Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 14 Day Rule
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
simonfb10
Hi All

Is the 14 day rule flawless?
what im trying to say is, if I recieve an NIP 15 days after the alleged offence and there are no other factors to consider, will the camera partnership simply tear up the NIP after I let them know that they are outside the timeframe? or will they try and stretch it out?



Regards
Pete D
Fill in the NIP wizard and post ALL the outcome on here. Pete D
simonfb10
Hav'nt got it yet.

14 days are up on saturday. A real nail bite-erthon
patdavies
If the NIP was served on the 15th day (with the day of the offence being day 0), and providing that this can be proven to the satisfaction of the Magistrates, then you cannot be convicted of the speeding offence - note that this is not the same as not being prosecuted.

However, as a part of the NIP process, you will also have received a request under S.172 of the RTA to provide details of the driver at the time of the offence. A defect in the NIP does not absolve you of the need to respond to the S.172 requirement and a failure to respond is a further, separate offence
simonfb10
How do you prove when the NIP was served?
nemo
QUOTE (simonfb10 @ Thu, 7 Aug 2008 - 16:15) *
How do you prove when the NIP was served?

In the absence of any independent witnesses or other supporting evidence, then you would be reliant on giving a sworn statement to the court confirming when the notice was received.
simonfb10
Rightyho.

Hotel Oscar 87
Make sure you keep the envelope. On it may well be printed (usually on the back of it) a small date - being the date it passed through the delivery post office - and may well differ from the date that appears on the frank.
cjard
If youre in the house when the mail is delivered, you can try and catch the postman and ask him if he'll state that he just delivered it; round my (rather rural) way we are on pretty good terms with the postie and I'm sure he'd stick his name, date and signature on an envelope if I asked him. As an uninterested party he should make for a good independent witness..
simonfb10
1 day left then im free from worry.


Bring it on!
Hotel Oscar 87
Simon

Are you the owner of the vehicle you were driving?
Have you owned it for at least the last 3-4 months?
Have you changed you address during that period?
Was this a hire/lease or company car?

Not wishing to be a party-pooper but if any of the above apply then that could delay your receipt of an NIP beyond the 14 days and on occasion well beyond 14 days.
arryace
IMO NIP's really should be sent recorded delivery its an extremely important document and its dispatch and delivery dates are of legal importance.

14 days?
lets say the SCP post your NIP on day 8 and it gets delayed in the post
QUOTE
A notice sent by post must be dispatched so that it would reach the driver within the 14 days within the ordinary course of the post. If this is the case then it will have been deemed to have been served even if it is delivered outside the 14 day period.

is there any case history to back this up?
has any prosecution been successful outside of the 14 days?
MICKY1
The maximum a letter should be delayed is by 24 hrs and great effort is put in to ensure that the majority of post is delivered within 24 HRS of it being posted. This type of post would be collected from the customer by the royal mail and therefore any risk of delay is very minimal and it should be delivered the next day. If a letter is delayed more than 24 hrs in the post at the fault of the royal mail it should be given an extra date stamp once its been noticed to ensure that it is then given high priority to ensure it is then delivered within the next 24 hrs.

Letters are often delayed due to incorrect addressing or due to the customer not sending them for processing on the day they were franked if this were to happen the poster should (most dont) include an addition frank bearing £0.00 with the new date to show that the royal mail is not at fault as many letters now contain micro chips which record their progress through the system for quality of service checks .
patdavies
Ther majority may be delivered next business day. However, the Royal Mail's own website lists first class mail as 1 -2 days.
Hotel Oscar 87
QUOTE (arryace @ Fri, 8 Aug 2008 - 21:38) *
IMO NIP's really should be sent recorded delivery its an extremely important document and its dispatch and delivery dates are of legal importance.

14 days?
lets say the SCP post your NIP on day 8 and it gets delayed in the post
QUOTE
A notice sent by post must be dispatched so that it would reach the driver within the 14 days within the ordinary course of the post. If this is the case then it will have been deemed to have been served even if it is delivered outside the 14 day period.

is there any case history to back this up?
has any prosecution been successful outside of the 14 days?


