Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] NIP 4 months late claiming they have complied with requirement to serve NIP within 14 days
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
bigdaddy1969
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - August 2018
Date of the NIP: - 137 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 138 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - New Cut Lane, Halsall
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? - 6
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 -

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
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? - No
Was there a valid reason for the NIP's late arrival? - No

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The first NIP to the Registered Keeper must arrive within 14 days unless there is a valid reason why that was not possible, for example a recent change of details.

    This link will take you to the advice provided by the RAC's legal team.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sun, 06 Jan 2019 12:10:40 +0000

So this NIP arrived yesterday for an alleged offence on 20th August but it contains a box in which it states:

"Please be advised we have already complied with the requirement to serve a Notice of Intended Prosecution on the last known keeper of this vehicle within 14 days of the alleged offence. You are now required to respond to the S172 request for information as noted below."

This is the first Ive heard of it.

I assume I have to supply the S172 details but should I also send a letter with it?
peterguk
How long have you owned the vehicle?

What is the exact date of offence?

What's the DOC REF DATE on p2 of the V5C?
bigdaddy1969

How long have you owned the vehicle? 4 years

What is the exact date of offence? 20/08/18

What's the DOC REF DATE on p2 of the V5C? don't know where it is currently but Ive been at the same address for 3 years and received other DVLA/ NIPs at this address

Thanks
The Rookie
The first step is to check your V5c, is the address exactly correct, and then check the date by the ‘docref’ towards the bottom of page two when the DVLA last updated details.

We’ve seen cases where the address was subtly wrong, so some post may arrive, other may not. Before starting on a 14 day defence you need to be very sure of your position before passing up a course (if offered this late) or fixed penalty.
Redivi
Whatever you discover, send the reply so that it arrives on about Day 26

Make sure you keep a copy and ask the Post Office for a certificate of sending

I wouldn't send a covering letter
It sends the message that you won't accept a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty and invites the police to immediately prosecute

Day 26 is about Day 164 after the offence
If you send the reply with no comment, there's a chance that the police will send a COFP

This can be safely ignored because the deadline to prosecute will expire before the deadline to accept the COFP
Churchmouse
QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 12:39) *
How long have you owned the vehicle? 4 years

What is the exact date of offence? 20/08/18

What's the DOC REF DATE on p2 of the V5C? don't know where it is currently but Ive been at the same address for 3 years and received other DVLA/ NIPs at this address

Have a look for it. The questions are being asked in order to understand why the police think they have complied with the 14-day rule. Their note (which is, AFAIK, unusual) suggests that something unusual is afoot. The inclusion of their note suggests that this NIP is not a "reminder", but that they had sent to original NIP to a different address. Why would they do that if the V5C is correct?

--Churchmouse
bigdaddy1969
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 15:38) *
QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 12:39) *
How long have you owned the vehicle? 4 years

What is the exact date of offence? 20/08/18

What's the DOC REF DATE on p2 of the V5C? don't know where it is currently but Ive been at the same address for 3 years and received other DVLA/ NIPs at this address

Have a look for it. The questions are being asked in order to understand why the police think they have complied with the 14-day rule. Their note (which is, AFAIK, unusual) suggests that something unusual is afoot. The inclusion of their note suggests that this NIP is not a "reminder", but that they had sent to original NIP to a different address. Why would they do that if the V5C is correct?

--Churchmouse


hi so I found my V5 and the address is 100% correct on it.

Ive now received another letter "SECTION 172 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - REMINDER" DATED 27/01/19 GIVING 7 DAYS TO REPLY....

So I assume I should complete this and return without covering letter?

Thanks

Darkatmosphere
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 15:38) *
QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 12:39) *
How long have you owned the vehicle? 4 years

What is the exact date of offence? 20/08/18

What's the DOC REF DATE on p2 of the V5C? don't know where it is currently but Ive been at the same address for 3 years and received other DVLA/ NIPs at this address

Have a look for it. The questions are being asked in order to understand why the police think they have complied with the 14-day rule. Their note (which is, AFAIK, unusual) suggests that something unusual is afoot. The inclusion of their note suggests that this NIP is not a "reminder", but that they had sent to original NIP to a different address. Why would they do that if the V5C is correct?

--Churchmouse

Wrong address right number plate, perhaps the op lives in number 15 and they posted it to number 51, and the occupier wrote a letter stating that sorry sir that is Mr X living in 15 xyz, and so they believe they sent the nip correctly.

