Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: FPN & NIP
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
kilfinan
Simple question for those that know these things. What is the difference between an FPN and an NIP and under what circumstances would they be used?

Thanks for reading.

Kilfinan
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (kilfinan)
What is the difference between an FPN and an NIP and under what circumstances would they be used?

http://www.pepipoo.com/Glossary.htm#FPN
http://www.pepipoo.com/NIP.htm
kilfinan
Thanks for this but what it doesn't tell me is when each of these 2 fines would be used. ie if caught on a fixed camera is it always an NIP etc.

The reason for asking is that on some of the boards the issue of 14 days keeps coming up but if that really were an issue wouldn't the police just issue FPN's as they have 6 months for these?

Thanks

Kilfinan
Mika
Hi Kilfinan,

The decision to make the conditional offer of an FPN, usually depends on the speed, or if the police have failed to meet the 14 day rule for the issuing of the NIP. rolleyes.gif

If a valid NIP was not issued first, the FPN may only work, if the person who receives it agrees “out of the kindness of their hart” to pay the fine etc., and this link may explain why this could be the case. icon_wink.gif
kilfinan
I can see this has been raised before but it still seems pretty complicated to me. Can I clarify my understanding of the situation...

The police have 14 days to issue an NIP. If it is later than that then the driver cannot be prosecuted. HOWEVER, the police could then issue an FPN. The driver then has 2 choices, pay up or go to court to contest.

If that is the case then I still don't understand why the police don't just scrap NIP's and issue FPN's. Then they will always have 6 months to "get their man"?

I think I may have been flashed approx 19 days ago. Do I sit and wait for 6 months to see if I get an FPN?

Kilfinan
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (kilfinan)
If that is the case then I still don't understand why the police don't just scrap NIP's and issue FPN's. Then they will always have 6 months to "get their man"?

AIUI, the maximum penalty following an FPN is £60 / 3 points (whether they can increase that if you contest it and go to court, I don't know).
Mika
Hi,

Just suppose that the police fail to issue you with a valid NIP (one that has not time-expired due to14 day rule), but they subsequently issue you with a FPN, some time over the next six months. What happens, if you decline their kind offer of the FPN, and elect to have the matter dealt with by a Magistrates’ Court?

As far as I can tell, the prosecution is bound to fail, because they [the prosecution] will not have a completed NIP/section 172 notice, identifying the driver. icon_redface.gif
nigeldunne64
Mika, I am a little rusty but I am sure that the Notice of Intended Prosecution is a statutory requirement in all speeding, due care, reckless driving and driving without consideration. When I was in the Police there was a typed NOIP on the rear of everyone HORT/1 which is the producer form you get given to take to the Police Station with your documents. If reporting someone for one of the appropriate offences you had to tick the rear of the box and also verbally inform them of your intention to prosecute them for the offence of whatever.
I cannot remember why, but I recollect it was because these were deemed serious offences and statute insisted people were aware that they were to be prosecuted, not being cautioned as in let off/given a warning!!
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (nigeldunne64)
<...> I am sure that the Notice of Intended Prosecution is a statutory requirement in all speeding <...>,

'Fraid not. See:
[forum link]
nigeldunne64
Sorry to be pedantic Jeffrey, but I think you will find you are wrong. If you read part 1 you will see that a NIP has to be given for any speeding and other offences. What has confused you is the mention of a fixed penalty ticket being GIVEN. I emphasise the word GIVEN because if an Officer GIVES you a ticket at the time of the offence a NIP is deemed to be served as it is on the rear of the FPN. The law does not allow for a FPN to be SENT without a NIP first. Please re-read Section 1 and I think it will be clear. I hope you will agree icon_wink.gif
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (nigeldunne64)
What has confused you is the mention of a fixed penalty ticket being GIVEN. I emphasise the word GIVEN because if an Officer GIVES you a ticket at the time of the offence a NIP is deemed to be served as it is on the rear of the FPN. The law does not allow for a FPN to be SENT without a NIP first. Please re-read Section 1 and I think it will be clear. I hope you will agree

I'd love to agree, however, there are many instances of people having been given FPNs ouside the 14 day period for an NIP. Maybe, of course, they should have challenged it. Alternatively, perhaps the reason is the word "fixed". What does it mean in this context?
(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
"Fixed" as in affixed to a vehicle, or something else?
Mika
Hi Nigel,

It may be you who is mistaken, and can I suggest that you read the note at the very bottom of this post very carefully, because the information was provided by the RAC’s legal team. As you may already know, the RAC retain the country’s leading barristers who specialise in traffic law.

It is my understanding that the conditional offer (FPN), can be issued up to six months after the date of an alleged offence, without either a verbal or written NIP having been issued first. This may be why the RAC referrers to a “malicious FPN”.

However, were the individual to decline the offer of the FPN, then, in my opinion, any subsequent prosecution would be bound to fail due to the lack of valid NIP/section 172 notice. icon_wink.gif
andybn
IMHO,

And not to be too contradictory or muddy the waters

I was under the impression that you are actually given a verbal NIP by the officer when he/she informs you that you shall be reported for the offence of .........................

