Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Has this NIP expired? do i have a case
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
bronson
I had incident on 01/10/09, received it on 18/10/09, date of letter was 08/10/09. I have attached the image of the envelope that i got it in which i am sure is just normal 1st class and not recorded or anything?

anyone confirm what my next move is and what to say? i know i have to fill in the NIP regardless and i was thinking of getting the postman to sign the letter stating that he sent it on such a such date?

donnyc1975
i suspect if the envelope is not franked it will be difficult to prove delivery, even if you ask the postman.
Hotel Oscar 87
There is an amount of further information it would be useful to know in order to advise you more fully. Please complete the NIP Wizard - link at the the top of the page.
bama
no other impressions on the unshown part of the envelope ?

it doesn't look UPU compliant to me from the part we can see.
http://www.upu.int/acts/en/2_letter_en.pdf
Steve_Williams
There was a case decided on 29th October that dealt with late receipt of post during postal strikes.

In essence the presumption that letters posted will arrive within the 14 days is rebuttable - that is to say that if the court is satisfied that it arrived late then they are out of time. You are able to give evidence of the day it was received, it is a matter for the court as to whether they believe you but there will be no evidence to contest that.

Send the NIP back but run a not guilty on the speeding, the law now appears to have swung the motorists way in this respect.
loyalroyal
QUOTE (Steve_Williams @ Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 10:26) *
There was a case decided on 29th October that dealt with late receipt of post during postal strikes.

In essence the presumption that letters posted will arrive within the 14 days is rebuttable - that is to say that if the court is satisfied that it arrived late then they are out of time. You are able to give evidence of the day it was received, it is a matter for the court as to whether they believe you but there will be no evidence to contest that.

Send the NIP back but run a not guilty on the speeding, the law now appears to have swung the motorists way in this respect.



Hi thanks for this so when i send my NIP shall i send a covering letter with it but what should i declare and in what terms? Obviously i can say that i feel i have a case for the NIp not turning up within 14 day time frame but how stern should i be in terms of what i say? i was thinking of quoting some case law as well
Glacier2
There is probably no point arguing the toss with some data entry clerk in the scammer office. All they will say is it is enough to post it with the 14 days, which we always knew was wrong.

loyalroyal
QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 12:31) *
There is probably no point arguing the toss with some data entry clerk in the scammer office. All they will say is it is enough to post it with the 14 days, which we always knew was wrong.



so are you saying dont argue it at all? i spoke to a solicitor (1 of the recommended ones on here) and he said if it has not been sent via recorded, special delivery then the argument of it counting once delivered does not stand hence why i am asking on here what i should say in my covering letter.
Gan
A letter sent by First Class post is assumed by a court to be delivered two business days later unless you can produce evidence to the contrary.

Your sworn statement should, in theory, be enough but it depends if the magistrates believe you.
Steve_Williams
You have nothing to lose by putting that in your covering letter, they may well ignore it and issue a summons/FP but you won't be any worse off.
Tancred
QUOTE (loyalroyal @ Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 18:06) *
QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 12:31) *
There is probably no point arguing the toss with some data entry clerk in the scammer office. All they will say is it is enough to post it with the 14 days, which we always knew was wrong.



so are you saying dont argue it at all? i spoke to a solicitor (1 of the recommended ones on here) and he said if it has not been sent via recorded, special delivery then the argument of it counting once delivered does not stand hence why i am asking on here what i should say in my covering letter.


If you fill in the NIP wizard (near top right) selecting that you didn't receive the NIP within 14 days and there's no reason for it being delivered late (as postal strikes don't count apparently) you'll get the link to a legal letter provided by the RAC which is for sending when the NIP is late.
loyalroyal
QUOTE (Tancred @ Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 18:17) *
QUOTE (loyalroyal @ Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 18:06) *
QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Mon, 2 Nov 2009 - 12:31) *
There is probably no point arguing the toss with some data entry clerk in the scammer office. All they will say is it is enough to post it with the 14 days, which we always knew was wrong.



so are you saying dont argue it at all? i spoke to a solicitor (1 of the recommended ones on here) and he said if it has not been sent via recorded, special delivery then the argument of it counting once delivered does not stand hence why i am asking on here what i should say in my covering letter.


If you fill in the NIP wizard (near top right) selecting that you didn't receive the NIP within 14 days and there's no reason for it being delivered late (as postal strikes don't count apparently) you'll get the link to a legal letter provided by the RAC which is for sending when the NIP is late.


Thanks
Mr Rusty
If you decide to fight it, any court case will be some months in the future. I suggest you write yourself a written note describing the exact date and time of delivery of the NIP, and if there is anyone else in your household, ask them to witness that this was the case. In the future, you will then not only have your word that it didn't arrive in time, but a witnessed contemporaneous note, which should help convince the mags you are telling the truth.

