that it had been served and so the non reply was an offence?

I don't disagree but I stand by my assertion that ignoring (completely) is not a good option. Whilst there might be a point to fight on it's going to consume considerable time and effort that cannot be recovered, i.e. 'unknown' conviction.

A better option would be to point out these 'anomalies' prior to the commencement of proceedings. (Which may also be sent to the 'wrong' address)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.