QUOTE (DiscoDave @ Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 19:04)
Bought current car, 10 October, offence took place under 3 weeks later, but Police say they wrote to keeper of vehicle, within 2 weeks - probably used car dealer where I bought car from.
Surely if that was the case, I would have received something in the post before Mid Jan? And if not, surely I was in the right to return letter advising politely, it was out of date and I wasn't no paying the fine.
Today I receive a letter saying I will receive summons to court in due course. Now, if was me driving, but on advice of these, and other forum I returned letter stating ODD
Whose right, and whose wrong?
Do I still have the chance to pay £100.00 and receive 3 points without it going to court
Firstly, on behalf of the thousands of grammar Nazis currently throwing things at their computer screens, it's "who's right" (who is right) not "whose right". Where there is a word which would otherwise have an apostrophe, but does not to avoid confusion with an otherwise identical word which does (its and it's, who's and whose, etc.) the abbreviated word is the one that retains the apostrophe, not the possessive word.
The relevant statute (as regards the service of NIPs, nothing to do with grammar or spelling) is sections 1 and 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
The police have to serve a NIP on the driver or the person registered as the keeper of the vehicle within 14 days, unless it was not reasonably practicable for them to ascertain the details of either in time to serve a NIP within the 14 days.
However, knowing what the law says is of limited use without knowing what the relevant facts are.
As you bought the car from a dealer, it is unlikely that he was ever registered as the keeper. What should have happened is that when he bought the vehicle, the seller should have sent off the yellow slip and the vehicle would then show as being "in trade" with the seller's details showing as being the previous keeper. When you bought it, the dealer should then have sent off the relevant paperwork and when processed by the DVLA you would show as being the registered keeper.
If the DVLA database (or the PNC copy) showed the previous owner as still being the keeper when the police looked up the details, arguably he would still have been the person registered as keeper even though he no longer owned the vehicle, so a NIP served on him within the 14 days would have satisfied the requirement. Alternatively, if the meaning of "person registered as keeper" has a narrower meaning (excluding a person who is no longer the keeper but is still shown on the register as being the keeper), unless the police had any reason to believe, within the time required to serve the NIP, that that person was no longer the registered keeper, the reasonable practicability clause would save them.
However, if the database showed the vehicle as being in trade, and if the police decided that that somehow absolved them of the requirement to exercise reasonable diligence in trying to ascertain the driver's details, and if they could have gotten your details from the MIB database (insurance), then I would say that you probably have a good defence.