Yes, for example, in cases where an owner has notified DVLA of a change of address/obtained a new car so that at the point at which the police/scammers make their initial enquiry of the PNC to determine to whom they should send the NIP, there is no current keeper recorded. It is not the fault of the police that the records do not help them. They too only need show "reasonable diligence" in their enquiries and, given the number they have to conduct, that pretty much amounts to waiting for the vehicle record to be updated. There are numerous cases on here that cover just this eventuality.

MICKY1 - I hear what you're saying but in this urban area we only get 4 deliveries a week - though they will officially tell you its still 6 - and on some weeks that might drop to just 2. This is because they are short-staffed, each postie is covering more than one round and as our mail is not delivered now until 2-2.30pm - if at all - its clear we are on a round that is not a priority. Second-class mail regularly takes 10 days to arrive and you cannot rely on first class to any degree whatsoever. If you require next day delivery then you have to use a courier or Special Delivery and this is not the Outer Hebrides by any stretch of the imagination. It is extremely frustrating but in the case of an NIP that might just put it into an out-of-time situation so I'd not complain too much.
cjard
QUOTE (arryace @ Fri, 8 Aug 2008 - 21:38) *
IMO NIP's really should be sent recorded delivery its an extremely important document and its dispatch and delivery dates are of legal importance.

Youre nt the only one that feels ths way, but it suits the SCPs to mail 1st class only for a number of reasons including but not limited to:
They arent legally required to do anything more,
it's cheaper,
it shifts the requirement to prove late service onto you and thats a lot harder for you to refute than having the royal mail tell them when it was delivered

Maybe i'm just being cynical on the last point, but suppose you get flashed and know so. If SCP sent "recorded signed for" then all you'd have to do is NOT sign for the letter until after 14 days and it would get you off every time.. This simply wouldnt do because the police would have to let a lot of "criminals" get off scott free
nemo
QUOTE (cjard @ Sat, 9 Aug 2008 - 13:41) *
Maybe i'm just being cynical on the last point, but suppose you get flashed and know so. If SCP sent "recorded signed for" then all you'd have to do is NOT sign for the letter until after 14 days and it would get you off every time..

Nice idea, but a notice which has been issued by recorded delivery is deemed served even if it is not received by the addressee or if it is returned as undelivered.
cjard
QUOTE (nemo @ Sat, 9 Aug 2008 - 14:35) *
Nice idea, but a notice which has been issued by recorded delivery is deemed served even if it is not received by the addressee or if it is returned as undelivered.


I was thinking more of cases where the item was claimed after the 14th day

So it's the normal course of post rule again? Suppose they sent it recorded on the 12th day, it should reach on the 13th, but youre actually (genuinely) away until the 15th day. You retrieve the NIP from the sorting office immediately.. When was it actually served? On the 12th, 13th, or the 15th?

When the postal strikes were on, the "normal course of post" was altered to become e.g. 3 days?
nemo
QUOTE (cjard @ Sat, 9 Aug 2008 - 15:26) *
I was thinking more of cases where the item was claimed after the 14th day..

If it was posted by recorded delivery, then it wouldn't even have to be claimed to be deemed as 'served'.

QUOTE (cjard @ Sat, 9 Aug 2008 - 15:26) *
Suppose they sent it recorded on the 12th day, it should reach on the 13th, but youre actually (genuinely) away until the 15th day. You retrieve the NIP from the sorting office immediately. When was it actually served? On the 12th, 13th, or the 15th?

If 'the normal course of post' was one day, then it would be deemed served on the 13th.

QUOTE (cjard @ Sat, 9 Aug 2008 - 15:26) *
When the postal strikes were on, the "normal course of post" was altered to become e.g. 3 days?

Depends how long the strike(s) lasted. But if the 'normal course of post' was affected by industrial action, then this would require to be taken into consideration by the police / scammers when issuing NIPs.
cjard
QUOTE (nemo @ Sat, 9 Aug 2008 - 16:43) *
If it was posted by recorded delivery, then it wouldn't even have to be claimed to be deemed as 'served'.