It is true there has been a recent court case which confirms that just posting in time is not good enough. High court appeal over previous verdicts in both mags and crown court, so does set a precedent

Source: Press Associaton

A motorist had a speeding conviction quashed by the High Court today (29/10/09) - because
a 2007 postal strike led to the late delivery of a crucial prosecution document.
Motoring laws might now have to be amended to prevent other drivers attempting
to take advantage of similar late deliveries during the current or future mail strikes.
A statutory notice was sent warning Peter Gidden, 48, who runs his own
specialist Toyota sports car workshop, that he had been caught by a speed camera
and the police intended to prosecute, but it arrived two days late.
The law states that such notices must be delivered within 14 days.

Gidden was jubilant after the judges allowed his appeal against Grimsby Crown
Court's decision in February to uphold a speeding conviction imposed by
Scunthorpe magistrates last October.
He faced prosecution under the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act.
The judges quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling #680.
They also wiped out the three penalty points endorsed on his licence and
awarded him legal costs out of public funds.
Gidden said he had been driving on the M180 in Lincolnshire at 8.10am on
October 6 2007 when a speed camera recorded him as exceeding the speed limit,
clocking him at 85mph in the inside lane.
He said he had unsuccessfully fought his case in person before the magistrates
and the Crown Court.
He then employed a legal team led by barrister Archie Maddan to fight his case
in the High Court at a cost of some #8,000.
Gidden said: "In a way this is a matter of principle. Law enforcers have to
work within the law to gain the respect of the general public.
"In many ways I think they are losing the respect of the middle-class general
public which they have always needed, and had, in this country."

In his ruling, Lord Justice Elias said Gidden's appeal "must succeed", and Mr
Justice Openshaw agreed.
Lord Justice Elias said: "The notice of intended prosecution was not sent in
time and could not be regarded as having been properly served.
"It follows that the conviction must be set aside."
He added: "I appreciate that this construction of the legislation may create
problems for the police and prosecuting authorities, particularly when the
postal service is on strike with the inevitable delays in delivery.
"The authorities must then adopt other means of warning, if they are to avoid
the risk of late delivery.
"Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending... the 1988 Act.
"It is not, however, for the courts to overcome the resulting inconvenience by
distorting the clear language which Parliament has adopted."
The judge said alternatives included recorded delivery services or registered
post, which were governed by different rules.
The one sent to Mr Gidden, of High Street, Dodworth, near Barnsley, South
Yorkshire, took 16 days because of the backlog of undelivered mail built up
after the strike in 2007.

Lord Justice Elias, sitting with Mr Justice Openshaw, ruled today the whole
prosecution process was defective because the time limit had not been met, and
Mr Gidden's conviction must be quashed.
He rejected arguments supported by lower courts that so long as prosecution
warning notices were posted within 14 days - so that in ordinary circumstances
they would arrive in time - they were deemed to have been properly served.
Lord Justice Elias said: "This case raises an issue of some topicality given
the current postal strike and is of no mere small interest."
He warned the police and prosecuting authorities not to use the first class
post and said they must adopt other means of delivering "statutory notices of
intended prosecution" (NIPs) if they were to avoid the risk of late delivery.

John Josephs, solicitor for Mr Gidden, said later: "One can only speculate
about the impact of today's judgment.
"The police are aware of this situation. The Association of Chief Police
Officers (Acpo) has been advising their members not to use first class post for NIPs."
Mr Josephs said today's case was unusual in that it had been conceded at the
Crown Court that Mr Gidden's warning notice had arrived late because of
industrial action.
He predicted that, in other cases, where there had been no such concession, it
might still prove difficult for defendants to convince the courts notices had
genuinely arrived out of time.
Mr Josephs said: "This judgment is not a cheat's charter.
"It means that if a notice is served late because of a postal strike, or for
some other reason, it will still be up to the defendant to prove that before the court.
"This is not a floodgates case, but postal strikes may strengthen a
defendant's claim not to have been properly served with a notice."
The court heard that first class post deliveries for NIPs was first allowed
under an amendment introduced by the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.
Prior to that notices were always served via registered post or recorded
delivery, where there was a record to show they had actually been sent.
Registered or recorded items are deemed to be served if sent to a defendant's
last known address, even if they are returned as undelivered or not received for
any other reason.
Lord Justice Elias suggested the same deeming provisions had not been extended
to the first class post because of an "oversight".
But he said he could not rule out that it may have been deliberate Government
policy, and it was for Parliament to make any changes that might now be
necessary.

bronson
QUOTE (Mr Rusty @ Tue, 3 Nov 2009 - 15:13) *
If you decide to fight it, any court case will be some months in the future. I suggest you write yourself a written note describing the exact date and time of delivery of the NIP, and if there is anyone else in your household, ask them to witness that this was the case. In the future, you will then not only have your word that it didn't arrive in time, but a witnessed contemporaneous note, which should help convince the mags you are telling the truth.

