Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Never recieved 1st NIP(Update)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2, 3
sgl
What a great site biggrin.gif ive been trawling through here for a while now.this is my story.

1. England
2. Lancashire constabulary
3. 21/7/05
4. 31/8/05
5. 1/9/05
6. Yes
7. 1st class
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. Three
11. 48 in a 30

On 22 Aug I recieved a reminder,"Its now 28 days since we sent you a NIP blah di blah,please complete and return."

The thing is  I had not recieved any NIP,the 1st thing I knew about it was the reminder.
I remember the camera,it was a very heavily disguised (Orange lights on top,no signs,no hi viz jacket) mobile unit set up about a half mile further down the road from our local gatso.....I remember thinking,sneaky b`stards got me,but after a few weeks without any contact I had thought maybe they were just setting up and hadnt got it switched on.

After a little research on this site I wrote back.
_________________________________________
23/08/2005

Ref ~ XXXXXXXX



Dear Sir or Madam,
                              I am in receipt today of your correspondence dated 22 August 2005  regarding the NIP you say was sent by your office against myself under  Section 84 Road traffic act 1984. I have certainly not recieved such a notice,either inside or outside of the 14 day ruling. Would it be at all possible for you to furnish me with a copy of this "notice of intended prosecution".

Yours faithfully.

__________________________________________

A few days later by 1st class post I recieved a shiny new NIP dated 31/8/05
which is Forty one days after the alledged offence.I then wrote a 2nd letter by registered post.

__________________________________________

02/09/2005

Ref ~ XXXXXXXX

Dear Sir or Madam,
                              I am in receipt today of your correspondence dated 30 August 2005 thank you very much for the reply.The problem that I still have, is I do not have the copy of the original NIP which would be dated at or less than 14 days after the alleged offence on 21/07/05.The one you have sent to me is dated 31/08/05, which is very much outside the 14 day ruling.If possible,could you please furnish me with a copy of this original NIP.Until I have received this information I am afraid that I can not assist your investigation any further.

Yours faithfully.

_______________________________________

On 9/9/05 (last Friday) I recieved their reply,1st class post.
_______________________________________

Thank you for your recent correspondence.
I can confirm that the original notice was served correctly,however as a gesture of good will please find enclosed a copy of the front of the original notice.

You are required to complete the notice sent to you dated the 31st Augudt 2005 within the next 7 days.Failure to respond will result in a summons being issued against you by the Magistrates` Court for failing to furnish.

Yours faithfully

Manager
Central Process Unit.
________________________________________

So now what? I have drafted my next reply but I dont intend to send it in until seeking advice from you guys.I would fill out the NIP and send it with my letter to avoid a charge of  Failure to Furnish.
This is my reply.
________________________________________

Dear Sirs
 
I acknowledge receipt of a (front only) photo copy of the Notice of Intended Prosecution ref. XXXXXX dated 21/07/2005 and your letter dated 8/09/2005.
 
As stated in my letter of 23/08/2005, I did not receive the notice of intended prosecution that you claim was sent on 21/07/2005  and can only assume that it was lost in the postal system.I am sure you are aware that section 1, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 reqiures a notice of intended prosecution to be served within 14 days.  The first notice you refer to was not served at all and the second notice was not served within 14 days.  Therefore I can not be convicted of the alleged offence.  I repeat that I am willing to give sworn testimony to that effect and I can assure you that I will vigorously defend any charge brought against me.

I trust you will now agree to discontinue your pursuit of this matter.  In the meantime, as requested, I enclose the section 172 response form from the second notice of intended prosecution dated 32/08/2005 giving details of the name of the driver at the time of the alleged offence.

Yours faithfully
_______________________________________
As I said I dont intend to send that one until you chaps give it the once over...or perhaps i have another path to go down.
TIA.
Steve

smile.gif
firefly
Hi Steve,

Your correspondence has been good.  It also looks as though you have a good understanding of the mechanics of the system inasmuch as what the law requires.

Your new letter looks OK.  In addition, I would read this thread.  Also, read this thread, and in particular this post.  

If everything you've said is true, and you make a compelling witness in court, then any prosecution should fail.  Nothing's certain in the magistrates court, though - but you're in very good shape in my opinion.