If not this could be a intentionally misleading letter by the ticketing office concerned, perhaps they know its late and put that to make out they have followed all procedures correctly, that's a wild speculation though, that I hope that I'm completely and utterly wrong on.
What is the doc REF: on page 2 of the V5c op?
NewJudge
Whatever issues there may or may not be with the timeliness of the NIP you must respond to the S172 request and supply the driver's details. Failure to do so will see you facing a charge which carries six points (particularly not good in your situation with six points already).

As mentioned in post #6, you may be offered a fixed penalty, though I doubt it very much. If not you will face court action and before then you can enquire where the first NIP went to and why.
The Rookie
Having delayed replying, anything but a court appearnece is now unlikely.
bigdaddy1969
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 1 Feb 2019 - 15:19) *
Having delayed replying, anything but a court appearnece is now unlikely.


but I'm sending reply by recorded delivery today which mean ill be within 7 days of reminder....
and exactly 28 days from day original NIP was received

you've got me worried now!
The Rookie
The point is that you are now too late to be offered a fixed penalty as you could let the case time out.

You’ve been asked the docref date twice now?

peterguk
QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Fri, 1 Feb 2019 - 15:31) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 1 Feb 2019 - 15:19) *
Having delayed replying, anything but a court appearnece is now unlikely.


but I'm sending reply by recorded delivery today which mean ill be within 7 days of reminder....
and exactly 28 days from day original NIP was received

you've got me worried now!



You ignored the first NIP received a month ago. And now there is little time for proceedings to commence (6 months from date of offence).

All you can do is return the S.172 and see what happens.
Dwain
Don’t you think it’s odd that a 172 reminder was sent prior to the expiry date of the original request, it’s almost as if someone has their eye on this case.

The Slithy Tove
QUOTE (Dwain @ Fri, 1 Feb 2019 - 17:24) *
Don’t you think it’s odd that a 172 reminder was sent prior to the expiry date of the original request, it’s almost as if someone has their eye on this case.

Hardly. They send a reminder so that the recipient can still reply within the 28 days of the original S172 request they received. Sending it after would mean the recipient would technically have Failed To Furnish, even if they don't pursue it.
bigdaddy1969
So I sent my reply by Special Delivery within the specified time frames and have received a letter saying:

"We are in receipt of your recent correspondence where you admit to being the driver on connection with an alleged offence of speeding

Excess speed is a summary offence and any prosecution must be commenced with six months of the alleged offence, because of the timescales involved in this particular case we are unable to send you a Conditional Offer on Fixed Penalty and instead the matter must be referred to the Magistrates Court

We will commend proceedings for this offence and you will receive details of the case in due course"

Yours faithfully

Customer Services Team Leader"

ALSO: I THINK I MADE A MASSIVE COCK UP AND MY V5 ACTUALLY IS OUT OF DATE WITH THE WRONG ADDRESS!!!
I CHECKED WITH DVLA WEBSITE AND THEY HAVE THE CORRECT ADDRESS FOR MY DRIVING LICENCE BUT I USSPOE THAT DOESN'T MATTER

ALSO...

The Alleged offence was 20/08/18 meaning they have 13 days to commence proceedings?

Any advice please?
NeverMind
QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Fri, 1 Feb 2019 - 12:52) *
hi so I found my V5 and the address is 100% correct on it.


and

QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 15:02) *
ALSO: I THINK I MADE A MASSIVE COCK UP AND MY V5 ACTUALLY IS OUT OF DATE WITH THE WRONG ADDRESS!!!


rolleyes.gif

This is why we always like to double check smile.gif


At court, you could ask to be fined at the Fixed Penalty level, as you were unable to take it up. Although if the V5 cockup is of your own making, then the court may not be sympathetic to this plea.
bigdaddy1969
QUOTE (NeverMind @ Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 15:32) *
QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Fri, 1 Feb 2019 - 12:52) *
hi so I found my V5 and the address is 100% correct on it.


and

QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 15:02) *
ALSO: I THINK I MADE A MASSIVE COCK UP AND MY V5 ACTUALLY IS OUT OF DATE WITH THE WRONG ADDRESS!!!


rolleyes.gif

This is why we always like to double check smile.gif


At court, you could ask to be fined at the Fixed Penalty level, as you were unable to take it up. Although if the V5 cockup is of your own making, then the court may not be sympathetic to this plea.


oh maaaan

and how much is a fine for 37mph in a 30?

and how many points?
Jlc
Sentencing guideline (for a guilty plea) is 3 points and 33% of weekly earnings, costs of £85 and surcharge of 10% of the fine (min £30).

As already noted, you can ask for them to sentence at a lower level, potentially to £70+£30 surcharge (and no costs order).

