Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: NIP--Reminder (oriniginal NIP not received)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
crashbang
1. England
2. metropolitan police
3. 5th Oct 2005.
4.date of NIP -Reminder 8th Nov 2005.(This is the first correspondence I have received although it says NIP-Reminder)
5. NIP-Reminder received 11th Nov 2005
6. Yes
7. NIP-Reminder sent 2nd Class.
8.Yes
9. U.K.
10.0
11.  I have no knowledge of the alleged offence.The NIP-Reminder states that proceedings contemplated. Does not list offence only the whereabouts and time.

It is apparent that I have been sent a NIP which I did not receive.  I have received an NIP-Reminder which is more than 14 days since the alleged offence and the reminder was sent 2nd class.  The reminder states that I need to furnish info of driver within 28 days.  
However I don't know what the alleged offence was(NIP-Reminder does not state alleged offence) and don't know who was driving that day without seeing evidence.
What do I do next? Do I ask for a copy of original NIP?  Are the police out of time regardless of alleged offence since I did not receive original NIP?
What shoulld I say in my letter?
Please help !!!
Crashbang
icon_twisted.gif
firefly
Hi crashbang,

A good place to start is this thread.  Once you've digested that then you'll be in a better position to consider your next move.

Post back once you have.
crashbang
Hi Firefly
Very good and informative thread/link, thank you, but it has raised some questions and I'm a bit confused.
1. I THINK that the form I have been sent is a NIP as it says
"NIP-Reminder"
it says that failure to respond to this form will render me liable to prosecution and the parts to fill out are on the reverse of this form.  
Is this an official NIP or just a reminder letter?
However this NIP-Reminder does not state what the alleged offence was.

2. Why does it not state what the alleged offence was.
As I did not receive the first NIP how can i respond without knowing what the alleged offence was?

3.Should I write back and ask for a copy of the original NIP and state also that they are out of time.
OR should I write back and ask for copy of original and if they send me one THEN write back and say they are out of time?

4.At what point do I inform the police that I don't know who was driving and would like to see evidence in order to find out who was--if at all.(I know that your advice ff and also Observer recommend not mixing defences/issues, but this is the genuine situation)
Any clear advice and how to word letter very much appreciated as I feel a bit out of my depth here.(obviously why so many people end up complying to everything asked of them)
Thanx
Crashbang
firefly
I've modified Observer's letter from rager's thread:

QUOTE
Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Notice of Intended Prosecution reference XXXX ("NIP")

I refer to your recent letter dated ** ******** 2005.

I have to inform you that I did not receive the original NIP that you assert was issued to me, and can only assume that it was lost in the postal system. If you wish to send a replacement, I will of course endeavour to comply promptly with the obligations placed on me by law. However, I should point out that any replacement notice now served on me will fail to satisfy the requirement stated in section 1, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

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•
......................
© 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•
..................
(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.


I am willing to give sworn evidence to that effect, if needed.

However, in order to nominate said driver I would be grateful if you could (a) furnish a replacement NIP which gives details of the alleged offence, and ( B) provide photographic evidence so that the driver at the time of the alleged offence may be ascertained, as myself and the other possible driver cannot come to any definative conclusions as to who may have been in charge of the vehicle at the time.

I look forward to receiving the photographic evidence at your earliest convenience, and confirmation that no further action will be taking with regards to the substantive charge that the replacement NIP will show and potential driver may face.

Yours faithfully,
crashbang
Dear Firefly
Thank you very much for that it's very helpful.
Sorry to be so dim but should I wait as long as possible before I send this lettew back
i.e. close to the 28 day limit mentioned on the NIP-reminder or send it now?
cheers
Crashbang
firefly
Given the circumstances, I'd be tempted to do it sooner rather than later.  If you didn't receive the NIP then any further prosecution is bound to fail, providing you are prepared to testify as much under oath.
crashbang
thanx- I know that there is no science to this and I need to make my own  decision but your experience is greater than mine and much appreciated.
I didn't receive the NIP and am prepared to swear that under oath.

Last question is: do I have to comply with the S172 within the 28 days stated on the NIP- Reminder or will I have 28 from the date of the replacement NIP to comply.
It is my assumption that because I don't actually know what the alleged offence is yet, I should have 28 days from when I have alll the information available i.e. from the date of the replacement NIP.
What do you think?
Crashbang[/quote]
andy_foster
Does the reminder state when/where the alleged offence occurred?