I was further under the impression that the HORT form was strictly for the producing of document's offence's. I cannot remember seeing a NIP on the back of the HORT form. 'apart from for the non-production of doc's'

Furthermore the apparently the HORT form has NO statutory basis, it is simply to ease administration for the police.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-offic...xt/20718w35.htm
brgccfc
I am watching this post closely with personal interest, and thanks to Jeffrey archer for directing me here. I am grasping both sides of the arguement slowly.
Mikka you said
"It is my understanding that the conditional offer (FPN), can be issued up to six months after the date of an alleged offence, without either a verbal or written NIP having been issued first This may be why the RAC referrers to a “malicious FPN”.
This doesnt apply to me as my boss had already returned the NIP naming me but.. going back to what you said,what perplexes me is how can someone issue a FPN if they dont have the details of the driver. Surely they need the name of the driver to issue it.
Mika
Hi,

If you don’t understand this, please email me your phone number.

The court requires a NIP/section 172 that was completed by the individual who was driving at the time of the alleged motoring offence. Your boss was not driving at the time of the alleged offence, therefore the police should have sent a second NIP to you, before they issued the FPN.

If you decline the FPN (or just ignore it), in my opinion any subsequent speeding prosecution would fail, owing to the lack of a section 172 notice that had been completed by the driver - you.

If the police issue an FPN, where they have not first issued a NIP in line with the 14 day rule, they will probably issue it to the registered keeper. In most cases, when the FPN is received, there will be a “stewards enquiry”, and the person who was driving will just pay the fine etc.; blissfully unaware of the fact that they could have carefully ‘filed’ the document in the nearest waste paper basket.

The ‘system’ relies on dealing with individuals who are ignorant. icon_wink.gif
brgccfc
Cheers for the reply.
Being an "ignorant individual" at the time i did recieve an NIP which i stupidly sent back. If i hadnt (being wiser as i am now) could they not use my boss's NIP as evidence that i was driving ( he named me as the driver and signed it ) or does it have to be filled out by the driver. If what you say is true anybody driving a vehicle that doesnt belong to them (lease/company/hire vehicles/ your dads car etc etc ie half of britains traffic) would not be prosecuteable if they just ignored their NIP's and any subsequent FPN's laugh.gif
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (brgccfc)
If i hadnt (being wiser as i am now) could they not use my boss's NIP as evidence that i was driving ( he named me as the driver and signed it ) <...>.

No, he wasn't there.
Mika
Hi,

You may not have understood the legal position.

If the initial NIP is returned by the registered keeper, naming you as the driver at the time of the alleged offence, and you ignore the NIP, you leave yourself open to prosecution for failing to comply with section 172 of the RTA. icon_redface.gif

Ignoring subsequent NIPs and FPNs may only work if, the initial NIP had “time-expired” or if the person named, as the person who was driving, by the registered keeper, is not issued with a NIP before the police issue them with an FPN. rolleyes.gif
nigeldunne64
Hi Mika, Sorry to be a pain but even I am confused now. Please re-read my post and your link and you will see I am saying the same as the RAC finest legal brains.
In the same way as speeding is an Absolute offence, so is the 14 days. The Police MUST either issue a verbal NIP at the time of the offence the words of which are " You will be reported for consideration of prosecution for the offence of driving at excess speed/driving without due care etc etc", serve a summons within 14 days for the offence ( some hope, they struggle to get one within 6 months!!) or " within 14 days of the commission of the offence a notice of the the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it was alleged to have been committed was 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" A sting in the tail is that it is deemed that the conditions of service of a NIP "shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless the contrary is proved" So guilty unless you prove you are innocent?
But to return to my point a person CANNOT be convicted for a speeding ofence if he can prove no NIP was served within 14 days on the registered keeper. If a NIP is drawn up 16 days later it is too late. As you say in the linked post it is not a guideline it IS THE LAW.
Kep up the good work, and we can stop this madness. If people powwer can get cannabis "legalised" then we can get rid of scameras,particularly with an election looming.
brgccfc
"a person CANNOT be convicted for a speeding ofence if he can prove no NIP was served within 14 days on the registered keeper"

Problem i have is it was served within 14days, but not to the registered keeper. I have checked with the DVLA and their records confirm that the keeper was changed 37 days prior to the date on the first NIP which was sent to the previous keeper.
The DVLA told me that the police have their own database but couldnt tell me how often it is updated. Their is a bit in the RTA about the police using "due dilligence" to identify the driver or registered keeper.


(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.

Now the definition of diligence is "careful and using a lot of effort" or "done in a careful and detailed way:
"
I dont believe they have done this but would a magistrate agree ?
andybn
I think you should find that the PNC is a 'livelink' to the DVLA database.

What they may well have used is their local system. I suspect PNC is getting a battering due to the scameraships. Also you may well find that as the Insurance companies have a 'livelink' then of course so do the police. Tell them to stick that up their diligence defence.

Of course they know. Bet a memo has gone round to take the load off the PNC. It MUST be a bit creaky by now laugh.gif

All I know is the systems that they have in place are 'almost' instant.
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 © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.