*EDIT* Fill in the s172 form which nominates the driver.  Even though the speeding charge cannot succeed, a s172 can if you don't name the driver.  Read the threads I linked to.
andy_foster
QUOTE (sgl)
I trust you will now agree to discontinue your pursuit of this matter.  In the meantime, as requested, I enclose the section 172 response form from the second notice of intended prosecution dated 32/08/2005 giving details of the name of the driver at the time of the alleged offence.
sgl
Thanx for that I had an idea I was on the right track,just needed a more experienced pair of eyes to 2nd it for me.Ill take a look at the links you provided. icon_super.gif
Ill keep everyone informed as to how things progress.


QUOTE (firefly)
*EDIT* Fill in the s172 form which nominates the driver.  Even though the speeding charge cannot succeed, a s172 can if you don't name the driver.  Read the threads I linked to.


And I should also sign the 172?

One more thing that comes to mind!
The NIP dated 31/8/05 states that I have the obligatory 28 days to supply my details which will expire on the 27th of this month and yet last Fridays letter cuts it down to only 7
Should I get pedantic with them on the point?


Thanx Andy...I may never have noticed my"Leapyear" typo icon_redface.gif
firefly
QUOTE (sgl)
<...> Should I get pedantic with them on the point?

Nothing to be gained by doing this.  Send it back now, and worry about defending the speeding charge later.  :D  :wink:
andy_foster
QUOTE (sgl)
And I should also sign the 172?


Yes. The judgements in Francis and Broomfield decided that the Chief Officer of Police (or his monkey) are entitled to make reasonable requests as the the manner in which the information is to be provided, and that that includes a reasonable request that the response be signed.
sgl
Will post tomorrow,watch this space.

icon_wink.gif
sgl
Monday morning.......recieved COFP.
Idea`s for the next step if possible.

wink.gif
firefly
QUOTE (sgl)
Monday morning.......recieved COFP.
Idea`s for the next step if possible.

wink.gif

What did you send them?  Was it just the s.172 form nominating yourself as the driver - or did you fill in the rear which asks for a court date?
sgl
Thanx firefly.

Their last letter asked me to fill in and sign the 172 dated 31/8/05 and send it back to them so I did,naming myself as driver and also enclosing this letter and sending it special delivery.

____________________________________________

11/09/2005

Ref:    XXXXXXXXX



Dear Sir/Madam
 
I acknowledge receipt of a (front only) photo copy of the Notice of Intended Prosecution ref. C14925508 dated 21/07/2005 and your letter dated 8/09/2005.
 
As stated in my letter of 23/08/2005, I did not receive the notice of intended prosecution that you claim was sent on 21/07/2005 and can only assume that it was lost in the postal system. I am sure you are aware that section 1, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires a notice of intended prosecution to be served within 14 days.  The first notice you refer to was not served at all and the second notice was not served within 14 days.  Therefore I can not be convicted of the alleged offence.  I repeat that I am willing to give sworn testimony to that effect and I can assure you that I will vigorously defend any charge brought against me.

I trust you will now agree to discontinue your pursuit of this matter.  In the meantime, as requested, I enclose the section 172 response form from the second notice of intended prosecution dated 31/08/2005 giving details of the name of the driver at the time of the alleged offence.

Yours faithfully.

________________________________________________

I have an afidavit made out which I will get signed.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (sgl)
Monday morning.......recieved COFP.
Idea`s for the next step if possible.

Assuming that you still wish to defend the speeding charge on the basis of non-service of the original NIP, do nothing.
sgl
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
Assuming that you still wish to defend the speeding charge on the basis of non-service of the original NIP, do nothing.

Thats exactly what I want to do.
So i wait for the summons?
firefly
Yup.
sgl
I have to wait another 28 days for the next round?
Ho-Hum!


Ill be back!!

wink.gif
sgl
Another letter from them this morning.

16 September 2005
Ref: XXXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above notice.

According to Section 1 of the RTOA 1998 the 1st notice has to be "served" on the registered keeper within the 14 days and not RECEIVED within this time. We can prove to a court if neccessary that this was the case regarding this ticket. The notice is served by 1st class post and once posted is deemed served.therefore the notice still stands.

If you wish to dispute this matter you have the option to elect a court hearing.

Yours Faithfully
V.SmallPenis.

Central Process Unit.
BikerPaul
QUOTE (sgl)
The notice is served by 1st class post and once posted is deemed served


It's deemed served after the "postal delivery" period is over. IF they post it on day 14, it isn't served. There is case law on this - Nicholson v Tapp [1972] W.L.R. 1044.

