Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] NIP Due Diligence
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
mariner
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - May 2010
Date of the NIP: - 17 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 20 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A63 at or near Daltry Street
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? - 3
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 was travelling Eastbound leaving a dual carriageway and was recorded at 48 in a 40 by a vehicle situated on the opposite wastbound carriageway. Although I was the RK of the vehicle and had the V5, DVLA had the record wrong. The Police wrote to me saying that my car was subject to a Police investigation and that DVLA had told them that I was no longer the keeper. I didn't respond. However, the Police waited 20 days before checking the insurance database, they then sent an NIP. Surely due diligence means that they should have checked the database earlier.

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? - Unsure
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: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:16:57 +0000
peterguk
If they initially checked, and found DVLA's recordeds to be incorrect, then they appear to have tried to send the NIP.

Why did DVLA inform the Police you were no longer the keeper?

If the offence occured in May 2010, what has occured since? Have you been summonsed?
mariner
I had no idea of the problem at DVLA. I contacted them and they admitted responsibility and apologised. When I bought the car there was an issue with the transfer of the ownership. They have now corrected it. Since the incident I have been offered a fixed penalty and a speed awareness course and now have a summons. Trial set 7th February.
Logician
The police seem to have a reasonable excuse for the late NIP, so I do not think you have a defence. The best bet may be to plead G by post and save the hassle of going there. I hope you identified yourself as the driver so the summons is just for the speeding?
jobo
hmm, im not so sure, the law requires them to make reasonable enquiries, not just to default to the dvla data base, which is what they do

you could make a case that as they did, use the insurance data base, they could have earlier, how successful you be is up for dispute, but there is at least a defence there

mariner
Thanks,

Yeah I've played ball all the eway through and admitted being the driver.

I was annoyed because I didn't think I was speeding as the road goes from 60 to 50 to 40 andon this stretch I always reduce my speed at each point by cruise control but apparently they had me with a laser.

I believe that the RTA states that the NIP is lawfully served if the Police acted with "due diligence".

The Police only used the DVLA to ascertain the RK details and when the report came back that I had sold the vehicle they wrote to me which I am not lawfully obliged to respond to. Nothing had changed when 17 days later they then decided to check the insurance database and find my details.

Surely if they had checked the insurance database initially they could have served the NIP in time, as it is they have been complacent.

Doubt it'll work but I'll give it a go, any idea what costs are for a half day trial?
jobo
not much 100, 150 quid ???? bit more... bit less

though im not sure how you think it will last half a day if all your doing is queering the nNIP servive
peterguk
QUOTE (mariner @ Fri, 14 Jan 2011 - 00:58) *
The Police ....... wrote to me which I am not lawfully obliged to respond to.


Depends on the contents of the correspondence....

QUOTE (mariner @ Fri, 14 Jan 2011 - 00:58) *
I believe that the RTA states that the NIP is lawfully served if the Police acted with "due diligence".

The Police only used the DVLA to ascertain the RK details and when the report came back that I had sold the vehicle


If DVLA told them you were no longer the keeper, IMHO they have a fair argument that with no one to send an NIP to, they couldn't send it to arrive in 14 days.


QUOTE (mariner @ Fri, 14 Jan 2011 - 00:26) *
Since the incident I have been offered a fixed penalty and a speed awareness course.


I presume you chose not to accept the offer of SAC?

QUOTE (mariner @ Fri, 14 Jan 2011 - 00:26) *
and now have a summons. Trial set 7th February.


Summons only for speeding?
Logician
QUOTE (mariner @ Fri, 14 Jan 2011 - 00:58) *
The Police only used the DVLA to ascertain the RK details and when the report came back that I had sold the vehicle they wrote to me which I am not lawfully obliged to respond to.

I think you probably were, even if not the RK:
"........any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver"

I think the police were pursuing a line of enquiry they could reasonably have expected to yield a result, and when it did not, they then tried the MID. That sounds like due diligence to me, I do not think they have to try every possible line of enquiry immediately.

But if you want to have your day in court, it is your money!
mariner
Thanks guys, yes summons is just for speeding.

The thing is, without seeming to be holier than thou I'm sure I wasn't doing the speed suggested.

It was 93 metres across two carriageways as I was leaving the dual carriageway on a slip road. If I thought they were right I'd probably just have taken the SAC, I'm not fighting an LTI result so I'll just try my luck at the NIP.

Surely it can't be diligent for a law enforcement organisation to believe that DVLA are always right? There was obviously another angle that would have produced results within the required time because they used it, only not until the 14 days had passed!

Diligent?

