Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] they have lost my section 172 statement
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Spacedog
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - November 2010
Date of the NIP: - 4 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 6 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - yew tree drive 50mph nr preston new rd (ne) blackburn (e div) mobile
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? - n/a
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 have returned the original NIP by recorded delivery and yet have received a reminder. I have rang the CPU and they say they have not received it

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? - 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: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:26:42 +0000
quickboy
Have you checked the Royal Mail website using the tracking number to see if has definetely been received? If it has, then it is their problem as to what they have done with it. You would have fulfilled your obligations!
Gan
Isn't there case law including Gidden that a document sent recorded delivery is deemed served whether the addressee receives it or not ?

ford poplar
Prob, but if PO has not delivered it according to tracking OP can get his postage fee refunded and still claim Recorded service.
Logician
QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:16) *
Isn't there case law including Gidden that a document sent recorded delivery is deemed served whether the addressee receives it or not ?

No, that is s1(2) RTOA 1988 applying to NIPs.

Spacedog, if they send you another in the form of a reminder you are equally obliged to complete that one.
Gan
QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:24) *
QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:16) *
Isn't there case law including Gidden that a document sent recorded delivery is deemed served whether the addressee receives it or not ?

No, that is s1(2) RTOA 1988 applying to NIPs.

Spacedog, if they send you another in the form of a reminder you are equally obliged to complete that one.


The RTOA is just an example. This turns up frequently in landlord-tenant disputes.

The OP is able to prove that he sent the original. If he receives a reminder what prevents him writing "Please refer to previous reply" and sending it back ?


andy_foster
QUOTE (quickboy @ Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 21:30) *
Have you checked the Royal Mail website using the tracking number to see if has definetely been received? If it has, then it is their problem as to what they have done with it. You would have fulfilled your obligations!


What he said.

QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:24) *
QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:16) *
Isn't there case law including Gidden that a document sent recorded delivery is deemed served whether the addressee receives it or not ?

No, that is s1(2) RTOA 1988 applying to NIPs.

Spacedog, if they send you another in the form of a reminder you are equally obliged to complete that one.


There was a recent Scottish case that decided that the original s. 172 requirement to the accused was *the* requirement, albeit in the context of the scammers attempting to get around the 6 month rule.

QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:58) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:24) *
QUOTE (Gan @ Tue, 4 Jan 2011 - 22:16) *
Isn't there case law including Gidden that a document sent recorded delivery is deemed served whether the addressee receives it or not ?

No, that is s1(2) RTOA 1988 applying to NIPs.

Spacedog, if they send you another in the form of a reminder you are equally obliged to complete that one.


The RTOA is just an example. This turns up frequently in landlord-tenant disputes.

The OP is able to prove that he sent the original. If he receives a reminder what prevents him writing "Please refer to previous reply" and sending it back ?


Certain notices sent under landlord and tenant legislation are deemed to have been served when they were posted, regardless of when or whether they were delivered. In such cases, s. 7 Interpretation Act 1978 is deemed not to apply because of a contrary intention expressed by the legislation (often written is special invisible ink that only judges can read).

There appears to be a potential argument that, particularly when postal service is the only service allowed by the scammers, that merely sending the response is good compliance with the requirement, but I'd only recommend trying to run that if it was the only option (other than pleading guilty to s. 172).

If the response has been delivered (according to the Royal Fail tracker), I'd be minded to do nothing. If not, I'd be minded to provide the information again.
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.