If the prosecution in a speeding case can produce evidence that a NIP was posted in good time, the defence of non-service would rely on your credibility as a witness. The more obstructive you appear to have been, the less the court will believe you.
crashbang
Hi Andy
The reminder states where and when but not what the alleged offence is.
I don't even know if the alleged offence is speeding.
I am therefore not being obstructive just want to be treated justly.  Meaning that I want the full 28 days to comply from the time I have all the relevant information at my disposal which I do not have at the moment.
Crashbang
andy_foster
A NIP must specify the nature of the offence.
AFAIK an s.172 request does not need to. Do you know who was driving at the time/place specified?
crashbang
the first and only thing i have received is NIP-Reminder
which does not state offence.  I don't know who was driving that day etc, I need to see evidence to ascertain that.
I am going to write letter as per firefly recommends and see what happens.
Crashbang
firefly
QUOTE (andy_foster)
A NIP must specify the nature of the offence.
AFAIK an s.172 request does not need to. Do you know who was driving at the time/place specified?

If it were me, I would refuse to give any information until I knew the offence I was alleged to have committed.  In my view it's not reasonable to request such information where no charge is specified.
crashbang
Hi Firefly
that is my point exactly
I am going to write the letter as per your advice and go from there.
I need to know what the driever of my car is being accused of before I can respond.  I will post the body of the letter I send at the time I do it.
until then thank you
crashbang
crashbang
this is the letter i am intending to send to the Metropolitan Police
Dear Sirs
Re Notice of Intended Prosecution Reminder
Your ref:*********************
I refer to your recent letter dated 08/11/05.
I was very confused and shocked to receive this reminder letter as I have not received anything else in relation to this matter.
I have not received what must be an original NIP. In your reminder letter the alleged offence is not stated and I therefore have no knowledge of what this is all about or what the driver is alleged to have done. Please therefore send me a replacement NIP so that I can ascertain what this is all about.
Please also send me the technical and photographic evidence which you mention in the reminder letter.
Once I have received this I will endeavour to comply with the obligations placed on me by law. Im sure that you will agree that because I dont know what the alleged offence is and am not sure who the driver was at the date,time and place mentioned that I am unable to comply with the request in your reminder letter to furnish the name and address of the driver on this date and the time specified within the 28 days you mention.

I have been informed that any replacement Notice of Intended Prosecution sent to me will fail to satisfy the requirement stated in section 1, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

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
......................
© 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
..................
(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.

I am willing to give sworn evidence to that effect, if needed.
I look forward to receiving everything I have requested at your earliest convenience and confirmation that no further action will be taken in regards to the substantive charge that the replacement NIP will show.
Yours Sincerely
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (andy_foster)
AFAIK an s.172 request does not need to.

As I read it, there must be an allegation of an offence to which the section applies (Pulton v Leader).
QUOTE (JUDGMENTBY-1: LORD GODDARD @ C.J.)
That, however, is not provided for by the statute which only requires the police to allege that an offence under the Road Traffic Act has been committed by a driver. Once they allege that, they are entitled to ask anybody who they think can give them information to tell them who the driver was.

Also Jacob v Garland (members only).
QUOTE (Lord Widgery CJ)
So the notice has only, in my judgment, to say: it is alleged that the driver of vehicle number so-and-so was guilty of the offence such-and-such at a given point;


Is there perhaps merit here in crash bang not responding at all?
The second S172 notice is defective as there is no allegation, and the first notice wasn't received.
crashbang
Hello
I have had a reply from the met to my letter posted above.
It is another NIP-Reminder.  It still does not state the nature of the offence but it came with the photographic evidence I asked for which  shows a photo of my car which has the speeding info on it.  Also a cover letter which reads.

QUOTE
I refer to your letter received on 16th November 2005.
In view of your comments, I have checked my records and they show that the original NIP was despatched to the last known Registerd Keeper of the vehichle recorded at the DVLA.  This was done by first class post within 14 days of the alleged offence according to the time linitts allowed in the legislation.  The Road Traffic act was ammended in 1991 to allow first class post to be used for this purpose.
In the circunmstances therefore the police are satisfied that the matter has been dealt with according to requirements of the legislation. A final notice requesting the name and address of the driver at the time of the alleged offence is enclosed.
yours etc.