Thanks again.
jobo
there two ways of doing this, you can put forwarded a reasonable case that the polices actions fell below DD, but i fear that failing a very good advocate or a very benevolent bench youl get a bad result, maybe woprth a try as youve got to summons stage anyway, as youve not much but a couple of hundred quid to loose

or

act daft, go to court and state that the nip was late, that the v5 was in your name and therefore that the nip was invalid
and see to what extent the prosicutor is clued into the process the police went through, that the dvla had mislead the police and they had to use another data base, etc etc. as with option 1, its you thats provieding all the evidence they need for their case.

i see no reason why the polices process should have made it to the cps prosicutor, and even if they have, they are famious for not reading their files to then get into court
Logician
Remember there is a second limb of the provision that "The defendant contributed to that failure by his or her own conduct"
By failing to answer their letter, you may have fallen foul of that, although I guess that is more aimed at acts of commission rather than omission.
andy_foster
There is no requirement to serve a NIP within the 14 days if the police could not with reasonable diligence ascertain the details of the driver or the Registered Keeper in time to serve a NIP within the 14 days.
This would presumably be a matter of fact for a court to find, and would seem to depend on what information the police were provided by the DVLA.

If, for instance, the DVLA provided the police with the details of the previous RK, and the police had no reason to believe that this information was not correct until it was too late to serve a NIP within the 14 days (e.g. sent NIP/s. 172 to previous keeper in good faith and did not receive response until it was too late), then the exception above would clearly apply.

However, if the DVLA's response was "Computer says no <cough>", then it would seem that reasonable diligence would require them to make further enquiries (e.g MIB database), rather than putting it on the "fuggit, can't be arsed to deal with that now" pile. Whilst it might be argued that the MIB database does not necessarily indicate whether the policy-holder is the RK, and there could be a question as to whether there is an RK if the DVLA's database does not hold one, as it would appear to be fairly straightforward to ascertain the details of the person likely to be the driver or RK, it would seem difficult to construe the police 'shrugging' as exhausting reasonable diligence - particularly if we compare and contrast with reasonable diligence under s. 172.
Logician
Yes, but the police did make further enquiries, they wrote to the OP. He has not said what they asked him, but presumably it was what had become of the car, to which he did not reply.
jobo
QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 14 Jan 2011 - 15:14) *
Yes, but the police did make further enquiries, they wrote to the OP. He has not said what they asked him, but presumably it was what had become of the car, to which he did not reply.


which if it wasnt a 172, he had no need to answer, he has no lawfull duty to help the police with their enquiries, yopu may be able to make a moral case, he contributed to his own down fall, but not, i believe a legal one
andy_foster
@OP - when did the police initially write to you, and what did they say?
mariner
Hi sorry I've been away,

They wrote to me 2 days after the incident.

The letter said, "The vehicle is the subject of a Police investigation. DVLA advise us that you have sold the vehicle and the new keeper has not updated the details. I would be grateful if you would provide the details of the person to whom you sold the vehicle".

They issued the NIP 15 days later and I had been abroad for 8 of those!
CuriousOrange
QUOTE (jobo @ Fri, 14 Jan 2011 - 15:22) *
QUOTE (Logician @ Fri, 14 Jan 2011 - 15:14) *
Yes, but the police did make further enquiries, they wrote to the OP. He has not said what they asked him, but presumably it was what had become of the car, to which he did not reply.
which if it wasnt a 172, he had no need to answer, he has no lawfull duty to help the police with their enquiries, yopu may be able to make a moral case, he contributed to his own down fall, but not, i believe a legal one
But the legal case would be that this would count towards the police exercising reasonable diligence to identify the driver, which is what Logician was replying to as far as I can tell.
Logician
So the police seem to have contacted the DVLA immediately, and then pursued a reasonable line of enquiry in writing two days after the incident to the person most likely to know the current keeper of the vehicle. Receiving no reply they then consulted the MID and issued a NIP to the OP 17 days after the incident. A court may well consider that amounted to reasonable diligence, and in addition that "that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure" [s2(3)(b) RTOA 1988] since he did not answer the letter from the police, whether or not he had a legal duty to do so.
jobo
you both seem to be applying a far lower standard on reasonable dilligenge than the courts demand A reasonable line of inquirry is not reasonable dilligence is it

and you miss applying the bit about own conduct as well
roadrunner 163
Was the original request / enquiry made under section 172 with a form along the lines of I was the driver, i was not but the driver was.... or I sold the vehicle to.... on such a date???
jobo
QUOTE (roadrunner 163 @ Sat, 22 Jan 2011 - 17:53) *
Was the original request / enquiry made under section 172 with a form along the lines of I was the driver, i was not but the driver was.... or I sold the vehicle to.... on such a date???


it would seem not
Logician
It does not really matter what we think, what matters is what the court is likely to think. Asking the previous owner who he sold the car to seems the best line of enquiry in fact, because he actually knows. For all we know the police looked up the MID at the same time, found the person they had been told was the previous owner was still insured, which might have been neglecting to cancel the insurance, and they were writing to him anyway. It was probably his failure to reply that made them suspicious of the OP.