From the sentencing guidelines:

QUOTE
where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence
itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point
should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be
imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in
these circumstances.
The Rookie
While it’s of the OPs making it’s still for unreasons unconnected with the offence.
bigdaddy1969
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 01:12) *
While it’s of the OPs making it’s still for unreasons unconnected with the offence.


Im sorry I dont understand what that means
Jlc
Basically it's your 'error' which caused the issue - although it's strictly unconnected with the offence itself they may not be minded to impose a fixed penalty equivalent sentence. (But don't ask, don't get)
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 21:59) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 01:12) *
While it’s of the OPs making it’s still for unreasons unconnected with the offence.


Im sorry I dont understand what that means

The sentencing guidelines say you can receive the fixed penalty level sentencing rather than income related.only qualified by the "unconnected to the offence".

There isn't any concept of fault. The reduction is at the magistrates discretion however, so you need to ask politely - either in writing - and tactfully remind the. It is in their sentencing guidelines.
Logician
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 22:57) *
QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 21:59) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 01:12) *
While it’s of the OPs making it’s still for unreasons unconnected with the offence.
Im sorry I dont understand what that means
The sentencing guidelines say you can receive the fixed penalty level sentencing rather than income related.only qualified by the "unconnected to the offence". There isn't any concept of fault. The reduction is at the magistrates discretion however, so you need to ask politely - either in writing - and tactfully remind the. It is in their sentencing guidelines.


It is also qualified by the words "outside the control of the offender" which do rather introduce a concept of fault.



QUOTE
….where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender






The Rookie
The ‘outside the control of the offender’ is however merely part of the example of ‘an administrative difficulty’ and not a caveat on unconnected with the offence. Though I would accept in this case the reason is an administrative difficulty and thus the caveat can be argued as applicable, however the old adage of ‘don’t ask, don’t get’ holds true and courts seem reasonably amenable to the request in most cases.
bigdaddy1969
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 22:56) *
Basically it's your 'error' which caused the issue - although it's strictly unconnected with the offence itself they may not be minded to impose a fixed penalty equivalent sentence. (But don't ask, don't get)


ok, thank you.

could I ask for proof that NIP was originally sent out within 14 days?
The Rookie
You could, but as its greater than 99% certain it was it will achieve little. The chain of NIPs will usually be included in with the 'summons' (SJPN).
Churchmouse
QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 23:51) *
It is also qualified by the words "outside the control of the offender" which do rather introduce a concept of fault.
QUOTE
….where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender


That reads to me like an example, not necessarily a qualification. Judges may read it differently, however.

--Churchmouse
Logician
Certainly administrative difficulties are an example, but not all administrative difficulties, only those outside the control of the offender, so administrative difficulties is qualified.
The Rookie
That's one interpretation of the 'such as', but it doesn't actually exclude administrative difficulties within the control of the defender, though I concede that's an implication that can be drawn, we don't know the intent in the wording.

I agree the defendant shouldn't EXPECT the fixed penalty tariff but there is no harm in asking and we've seen it given in similar circumstances.
Churchmouse
QUOTE (Logician @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 19:31) *
Certainly administrative difficulties are an example, but not all administrative difficulties, only those outside the control of the offender, so administrative difficulties is qualified.

The guidelines do not include a fault element outside of the "administrative difficulties" example. Potential non-administrative difficulties, among others, are completely unqualified. It could be that the qualified example was included in order to emphasise the fault element, but that is not what is actually written in the guidelines.

--Churchmouse
andy_foster
QUOTE (bigdaddy1969 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 09:18) *
could I ask for proof that NIP was originally sent out within 14 days?


You can ask for anything. However, you cannot simply put the prosecution to proof that a NIP was served - the requirement to serve a NIP is deemed to have been complied with unless the contrary is proven.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 23:51) *
It is also qualified by the words "outside the control of the offender" which do rather introduce a concept of fault.



QUOTE
….where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender


I have always read that as being a qualifier only to third parties. After Whiteside it would be very rare for any administration required by the driver not to be under their control.

Ergo it is not an exhaustive list of which administrative issues would qualify.

It could be interpreted as essentially excluding any administrative issue the defendant is responsible for, but in that it would have been much clearer to say administrative difficulties by third parties. However, of course it is ultimately for a magistrate to decide.
Logician
The sensible and straightforward meaning is that if the administrative difficulties are caused by the offender, then he should not get the benefit of this provision, if they are not his fault then he can get the benefit.
notmeatloaf
Except it really doesn't. The phrase "such as" implies it is one of a number of qualifiers. If it was a simple fault/not fault this could have been stated.

If we assume that in this case "an example of which is" is interchangeable with "such as" it makes it easier to read.
southpaw82
This is getting pointless now. People have said their piece so leave it at that.
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.