Surprising then, that the SCPs DONT post by recorded delivery as a matter of course.. It seems the most irrefutable option; Recorded post, served a day later regardless of where the letter ends up, no option for the recipient to argue "lost in post" even if it was!

That said, boot being on the other foot, it's easy to see why the public are advised to use it when responding.. Thanks for the info
nemo
QUOTE (cjard @ Sun, 10 Aug 2008 - 11:53) *
Surprising then, that the SCPs DONT post by recorded delivery as a matter of course..

AIUI, its is only Dumfries & Galloway which routinely issues notices by recorded delivery. This is in itself surprising, bearing in mind that even the ACPO's own advice is that the initial notices should be served by recorded delivery.

QUOTE (ACPO Guidelines)
16.7 Prosecution Procedures and advice on Good Practice Schedule 9 Paragraph 6(3) to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994 amends Section 1 of The Road Traffic Offenders Act, 1988 to provide for the service of NIP's by first class post. To ensure service can be proven, initial Service of Notice of Intended Prosecution and Section 172 Notices should be made by recorded delivery.


QUOTE (cjard @ Sun, 10 Aug 2008 - 11:53) *
It seems the most irrefutable option; Recorded post, served a day later regardless of where the letter ends up, no option for the recipient to argue "lost in post" even if it was!

Quite - virtue of s.1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 -

QUOTE (RTOA 1988)
1. Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences.

(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c ) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.

simonfb10
Are you the owner of the vehicle you were driving? yes
Have you owned it for at least the last 3-4 months? yes
Have you changed you address during that period? nope
Was this a hire/lease or company car? nope
simonfb10
Reading all the posts on here, it would appear that the "14 day rule" really is a load of old bollocks.
It seems that they have plenty of room to wriggle out of a time expired NIP should they wish to!!
patdavies
QUOTE (cjard @ Sun, 10 Aug 2008 - 11:53) *
QUOTE (nemo @ Sat, 9 Aug 2008 - 16:43) *
If it was posted by recorded delivery, then it wouldn't even have to be claimed to be deemed as 'served'.


Surprising then, that the SCPs DONT post by recorded delivery as a matter of course.. It seems the most irrefutable option; Recorded post, served a day later regardless of where the letter ends up, no option for the recipient to argue "lost in post" even if it was!




It is not "a day later".
The whole point about recorded signed for delivery, is that there is a trackable date of signature. A NIP sent via recorded signed for delivery is deemed delivered regardless of whether it is or not (providing that it is sent to the last known address). However, it can still be delivered out of time and the signing for the package (or the dropping of the postcard) proves the date.

QUOTE (simonfb10 @ Mon, 11 Aug 2008 - 08:51) *
Reading all the posts on here, it would appear that the "14 day rule" really is a load of old bollocks.
It seems that they have plenty of room to wriggle out of a time expired NIP should they wish to!!



Not true - in fact most of the posts on this thread have been about "Why don't they use recorded?"

If the defendant can prove to the satisfaction of the Court (usually by sworn statement) that the NIP was delivered out of time and none of the conditions referred to above applies, then the prosecution must fail.

cjard
QUOTE (patdavies @ Mon, 11 Aug 2008 - 09:16) *
It is not "a day later".
The whole point about recorded signed for delivery, is that there is a trackable date of signature. A NIP sent via recorded signed for delivery is deemed delivered regardless of whether it is or not (providing that it is sent to the last known address). However, it can still be delivered out of time and the signing for the package (or the dropping of the postcard) proves the date.