Any ideas what to do next?  
Are the Met obliged to have stated the nature of the offence on the NIP reminder I first received and the consequent one just received?
Do I write back and reiterate that i didn't receive their first NIP and that they are beyond the 14 days?  If I do should I fill in the NIP or send a PACE?  Bearing in mind that I can't recognise the driver and don't know who was driving.
All help much appreciated.
Crashbang icon_twisted.gif Merry Christmas.
The Rookie
I would suggest you be reasonable, use the format given before, add that you assume the alleged offence is speeding and name the driver at the time, but use the letter to emphasise that no valid NIP has yet been recieved and you are merely complying with the S172 'request' (dubious manner that it has been made aside), as has been said before, challenging a non-delivered NIP in court relies on your credability in the witnes box to stand up and say you never recieved it, so being obstructive and obtuous could come back to haunt you in court!

Simon
crashbang
Thanx Rookie.
Is it the law that a NIP should have the offence listed on it?  
In the letter I write back should I remind them that i didn't receive the first NIP and that the NIP reminders has no offence listed?  How strong should the letter be?  
Best
Crashbang :?
kent neil
the RTOA 1988 SAYS:

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.


So YES is the answer! It should tell you what the offence is!
andy_foster
QUOTE (crashbang)
Is it the law that a NIP should have the offence listed on it?  
In the letter I write back should I remind them that i didn't receive the first NIP and that the NIP reminders has no offence listed?  How strong should the letter be?


The law requires that (subject to certain exceptions) a NIP detailing the nature, location and time/date of the alleged offence is served on the RK or driver within 14 days.
This requirement is either met or it isn't.
There is no legal requirement for subsequent NIPs to be served, so the content of any such notices is not governed by statute.

The fact that the reminder NIP didn't state the nature of the allegation is IMHO neither here nor there. The fact that a NIP was not served on the driver or RK within the 14 days (assuming that the court accept that fact), should prevent any conviction for speeding.

N.B. IMHO, the requirement to supply the driver's details is separate to the alleged speeding offence.
crashbang
Thank you all for your help.
I have just noticed a slight difference in the Mets ref # on my two NIP reminders and the covering letter which came with the 2nd NIP reminder.
1st NIP reminder-----ref # ends /0080O1
2nd NIP reminder-----ref # ends/0080
covering letter---------ref # ends/0800O1

the 2nd NIP reminder does not end in O1 as the first one does.
Is this relevant at all?
thanx
Crashbang icon_twisted.gif
crashbang
I have drafted a response to the 2nd NIP reminder, the covering letter and the photos recently sent to me.
Any suggestions of better wording, whether I should make or take out different points would be gratefully received.
QUOTE
Dear Sirs
Re: Notice of Intended Prosecution- Reminder.
Your ref: ************
I refer to the receipt of the above(2nd) reminder and enclosed letter dated 20/12/05 and photographic evidence which I had requested as it was mentioned in the first Notice of Intended Prosecution- Reminder which I received.
Having seen the photos and the information on them I assume that the alleged offence is speeding. As I have already stated in my previous letter, the first Notice of Intended Prosecution-Reminder did not state the alleged offence, nor does the second reminder and I did not receive what must have been the original Notice of Intended Prosecution.
I have not therefore received any official or valid Notice of Intended Prosecution.  I have not been informed of the alleged offence and believe it is my right to know what the alleged offence is.
I am trying to comply with my obligations under law and the S172 request; although I find it strange that I am being asked to supply any information about anything without knowing what the alleged offence was.
I was driving on the stated date and time.
5th Oct 2005 at 9:35 am.
Yours Sincerely
***************

As i am supplying the information to S172 in this letter, does it make this a PACE letter?
Cheers
Crashbang
The Rookie
It does not make it a PACE witness statement, but as you have an absolute defence to the charge, it is neither required or could reasonably be argued to be desirable. (no need to look like a smart alec, which may look like you would do anything to get off!)

After the bit when you add that you were driving you may as well add your driver details, nothing to be lost by doing so.

