Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] NIP received 46 days late
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Mrbpm
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - October 2018
Date of the NIP: - 44 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 46 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Broad Lane Sandford, Leeds, between Whitecote Hill & Waterloo Lane
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
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 - I was the driver at the time of alleged offence. I have viewed the photos and they clearly show my car. They are not clear enough to see myself as the driver but with enhancement will mostly show me as the driver.
The NIP I received was 46 days after offence. I did send of my V5C around that time to update my address, the date on the 2ndpage states it was updated on the 16/10/18 this is however the same date off the speeding offence. Do I have any grounds to use the 14 day exception? The West Yorkshire police public access site claims that notice was sent on 17/10/18. Then a new driver nominated on 30/11/18 however the date on the NIP I have first received is 29/11/18.

Can someone please help me with some advice?

Many thanks


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - No
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 15:36:36 +0000
Jlc
I think you’ll struggle to use the ‘14 day defence’.

The police use the PNC for keeper details and is slightly behind the DVLA which will explain why your updated details were not used.

The driver has to be identified regardless and the photo isn’t necessarily to identify the driver. (So there’s no automatic defence if the picture is not clear)

What’s the alleged speed and limit?
Mrbpm
Yeah I kinda was guessing my defence isn’t great. I was doing 36 in a 30. I’ve already been on a speed awareness course about a year and a half ago (for doing 37 in a 30) so I think I’m resigned to accepting the fine and 3 points sad.gif
andy_foster
There is an exception to the requirement to serve a NIP within 14 days if "neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for a summons or, as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement".

If the DVLA database was updated the day before the NIP was issued, then on the face of it the police could easily have ascertained your details if they had obtained the RK details directly from the DVLA rather than choosing to rely on the PNC which is apparently about a day behind. The question would seem to be whether doing so would be beyond what could be considered "reasonable diligence". Some might prefer the question of whether the police's actions were reasonable, but that does not reflect the language of the statute.

IMHO the police have chosen to use a system which they know will be out of date for a small proportion of enquiries because it is more efficient for them (both in time and cost). If they have balanced their preference for efficiency against the risk of a small proportion of motorists not receiving a timely NIP, then it would be somewhat perverse to say that the reasonable diligence exception should be applied against those motorists. In other words that it's not the police's fault that the slightly flawed system that they chose to use, fully aware of the flaws, was flawed on this occasion.

The counter argument would seem to be that the extra time and money required to obtain all RK details (for NIPs at least) directly from the DVLA would be disproportionate to the risk of a small proportion of late NIPs being served.

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.