Moreover, you can stil rebut service if you swear under oath it was not received.
firefly
QUOTE (Thick Scuffer)
<...>  
According to Section 1 of the RTOA 1998 the 1st notice has to be "served" on the registered keeper within the 14 days and not RECIEVED within this time. We can prove to a court if neccessary that this was the case regarding this ticket. The notice is served by 1st class post and once posted is deemed served.therefore the notice still stands.

rolleyes.gif  Maybe someone should write to them and explain that since the Interpretation Act 1978 applies, 'served' and 'received' are one in the same.
sgl
Oh I do intend to swear under oath!!
Should I still wait for the summons or can I SLAP them around with something else first?
Just a little.
Can I,can I??

wink.gif
Observer
QUOTE (sgl)
Oh I do intend to swear under oath!!
Should I still wait for the summons or can I SLAP them around with something else first?
Just a little.
Can I,can I??

wink.gif


By all means indulge yourself but it's unlikely to make any difference.

If you do decide to surrender to temptation, try asking them, if a NIP once posted is deemed served, what purpose is served by subsection (2) of s.1 RTOA:

QUOTE
(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.


Apart from the clear distinction drawn between posting and receipt, this provision would be entirely redundant if a NIP sent by first class post was, in law, deemed served by reason of the fact that it was posted.
sgl
Hmmm??????...scratches head rolleyes.gif

So section 2 sort of contradicts section 1?
Or should both be quoted together.......are they cherry picking the parts of the act that are more convenient to their case? or does the fact that they didnt send by Registered/Recorded delivery scupper their last statment?

Im only a mere flooring contractor :?

Edit:

According to Section 1 of the RTOA 1998 the 1st notice has to be "served" on the registered keeper within the 14 days and not RECEIVED within this time
Show me that exact wording because I cant find it anywhere.

And many thanx for your input guy`s. icon_super.gif
DW190
QUOTE (sgl)
Hmmm??????...scratches head rolleyes.gif

So section 2 sort of contradicts section 1?
Or should both be quoted together.......are they cherry picking the parts of the act that are more convenient to their case? or does the fact that they didnt send by Registered/Recorded delivery scupper their last statment?

Im only a mere flooring contractor :?

Edit:

According to Section 1 of the RTOA 1998 the 1st notice has to be "served" on the registered keeper within the 14 days and not RECEIVED within this time
Show me that exact wording because I cant find it anywhere.

And many thanx for your input guy`s. icon_super.gif


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga...880053_en_1.htm
Observer
QUOTE (sgl)
Hmmm??????...scratches head rolleyes.gif

So section 2 sort of contradicts section 1?
Or should both be quoted together.......are they cherry picking the parts of the act that are more convenient to their case? or does the fact that they didnt send by Registered/Recorded delivery scupper their last statment?

Im only a mere flooring contractor :?

Edit:

According to Section 1 of the RTOA 1998 the 1st notice has to be "served" on the registered keeper within the 14 days and not RECEIVED within this time
Show me that exact wording because I cant find it anywhere.

And many thanx for your input guy`s. icon_super.gif



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

1.—(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.


amended by:
QUOTE (Schedule 9 CJPO 1994)
Service of documents by first class post
        6.—(3) In section 1 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (which requires warning of prosecution for certain offences to be given), after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection—  "(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person—
(a) by delivering it to him;
(B) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or
© by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.


So if NIP is sent by first class post, ss.1(3) applies - the requirements of ss.(1) shall be deemed to be complied with until the contrary is proved (the 'proof', in your case, being your sworn testimony of non-receipt).  If sent by registered/recorded post, the NIP is deemed served even if it wasn't.

Hope that's clear.
firefly
Just to add to Observer's post, and to put it into the most basic of spear-chucker's terms ( icon_wink.gif ):

If a NIP is sent out by first class post, then it is presumed to have arrived at its destination.  The only realistic way you can refute this assumption is to swear, under oath, that you didn't receive it ("until the contrary is proved").  

The scammers will threaten and bully you into believing you've no chance, but the fact of the matter is that they can't prove the NIP arrived.  As already mentioned, they have the option of assuring service by sending the notices out by "signed for" delivery, but choose not to do so.
sgl
Can you explain a little better?


Just kidding laugh.gif Once the Bull***t is descrambled all
becomes clear.

Thanx fella`s......ill keep you posted.

wink.gif
Barking Mad
This is just my two-pennies worth (I am currently waiting to see whether they will infact prosecute me for speeding or not in similar circumstances {ie No original NIP} {and still getting bluff and bluster letters}).