Simon
crashbang
Thanx Rookie
Should I send back the NIP reminder with the letter?  I read in another thread that if one is making a PACE witness statement( i'm not sending PACE)one should send back NIP saying "Please see attached"
What do you think?
Cheers
Crashbang
crashbang

blush.gif
please advise on above --do I have to return the NIP reminder signed as I am the driver or is it satisfactory to give all my details in a letter and not send back the NIP reminder>?
Crashbang
andy_foster
Dr Jones (of Jones v DPP fame) wrote "see attached" (or similar) on his s.172 form and attached a signed letter which provided the relevant details (as far as he could). This is the authority that we do not need to use the form provided. I don't see that attaching the form to your letter makes much difference, but that's what Dr Jones did, and as they say - if it ain't broke...
crashbang
thanx andy
I've decided to send the letter without the form. Do you think my letter is saqtisfactory or should I reiterate that I didn't recieve the original NIP and that therefore I should not be prosecuted.
Cheers
Crashbang
andy_foster
crashbang,

What exactly does the NIP reminder (or any subsequent correspondance say regarding the alleged offence?
Have you received an allegation that the driver of that vehicle on that occaision was guilty of an offence at all?

IMHO, Jacob v Garland is contradictory - Widgery LJ considers that a request for the driver's details should specify the alleged offence (Pulton v Leader says it is sufficient to alledge that an offence to which that section applies) but does not appear to dispute the decision in Pulton v Leader.
crashbang
Dear Andy
Here is a copy of the the first NIP reminder. The 2nd reminder was worded exactly the same.


Dear Andy
Here is a copy of the the first NIP reminder. The 2nd reminder was worded exactly the same.
Click to view attachment
As both NIPs say
"for an alleged offence of on 05 etc etc"
I believe that I have not been informed of the alleged offence.
Thanx in advance.
Crashbang
andy_foster
QUOTE (crashbang @ Jan 5 2006, 12:34 PM) *
Dear Andy
Here is a copy of the the first NIP reminder. The 2nd reminder was worded exactly the same.


Dear Andy
Here is a copy of the the first NIP reminder. The 2nd reminder was worded exactly the same.
Click to view attachment
As both NIPs say
"for an alleged offence of on 05 etc etc"
I believe that I have not been informed of the alleged offence.
Thanx in advance.
Crashbang


In Jacob v Garland (mistakenly IMHO, but in law my opinions are worth somewhat less than those of a Law Lord sitting in the Divisional Court) it was ruled that the s.172 request must specify the alleged offence.
In Pulton v Leader (many years before Jacob v Garland), it was ruled that it was sufficient to allege that an offence to which that section applied had been committed.

In your case, there has only been an allegation of an offence - which is not sufficient to make the requirement valid.
That's the point of law taken care of, but we still have a potential matter of fact to contend with.

If the original NIP was not defective, then the requirement under s.172 would have been valid - if it had been served.
The failure to serve the original NIP within the 14 days - if proven by the accused in a speeding trial - would act as a bar to conviction for that offence. However, if the court decided as fact that the NIP was served (they didn't believe the defendant) the legal point would be moot.
If the court in an s.172 trial decided as fact that the original notice of requirement to provide the driver's details was both served and complete (they didn't believe the defendant, and the prosecution presented a copy of a valid notice (with an offence specified)), then the defendant would be convicted of failing to supply the driver's details.

There is a reverse burden of proof regarding the service of the NIP - which does not necessarily apply to the service of the s.172 request contained within the same document.
If the prosecution present a copy of a valid/complete notice - then the court's decision of fact as to whether or not the notice was served is crucial.
crashbang
Thank You Andy----any recommendations on what to do next. Should I send the letter with my driver details to avoid any possibility of being pulled up for not supplying?
Crashbang.
andy_foster
If you don't supply the driver's details, you will probably be summoned for s.172.
If you do supply the driver's details, it seems likely that you will be summoned for speeding (assuming that you ignore any COFPs).

For either charge, if the original NIP was identical to the reminders, it is defective, and the charge (whichever it is) should fail.
If the prosecution can produce a copy of a valid notice, the defence (subject to any other flaws in the prosecution case) would rely on the court accepting that the original NIP was not served.

Basically, the defence relies on the same points for either charge.
Without knowing what the substantive allegation is, it is impossible to say which charge would carry the heavier penalty if convicted.
If it's likely to be a minor speeding allegation, it is probably safer to provide the details.
If it's likely to be a serious speeding allegation, it may be safer to face the s.172 charge.

IMHO, the s.172 defence of no notification of an allegation of an offence to which s.172 applies, is far more technical than the failure to serve a NIP within 14 days - and your credibility (stating on oath that you didn't receive the original notice) can be affected by technical defences.