That's what I was angling at based on my former understanding of the process, but nemo's comments, and reading the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act, encourage that view that "an item of mail sent via recorded delivery on date X shall be deemed served on date X+Y days, regardless of whether it arrives or not, such that Y is the number of days the royal mail will take normally take to deliver an item"

i.e., from my understanding you cannot go on holiday for 3 weeks after being flashed, get home, pick up the "we tried to deliver you a letter" card they leave, go and claim the item, it's an NIP but it is "delivered" into your hands out of time.. The law (seems to) says it was deemed delivered a day or two after the Royal Mail (on their tracking list) say it was posted, regardless of the time you pick it up; you genuinely were notified of the prosecution later than 14 days, have a genuine reason for not being there to pick it up before 14 days, but the discussion thus far leads me to believe it is not "actual date of signed delivery" that matters, but "date it should have been delivered"

If someone could clarify this point, I'd appreciate it as I'm interested in learning this level of detail don't want to be advising others in any way that isnt correct

QUOTE (simonfb10 @ Mon, 11 Aug 2008 - 08:51) *
Reading all the posts on here, it would appear that the "14 day rule"
Not true - in fact most of the posts on this thread have been about "Why don't they use recorded?"

If the defendant can prove to the satisfaction of the Court (usually by sworn statement) that the NIP was delivered out of time and none of the conditions referred to above applies, then the prosecution must fail.



See, I thought that would have been an obvious problem with the law and possibly the easiest way to ensure that a prosecution fails. If it were the case, then it would probably achieve the same urban legend status as "send the form back unsigned" - something everybody knows because their mate joe told them down the pub. It would also provide a good explanation of why SCPs DONT sent it recorded, because anything that makes it easier to quash a prosecution is damaging to their normal course of business..

So i guess we reach a curious position where (you claim) there is retrievable evidence that "signed for after the 14 day limit" NIPs do exist and have been used successfully, yet the law says that it shouldnt matter. Is it the case that there exists variation of knowledge in all stages of the process, and the courts have been persuaded that NIPs were served late (by consideration of signature date) and not realised it shouldnt matter?

Sorry to drag this on a little, but I want to make sure I understand this! I'm trying to rationalise/ratify your (patdavies) comments against nemo's, and I cant; there's a disparity between them IMV
7159keith
QUOTE (simonfb10 @ Mon, 11 Aug 2008 - 08:51) *
Reading all the posts on here, it would appear that the "14 day rule" really is a load of old bollocks.
It seems that they have plenty of room to wriggle out of a time expired NIP should they wish to!!



Don't know why you think that, a genuine time expired NIP to the RK is fatal to a prosecution. But.......you will have to prove it in court, the scammers will not just roll over for you, they often say that they only have to post it to be served, untrue but they say it anyway.
patdavies
QUOTE (cjard @ Mon, 11 Aug 2008 - 09:59) *
QUOTE (patdavies @ Mon, 11 Aug 2008 - 09:16) *
It is not "a day later".
The whole point about recorded signed for delivery, is that there is a trackable date of signature. A NIP sent via recorded signed for delivery is deemed delivered regardless of whether it is or not (providing that it is sent to the last known address). However, it can still be delivered out of time and the signing for the package (or the dropping of the postcard) proves the date.


That's what I was angling at based on my former understanding of the process, but nemo's comments, and reading the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act, encourage that view that "an item of mail sent via recorded delivery on date X shall be deemed served on date X+Y days, regardless of whether it arrives or not, such that Y is the number of days the royal mail will take normally take to deliver an item"

i.e., from my understanding you cannot go on holiday for 3 weeks after being flashed, get home, pick up the "we tried to deliver you a letter" card they leave, go and claim the item, it's an NIP but it is "delivered" into your hands out of time.. The law (seems to) says it was deemed delivered a day or two after the Royal Mail (on their tracking list) say it was posted, regardless of the time you pick it up; you genuinely were notified of the prosecution later than 14 days, have a genuine reason for not being there to pick it up before 14 days, but the discussion thus far leads me to believe it is not "actual date of signed delivery" that matters, but "date it should have been delivered"

If someone could clarify this point, I'd appreciate it as I'm interested in learning this level of detail don't want to be advising others in any way that isnt correct


The Road Traffic Act does not refer in any way to the service of NIPs. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 does, but does not refer to anything like "Y days" - this comes from the Criminal Procedures Rules (see below)

RTOA 1988 S.1

QUOTE
1 Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences

(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—

(a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or

(b) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or

© within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—

(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,

(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)© above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.