If they take me to court, I intend to recount the Act to the bench and "the learn-ed representative from the CPS"...

If the law was meant to say sent it would say sent, not served!!!!

They all want to sit there and write condescending letters quoting the excesses of the punishments possible by Law? Well who are any of them to second-guess the intentions of Parliament??

And having established that send and serve do mean different things, I intend to make great deal of noise about The defence not being responsible for the prosecution's failures which are of their own making Do these modern-day highwaymen not make enough money to be able to afford recorded delivery? Are they somehow excluded by law from using this service? Or has 'civilisation' and something beyond "Pony Express" not yet come to their attention?

IMHO, Surely, It is entirely their fault that they chose not to use recorded or registered post. The fact that without it they can not prove an item of mail was ever received (or even sent in the first place) is their problem. It is for the prosecution to prove its case, not the defence.

I reckon that they have factored in 'losing' the odd one in a thousand or so foregoing the £60 that goes with it rather than paying 65 pence a time on all of them. It also gives any one of them the excuse and practice to pen extremely offensive and abrasive letters.

But this is supposed to be a 'Police Service'!

Personally, I have discovered a very, very strong 'protest' streak within me over all this. But I will wait until my own case is over or times-out before I set about publishing my newly formed opinions on matters
firefly
QUOTE (Barking Mad)
And having established that send and serve do mean different things, I intend to make great deal of noise about The defence not being responsible for the prosecution's failures which are of their own making

I admire your pluck, but I'd be wary of over-egging the pudding.  Make your point, but do it with a "wounded soldier" type expression rather than a "Kavannagh QC" look of disdain.

QUOTE (Barking Mad)
Do these modern-day highwaymen not make enough money to be able to afford recorded delivery? Are they somehow excluded by law from using this service? Or has 'civilisation' and something beyond "Pony Express" not yet come to their attention?

IMHO, Surely, It is entirely their fault that they chose not to use recorded or registered post. The fact that without it they can not prove an item of mail was ever received (or even sent in the first place) is their problem. It is for the prosecution to prove its case, not the defence.

Quite: although it is not for the prosecution to prove its case.  Remember, the requirement is deemed to have been complied with "unless and until the contrary is proved".  In a nutshell, you have to prove you didn't receive it.

QUOTE (Barking Mad)
I reckon that they have factored in 'losing' the odd one in a thousand or so foregoing the £60 that goes with it rather than paying 65 pence a time on all of them. It also gives any one of them the excuse and practice to pen extremely offensive and abrasive letters.

I think you're "more right" than you could possibly imagine.  :D
sgl
Keep us updated Barking............and good luck to you.
I still await their next step.
icon_twisted.gif  :D  :lol:
sgl
This arrived today from the Central Process Unit.


14th October 2005
Ref: XXXXXXX

Reminder

21/07/2005
Dear Sir/Madam
It is now 28 days since you were sent a COFP relating to the above alledged offence.The legal requirement is that you should either return the tear off slip below within 28 days,or elect a court hearing.

To date,we have not received your payment,if you have made payment since the above date then you should ignore this letter.If you have not paid and wish to finalise the matter under the fixed penalty system.you should return the slip with your payment of £60.00 and your full driving licence to `Her Majesty`s Courts Service,withinn seven days of the date of this letter.Alternatively,you can elect a court hearing.

Failure to respond will result in the matter proceeding to court;after which time no further discussion or correspondence can be entered into and you will hear directly from the Magistrates`Court in due course.

Manager
Central Process Unit.


Whats my response?

wink.gif
andy_foster
QUOTE (Some f***tard)
Dear Sir/Madam
It is now 28 days since you were sent a COFP relating to the above alledged offence.The legal requirement is that you should either return the tear off slip below within 28 days,or elect a court hearing


Is that so?

QUOTE (sgl)
Whats my response?


Where to start...
jeffreyarcher
That'll just be an automated reminder because they haven't got their dosh within the 28 days.
Either ignore it, or you could write another letter re-iterating non-receipt of the original NIP.
Writing probably won't make any difference, but you never know.
sgl
Nice one thanks guys.
If or when it does get to court,wont the fact that the only completed NIP they have is dated some 40 days or so after the alledged offence,be in my favour?
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (sgl)
If or when it does get to court,wont the fact that the only completed NIP they have is dated some 40 days or so after the alledged offence,be in my favour?