It is true there has been a recent court case which confirms that just posting in time is not good enough. High court appeal over previous verdicts in both mags and crown court, so does set a precedent

Source: Press Associaton

A motorist had a speeding conviction quashed by the High Court today (29/10/09) - because
a 2007 postal strike led to the late delivery of a crucial prosecution document.
Motoring laws might now have to be amended to prevent other drivers attempting
to take advantage of similar late deliveries during the current or future mail strikes.
A statutory notice was sent warning Peter Gidden, 48, who runs his own
specialist Toyota sports car workshop, that he had been caught by a speed camera
and the police intended to prosecute, but it arrived two days late.
The law states that such notices must be delivered within 14 days.

Gidden was jubilant after the judges allowed his appeal against Grimsby Crown
Court's decision in February to uphold a speeding conviction imposed by
Scunthorpe magistrates last October.
He faced prosecution under the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act.
The judges quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling #680.
They also wiped out the three penalty points endorsed on his licence and
awarded him legal costs out of public funds.
Gidden said he had been driving on the M180 in Lincolnshire at 8.10am on
October 6 2007 when a speed camera recorded him as exceeding the speed limit,
clocking him at 85mph in the inside lane.
He said he had unsuccessfully fought his case in person before the magistrates
and the Crown Court.
He then employed a legal team led by barrister Archie Maddan to fight his case
in the High Court at a cost of some #8,000.
Gidden said: "In a way this is a matter of principle. Law enforcers have to
work within the law to gain the respect of the general public.
"In many ways I think they are losing the respect of the middle-class general
public which they have always needed, and had, in this country."

In his ruling, Lord Justice Elias said Gidden's appeal "must succeed", and Mr
Justice Openshaw agreed.
Lord Justice Elias said: "The notice of intended prosecution was not sent in
time and could not be regarded as having been properly served.
"It follows that the conviction must be set aside."
He added: "I appreciate that this construction of the legislation may create
problems for the police and prosecuting authorities, particularly when the
postal service is on strike with the inevitable delays in delivery.
"The authorities must then adopt other means of warning, if they are to avoid
the risk of late delivery.
"Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending... the 1988 Act.
"It is not, however, for the courts to overcome the resulting inconvenience by
distorting the clear language which Parliament has adopted."
The judge said alternatives included recorded delivery services or registered
post, which were governed by different rules.
The one sent to Mr Gidden, of High Street, Dodworth, near Barnsley, South
Yorkshire, took 16 days because of the backlog of undelivered mail built up
after the strike in 2007.

Lord Justice Elias, sitting with Mr Justice Openshaw, ruled today the whole
prosecution process was defective because the time limit had not been met, and
Mr Gidden's conviction must be quashed.
He rejected arguments supported by lower courts that so long as prosecution
warning notices were posted within 14 days - so that in ordinary circumstances
they would arrive in time - they were deemed to have been properly served.
Lord Justice Elias said: "This case raises an issue of some topicality given
the current postal strike and is of no mere small interest."
He warned the police and prosecuting authorities not to use the first class
post and said they must adopt other means of delivering "statutory notices of
intended prosecution" (NIPs) if they were to avoid the risk of late delivery.

John Josephs, solicitor for Mr Gidden, said later: "One can only speculate
about the impact of today's judgment.
"The police are aware of this situation. The Association of Chief Police
Officers (Acpo) has been advising their members not to use first class post for NIPs."
Mr Josephs said today's case was unusual in that it had been conceded at the
Crown Court that Mr Gidden's warning notice had arrived late because of
industrial action.
He predicted that, in other cases, where there had been no such concession, it
might still prove difficult for defendants to convince the courts notices had
genuinely arrived out of time.
Mr Josephs said: "This judgment is not a cheat's charter.
"It means that if a notice is served late because of a postal strike, or for
some other reason, it will still be up to the defendant to prove that before the court.
"This is not a floodgates case, but postal strikes may strengthen a
defendant's claim not to have been properly served with a notice."
The court heard that first class post deliveries for NIPs was first allowed
under an amendment introduced by the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.
Prior to that notices were always served via registered post or recorded
delivery, where there was a record to show they had actually been sent.
Registered or recorded items are deemed to be served if sent to a defendant's
last known address, even if they are returned as undelivered or not received for
any other reason.
Lord Justice Elias suggested the same deeming provisions had not been extended
to the first class post because of an "oversight".
But he said he could not rule out that it may have been deliberate Government
policy, and it was for Parliament to make any changes that might now be
necessary.


Thanks what i plan to do is get the postman to sign that he delivered the letter on such and such date and also have someone in household as witness
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.