(3) The requirement of subsection (1) above shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.

(4) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which this section applies.

S.1(1)b details that a notice must be served within 14 days of the offence. S.1(2) States that service shall be deemed if the NIP is sent by either registered or recorded post. IOW, it removes a possibility of rebutting service - it does not affect the need for service to take place before 14 days.

For the "+Y days" argument.

CPR 4.10
QUOTE
4.10 Date of service
(1) A document served under rule 4.3 or rule 4.8 is served on the day it is handed over.
(2) Unless something different is shown, a document served on a person by any other method is served –
(a) in the case of a document left at an address, on the next business day after the day on which it was left;
(b) in the case of a document sent by first class post or by the equivalent of first class post, on the second business day after the day on which it was posted or despatched;
© in the case of a document served by document exchange, on the second business day after the day on which it was left at the addressee's DX or at a correspondent DX;
(d) in the case of a document transmitted by fax, e-mail or other electronic means, on the next business day after it was transmitted; and
(e) in any case, on the day on which the addressee responds to it if that is earlier.




QUOTE
QUOTE (simonfb10 @ Mon, 11 Aug 2008 - 08:51) *
Reading all the posts on here, it would appear that the "14 day rule"
Not true - in fact most of the posts on this thread have been about "Why don't they use recorded?"

If the defendant can prove to the satisfaction of the Court (usually by sworn statement) that the NIP was delivered out of time and none of the conditions referred to above applies, then the prosecution must fail.



See, I thought that would have been an obvious problem with the law and possibly the easiest way to ensure that a prosecution fails. If it were the case, then it would probably achieve the same urban legend status as "send the form back unsigned" - something everybody knows because their mate joe told them down the pub. It would also provide a good explanation of why SCPs DONT sent it recorded, because anything that makes it easier to quash a prosecution is damaging to their normal course of business..



No, because the date/time of delivery of recorded/registered mail is tracked by the Royal Mail. If no-one is available to sign, then a card is left by the postie and the RM sorting office will track the item of mail into 'holding'. In either case, there is an evidence stream within the Royal Mail as to the date of service - either way.

Simply not picking up a recorded delivery NiP is caught by the presumption of service and also be RTOA 1988 S.2(3)(b)

QUOTE
2 Requirement of warning etc: supplementary

(1) The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence if, at the time of the offence or immediately after it, an accident occurs owing to the presence on a road of the vehicle in respect of which the offence was committed.

(2) The requirement of section 1(1) of this Act does not apply in relation to an offence in respect of which—

(a) a fixed penalty notice (within the meaning of Part III of this Act) has been given or fixed under any provision of that Part, or

(b) a notice has been given under section 54(4) of this Act.

(3) Failure to comply with the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act is not a bar to the conviction of the accused in a case where the court is satisfied—

(a) that 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, or

(b) that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.

cjard
QUOTE
For the "+Y days" argument.


OK, so CPR4.1 gives us Y, being that Y is whatever date is two business days after the date of X. If something is posted on a friday it is deemed served on the following tuesday. How it was posted doesnt matter, and the ease of proving when it was posted is greater with recorded than with first class (though franking should indicate the date).

QUOTE
No, because the date/time of delivery of recorded/registered mail is tracked by the Royal Mail. If no-one is available to sign, then a card is left by the postie and the RM sorting office will track the item of mail into 'holding'. In either case, there is an evidence stream within the Royal Mail as to the date of service - either way.

Mmmh, but I dont see how this applies re your previous advice. CPR4.1 tells us exactly when a notice is deemed served,regardless of what the Royal Mail did with it. Recorded delivery will give a date of posting, and 2 business days after that is the date of service, regardless of whether the recipient picked it up, didnt pick it up or the royal mail lost it?