Not in itself, no. After all, if you were going to fabricate a story about not receiving the fist NIP, you wouldn't fill it in and return it, would you? rolleyes.gif
sgl
QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
Not in itself, no. After all, if you were going to fabricate a story about not receiving the fist NIP, you wouldn't fill it in and return it, would you? rolleyes.gif

Heaven forbid! rolleyes.gif  :shock:
sgl
Lets see if i can post this image.....its of the actual scamera van that got me.

Very well disguised,un-marked with yellow roof lights.Could be any old contractors van.Do they think its more dangerous to park a van on a narrow road forcing other road users on to the opposite side........or to drive safely a few MPH over the limit.
knob.gif
sgl
Moved
sgl
TIA.

 :D
Lance
New case? New thread!
sgl
Cheers Lance,I had thought it maybe better to stick to this one for convenience.

Its now moved to a new thread.


wink.gif
sgl
Recieved Summons bundle this morning! Court date is 12th April.
Should I scan and post the bumf?
icon_hang.gif
sgl
biggrin.gif laugh.gif cool.gif wink.gif
firefly
They've obviously given you their records that shows the sequencial order of correspondence etc. Fine, except for the fact that they can't prove the NIP was served. Sure, it was sent - no problem. But where in their bundle does it say it was received? It doesn't.

I'm only sorry you're so far away, as I'd love to have come up and seen this one. Perhaps cjm99 will oblige?

Anyway, I'm prepared to put money on the CPS dropping it before full trial. I just can't see how a prosecution can succeed.
Mika
QUOTE (firefly @ Thu, 23 Mar 2006 - 13:42) *
They've obviously given you their records that shows the sequencial order of correspondence etc. Fine, except for the fact that they can't prove the NIP was served. Sure, it was sent - no problem. But where in their bundle does it say it was received? It doesn't.


Perhaps we should consider moving this thread. ninja.gif
sgl
QUOTE (Mika @ Thu, 23 Mar 2006 - 14:27) *
QUOTE (firefly @ Thu, 23 Mar 2006 - 13:42) *

They've obviously given you their records that shows the sequencial order of correspondence etc. Fine, except for the fact that they can't prove the NIP was served. Sure, it was sent - no problem. But where in their bundle does it say it was received? It doesn't.


Perhaps we should consider moving this thread. ninja.gif



Probably a good idea Mika.

Why the hell has it took them so long to send the bundle?
The information was laid on the 18/01/06
The summons is dated 19/01/06
I have my afidavit all ready if anyone cares to give it the once over.

happy.gif
sgl
What I do now is fill in and send off their plea form (N.G)
Do I really need to fill out the none of their business means form?
Or send in my driving licence?

What I want to do is just fill in the plea form enclosing a letter reiterating
the fact that I have no doubt that they sent the 1st NIP but my argument is that it was never recieved.

Steve
wink.gif
firefly
I've moved this to a more secure place.

Fill out the forms, though it is a bind. Along with your not guilty plea, I'd be tempted to submit a copy of your affidavit. Can't do any harm.
sgl
And do I have to send in my licence?

wink.gif
cjm99
QUOTE
send in my licence?




No.. But you must take it with you on the day of trial.
sgl
Thanx Chris.

wink.gif

Steve
Mika
Steve,

This should be fun.

1) This statement is compete nonsense. The LTi 20-20/Lastec does not have an “automatic mode”. The statement is probably an attempt to disguise the fact that a civilian was operating the device but, as a result, there is no primary opinion evidence, from a police officer, of excess speed – the LTi 20-20 is only type approved to corroborate the prior opinion of a police officer.

2) If you are going to run the non-service of the NIP argument, you will need to take care during your trial. We are looking for someone to take this to the High Court – Firefly volunteered but they dropped his case. When you run the argument, you will need to request a voir dire and ask the magistrates to provide their interpretation of the law. The trial will probably go something like this one and, if they decide to accept your evidence, they should go on to decide that there is no case to answer. However, if the Crown successfully argues that proof of posting is proof of service, then that is what needs to be appealed to the High Court.

If you’re up for it let me know and I will also let you have the civilian operator questions for the High Court but I want to be present when they read them. wink.gif
SeldomSeen
Guys

The reg number of the car is visible in the statement referred to in para 1) of Mika's post.

A bit more editing may be needed.

Sorry my first post has to be negative sad.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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.