If you mean I am misapplying the "own conduct" provision, then I do not know why. I see no reason why it has to be a positive act, rather than a negative one of not imparting the fact that he should really be the RK.

Anyway, time will tell.
roadrunner 163
When did you purchase the car and when did your insurance policy start. relative to the may incident. If these were near to the incident date then this may explain the delay in the police obtaining the details of the RK.

It may support their due diligence case especially if the insurance policy was not on the MIB on or around the date of the incident..

Jobo: Whilst it seems not; a definite answer from the OP would help as even though the OP is not being summons for fail to furnish it may have been a lawful request requiring a response and adding weight to DD even if the police answered their own question prior to any deadline for a response.
Logician
QUOTE (roadrunner 163 @ Sat, 22 Jan 2011 - 17:53) *
Was the original request / enquiry made under section 172 with a form along the lines of I was the driver, i was not but the driver was.... or I sold the vehicle to.... on such a date???

It seems no form was sent, but does it have to be? AFAIK it is a moot point whether the police have to state that the enquiry they are making is under s172. That section is very wide ranging and would it seems permit asking the question the police asked.
QUOTE
any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
CuriousOrange
QUOTE (jobo @ Sat, 22 Jan 2011 - 17:38) *
you both seem to be applying a far lower standard on reasonable dilligenge than the courts demand A reasonable line of inquirry is not reasonable dilligence is it
Both? Where did I say it was reasonable diligence?
jobo
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Sat, 22 Jan 2011 - 19:56) *
QUOTE (jobo @ Sat, 22 Jan 2011 - 17:38) *
you both seem to be applying a far lower standard on reasonable dilligenge than the courts demand A reasonable line of inquirry is not reasonable dilligence is it
Both? Where did I say it was reasonable diligence?


you suggested that it was

the police need to fullfill RD, if you say that what they have done is sufficient then, your saying it RD
roadrunner 163
if asking under sec 172 the person must be empowered to do so. Not sating they are would be a good point to not be obliged to tell them.
Obviously a bib in uniform would be a poor defence but by letter not stating the power is not going to oblige the person to reply.


CuriousOrange
QUOTE (jobo @ Sat, 22 Jan 2011 - 20:04) *
you suggested that it was. the police need to fullfill RD, if you say that what they have done is sufficient then, your saying it RD

I didn't say that.

Read again what I wrote:
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Sat, 22 Jan 2011 - 15:41) *
But the legal case would be that this would count towards the police exercising reasonable diligence to identify the driver, which is what Logician was replying to as far as I can tell.

Without knowing every little thing the police did, I wouldn't comment on whether they'd likely fulfilled reasonable diligence to the satisfaction of a court or not. But it's self-evident that the enquiry would be part of it.

AF pointed out that the police would be required to make more enquires if the DVLA computer 'said no', Logician pointed out that they did, your comment was that the OP wasn't legally obliged to answer it didn't seem to fit.
mariner
I am due in court in April. Allegedly I was travelling at 48 mph in a 40mph zone and was caught on camera by a LTI 20 20 hand held.

I was travelling eastbound along the A63 in Hull, the speed reduces from 60 to 50 and then to 40 and I have a habit of reducing my speed on this road by cruise control as I approach each sign. Therefore, I cannot believe that I was travelling at more than 40 mph.

Anywhere else and I would have put my hands up and swallowed it but I cannot believe that I was doing this speed. I cannot say what speed I was doing but do not believe that I was speeding, I told the court this at my pre trial review and pleaded not guilty.

I have seen photographic evidence which shows my vehicle leaving the dual carriageway at the point of the photo being taken. The camera vehicle was 95 metres away on the westbound carriageway across five carriageways and therefore was 5 carriageways away from me and I was travelling away from the camera leaving the main road.

The officers statement says that he saw my vehicle travelling at a speed which was in his opinion in excess of the legal speed for that vehicle on that road and therefore he activated the camera. He doesn't say which direction my vehicle was travelling indicating random targetting!

I have been provided 3 photographs, all have exactly the same time shown to the second.

The first 2 photo's show no speed, however, the 3rd photo does. This third photo also shows another vehicle that isn't shown in the first 2 photo's, this vehicle is seen to enter the shot behind my vehicle encroaching into the cross hairs of the photograph. The vehicle must have entered the photo shot within the space of less than one second and therefore I wonder if this second vehicle has inadvertently provided the speed reading.

Do I have a chance or should I cop a guilty plea even though I genuinely do not believe that I was doing anything near the speed suggested?

Thanks
Logician
Post the third photo up here, removing identifying features and following the instructions in the FAQs. There are people here who can give you an answer, hopefully.
mariner
Thanks but can't photo's too big and I'm too stupid to work out how to upload it.
BaggieBoy
Your original thread is here. We have a strict one case/one thread policy. Hopefully there will be a mod along soon to merge the two threads.
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.