QUOTE
Simply not picking up a recorded delivery NiP is caught by the presumption of service and also be RTOA 1988 S.2(3)(b)

Dig that completely; by deliberately failing to pick up a recorded item youre contributing to the failure of service


The reason I dragged this discussion out was because of posts #6 and #15 that indicated that it was the date of receipt that counted as service, and a proving the date of receipt as being after the 14 day deadline doesnt help in a case where the item was posted 2 business days before the deadline.
As I now understand it, regardless of the method of posting used, the date of service is deemed to be 2 business days after the date that it was put into the postal system. A frank or recorded delivery tracking entry will define that day, and in cases where the sender franks their own letters additional dates will be added by the royal mail such as to prove when the Royal Mail took responsibility of the item..

Thanks to all for updating my knowledge..
patdavies
QUOTE (cjard @ Mon, 11 Aug 2008 - 19:01) *
QUOTE
For the "+Y days" argument.


OK, so CPR4.1 gives us Y, being that Y is whatever date is two business days after the date of X. If something is posted on a friday it is deemed served on the following tuesday. How it was posted doesnt matter, and the ease of proving when it was posted is greater with recorded than with first class (though franking should indicate the date).



QUOTE
No, because the date/time of delivery of recorded/registered mail is tracked by the Royal Mail. If no-one is available to sign, then a card is left by the postie and the RM sorting office will track the item of mail into 'holding'. In either case, there is an evidence stream within the Royal Mail as to the date of service - either way.

QUOTE
Mmmh, but I dont see how this applies re your previous advice. CPR4.1 tells us exactly when a notice is deemed served,regardless of what the Royal Mail did with it. Recorded delivery will give a date of posting, and 2 business days after that is the date of service, regardless of whether the recipient picked it up, didnt pick it up or the royal mail lost it?

No. Service is presumed for first class postal delivery, but it is rebuttable presumption.

QUOTE
QUOTE
Simply not picking up a recorded delivery NiP is caught by the presumption of service and also be RTOA 1988 S.2(3)(b)

Dig that completely; by deliberately failing to pick up a recorded item youre contributing to the failure of service


The reason I dragged this discussion out was because of posts #6 and #15 that indicated that it was the date of receipt that counted as service, and a proving the date of receipt as being after the 14 day deadline doesnt help in a case where the item was posted 2 business days before the deadline.
As I now understand it, regardless of the method of posting used, the date of service is deemed to be 2 business days after the date that it was put into the postal system. A frank or recorded delivery tracking entry will define that day, and in cases where the sender franks their own letters additional dates will be added by the royal mail such as to prove when the Royal Mail took responsibility of the item..

Thanks to all for updating my knowledge..


CPR provides rules for the conduct of criminal procedures. 4.10 deals with the service of documents. However, you need to look at it the other way round. As CPR states 2 business days, an SCP fails if it places a NIP into the postal system too late for the rules to be met. They cannot presume service within time.

However, CPR are merely rules, not law. The law specifically allows the presumption of service after 2 days for NIPs sent via first class post to be a rebuttable presumption.
cjard
Thanks for sticking with me, pat smile.gif

So:

Regardless of the method of posting used, the date of service is presumed to be 2 business days after the date that it was put into the postal system. A frank or recorded delivery tracking entry will define that day, and in cases where the sender franks their own letters additional dates will be added by the royal mail such as to prove when the Royal Mail took responsibility of the item.

In the case of first class post, the presumption of service can be overridden by proof that it was served (delivered through the recipient's letterbox) later, such as the recipient catching the mail deliveries and asking the postman to sign and date all envelopes.

In the case of recorded post, the item is deemed served (non-rebuttable presumption) 2 business days after it was entered into the computer as having been posted, regardless of the date on which the Royal Mail attempt to deliver the item as evidenced by their leaving a postcard and marking the item as "gone into holding", or succeed in delivering the item as evidenced by a recipient signature

The only bit i'm still confused about now is your post:
QUOTE
The whole point about recorded signed for delivery, is that there is a trackable date of signature. A NIP sent via recorded signed for delivery is deemed delivered regardless of whether it is or not (providing that it is sent to the last known address). However, it can still be delivered out of time and the signing for the package (or the dropping of the postcard) proves the date.

Which seems to indicate that the date of dropping the postcard or achieving a signature rebuts the presumption of service, and I thought it was non-rebuttable in the case of recorded?
The Rookie
QUOTE (cjard @ Tue, 12 Aug 2008 - 10:08) *
Regardless of the method of posting used, the date of service is presumed to be 2 business days after the date that it was put into the postal system. A frank or recorded delivery tracking entry will define that day, and in cases where the sender franks their own letters additional dates will be added by the royal mail such as to prove when the Royal Mail took responsibility of the item.

No its deemed delivered in the 'normal course of the post' that is 2 days for first class, and next day for special (according to RM's guarentee) that has replaced the previous 'signed for' delivery.

QUOTE (cjard @ Tue, 12 Aug 2008 - 10:08) *
In the case of first class post, the presumption of service can be overridden by proof that it was served (delivered through the recipient's letterbox) later, such as the recipient catching the mail deliveries and asking the postman to sign and date all envelopes.


Yes, or even just their own credable evidence in court.

QUOTE (cjard @ Tue, 12 Aug 2008 - 10:08) *
In the case of recorded post, the item is deemed served (non-rebuttable presumption) 2 business days after it was entered into the computer as having been posted, regardless of the date on which the Royal Mail attempt to deliver the item as evidenced by their leaving a postcard and marking the item as "gone into holding", or succeed in delivering the item as evidenced by a recipient signature


That is what the scammers would like you to believe, of course their computer record of 'posted' actually just means into their mail sack, which could be collected by the RM (or delivered to) that day, the next or after a weekend. It is at that point when the normal course of the post starts.

QUOTE (cjard @ Tue, 12 Aug 2008 - 10:08) *
The only bit i'm still confused about now is your post:
QUOTE
The whole point about recorded signed for delivery, is that there is a trackable date of signature. A NIP sent via recorded signed for delivery is deemed delivered regardless of whether it is or not (providing that it is sent to the last known address). However, it can still be delivered out of time and the signing for the package (or the dropping of the postcard) proves the date.

Which seems to indicate that the date of dropping the postcard or achieving a signature rebuts the presumption of service, and I thought it was non-rebuttable in the case of recorded?


Its is, if its sent SPECIAL, then its arrived (as long as its correctly sent to the intended recipients last known address) whether it arrives, is lost or returned to sender, RM's tracing and delivery record is NOT relevant, the law has deemed that it was served.

Simon
patdavies
QUOTE (cjard @ Tue, 12 Aug 2008 - 10:08) *
QUOTE
The whole point about recorded signed for delivery, is that there is a trackable date of signature. A NIP sent via recorded signed for delivery is deemed delivered regardless of whether it is or not (providing that it is sent to the last known address). However, it can still be delivered out of time and the signing for the package (or the dropping of the postcard) proves the date.

Which seems to indicate that the date of dropping the postcard or achieving a signature rebuts the presumption of service, and I thought it was non-rebuttable in the case of recorded?


You are confusing two issues here.

If first class post is used, service is presumed, but the presumption can be rebutted.
If recorded signed for delivery is used, then service is deemed to have occurred, regardless of whether or not the RK has the NIP or not.

However, whilst service is either presumed or deemed, it can still be service out of time. IOW, if the Police send the notice by whatever means on day 13, it may well be served, but it will be served out of time.
cjard
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 12 Aug 2008 - 14:57) *
QUOTE (cjard @ Tue, 12 Aug 2008 - 10:08) *
Regardless of the method of posting used, the date of service is presumed to be 2 business days after the date that it was put into the postal system. A frank or recorded delivery tracking entry will define that day, and in cases where the sender franks their own letters additional dates will be added by the royal mail such as to prove when the Royal Mail took responsibility of the item.

No its deemed delivered in the 'normal course of the post' that is 2 days for first class, and next day for special (according to RM's guarentee) that has replaced the previous 'signed for' delivery.


Is that the law, or your interpretation of it? The "2 business days after the date" comes from CPR4.1, and it does differ from the timescale in which the royal mail aim to deliver post (2 business days is [potentially] longer because saturday is not a business day AIUI).

I note youre using the word "delivered" where I'm using "served" - do you intend them to be synonymous or are you drawing a distinction between delivery and service?

Youre also using the word deemed in a more "non-final" sense than I was. I said "presumed served" because it is a rebuttable presumption (ref: patdavies) in contrast to "deemed served" which I intended to mean non-rebuttable



QUOTE
their computer record of 'posted' actually just means into their mail sack

Apologies, I should have clarified that by computer I meant "the Royal Mail's tracking computer that reads the barcode on the Signed For / Special Delivery sticker and acknowledges that the RM has taken responsibility for the item"

QUOTE
Its is, if its sent SPECIAL, then its arrived (as long as its correctly sent to the intended recipients last known address) whether it arrives, is lost or returned to sender, RM's tracing and delivery record is NOT relevant, the law has deemed that it was served.

You highlight special here, but i'm not sure why. The following postal options are written in law:
registered post, recorded delivery service, first class

I presume these would roughly align with the RM options of the day, which now align with the RM current offerings respectively:
special delivery (SD), recorded signed for (RSF), first class

SD has a guaranteed delivery time, but I don't think this alters any presumption-of-date-of-service, because it is not specifically mentioned.

Thus it remains that SD, and RSF are important because they accurately denote the date that the royal mail took responsibility for the item with the intent of delivering it, and two business days after that is the date of service. Post on a friday, service is tuesday. Your highlighting special, but omitting RSF, would imply that RSF is somehow deficient when it comes to forming an irrebuttable method of service.. but I dont reach the same conclusion..



Note, i'm not trying to form an argument here; i'm trying to get some precision. Please comment on the precision of the following statement:


Regardless of the method of posting used, the date of service is presumed to be 2 business days after the date that it was put into the postal system.

In the case of posting methods that do not require the Royal Mail (RM) to acknowledge the date they took responsibility for the item, the (latest) franking or other officially stamped RM date defines the starting day of the serving process. The presumption of service is rebuttable and can be overridden by proof that it was served later than presumed (court to decide eligibility of proof).

In the case of posting methods that require the RM to acknowledge the date they took responsibility for the item for tracking purposes, the official date of accepting the item defines the starting day of the service process. The presumption of service is NON rebuttable and is declared served in line with the presumption. This statement makes no mention of the posting method requiring the participation of the addressee because it doesnt actually matter what happens to the item (lost, destroyed, delivered, returned; all irrelevant)


Thanks for the help
Hotel Oscar 87
cjard

There's no stopping an eager mind but I think we're now into microscopic analysis of the navel fluff. The police and SCP/CRPs rarely, if ever, use any other method than first/second class - regardless of the type of communication. In such cases your understanding of the rebuttable presumption of service is correct, though because rebuttal evidence is permitted, the 2days complication is just that IMO. On the rare, very rare, occasions that Registered/Signed For etc means of delivery are used (in England & Wales) then the CPR applies.
That's the long and short of it.

If you would like to look at a cases relating to late service and how the law was interpreted in Court then read Nicholson -v- Tapp (read here) or try a wider search on Beer -v- Davies [1958] 2 Q.B. 187; [1958] 2 W.L.R. 920; [1958] 2 All E.R. 255, D.C.
cjard
Nay worries; was just trying to iron out what I saw as contradictory statements.. It's important to me that I give people accurate advice, you see.. I'd actually like to start condensing some things into flowchart style questions, much like the NIP wizard does..
jeffreyarcher
So, did you or did you not get a NIP by Saturday, or since?
One assumes not. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (cjard @ Tue, 12 Aug 2008 - 16:42) *
It's important to me that I give people accurate advice, you see.

And who might these people be? rolleyes.gif
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.