If it was me, I'd stick to my guns and refuse to comply with an unlawful s.172 requirement - but my best advice would probably be to provide the details.
The Rookie
This is where I have to respectfully disagree with Andy, when you get to court to give sworn evidence that you did not recieve a Valid NIP you have to be believeable, and therefore I believe that giving the drivers details, whilst not strictly relevant or required, if I were a mag, would make the person more creditable. The thing to do is to put yourself in the Mags position, do you believe the person who is open and 'honest', or the one who appears to know all the points of law and therefore may realise that they could swear under oath to not recieving the NIP (even if they had - which I am not suggesting) and 'get away with it'?

In his case its not the 'law' that will determine a guilty verdict, but the Mag's believing your assertion that no NIP was recieved!

Simon
andy_foster
QUOTE (andy_foster)
IMHO, the s.172 defence of no notification of an allegation of an offence to which s.172 applies, is far more technical than the failure to serve a NIP within 14 days - and your credibility (stating on oath that you didn't receive the original notice) can be affected by technical defences.


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Jan 6 2006, 06:09 AM) *
This is where I have to respectfully disagree with Andy, when you get to court to give sworn evidence that you did not recieve a Valid NIP you have to be believeable, and therefore I believe that giving the drivers details, whilst not strictly relevant or required, if I were a mag, would make the person more creditable. The thing to do is to put yourself in the Mags position, do you believe the person who is open and 'honest', or the one who appears to know all the points of law and therefore may realise that they could swear under oath to not recieving the NIP (even if they had - which I am not suggesting) and 'get away with it'?

In his case its not the 'law' that will determine a guilty verdict, but the Mag's believing your assertion that no NIP was recieved!


In what way are you disagreeing with me? Explained better I accept, but the advice is essentially the same.
crashbang
I have just received a letter from the Met along with a copy of the original NIP(first time I've seen it) and they have ignored the fact that I have told them i hadn't received the original in my previous 2 letters. Thanx to all the advice I've received from experts on this forum I pretty much know what my response letter will contain as regards to this issue.
However please look at the copy of the original NIP(below) which they have just sent me. It doesn't seem to me to have listed the offence.(Niether of the 2 NIP reminders listed the alleged offence either.)

Should i reply bringing up the original point that i didn't receive the original etc etc..... and follow that point with the point that the original NIP(copy) is also defective as it does not list alleged offence. If the answer is yes what part of law is the defective NIP related to?
Thank you in advance
Sincerely
Crash bang
Click to view attachment
crashbang
This is the letter I am intending to send back to the Met. Any suggestions on improving it would be gratefully received.
Thanx
Crashbang

"January 12, 2006
Dear Sirs Ref:
I have just received your letter dated10th January and a copy of Notice of Intended prosecution dated 7 Oct 2005, the first time I have seen it.
As I have stated very clearly in my previous two letters to you, I did not receive this Original Notice. My best assumption would be that it got lost in the postal system. Royal Mail admit to losing up to 52 million letters a year.
The Notice of Intended Prosecution reminders which you sent me failed to satisfy the requirement stated in section 1, Road Traffic Offenders act 1988.
“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—
......................
© 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—
..................
(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. “

I would also like point out that none of the Notice of Intended Prosecution forms you have sent me specify the nature of the alleged offence as required in section © above.
Therefore I cannot be convicted.
This evidence speaks for itself and I am willing to give sworn testimony in court and will vigorously defend any charge brought against me .

I trust you will now agree to discontinue your pursuit of this matter.
Yours Sincerely
firefly
Your letter is, in essence, OK - but have a look at this one before you send it away.

QUOTE
January 12, 2006

Dear Sirs

Ref: ********

I have just received your letter dated 10th January and a copy of Notice of Intended prosecution dated 7 Oct 2005, the first time I have seen it.

As I have stated very clearly in my previous two letters to you, I did not receive this original notice. My best assumption would be that it has been misplaced en route to my address.

As you are no doubt aware, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA) requires that a NIP is sent out to the registered keeper of a vehicle that has been involved in an alleged offence, within 14-days. In addition to this, in the copy NIP (dated 7 October), which you claim was sent to me shortly thereafter, it is apparent that you have failed to specify the nature of the alleged offence. The notice reads; "...for an alleged offence of [space] on 5-OCT-05...".

I am compelled to remind you that the requirements of section 1 of the RTOA are for a NIP to specify "the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed" [my bold].

In conclusion, it would appear that the RTOA has not been satisfied on two critical occasions with regards to the service of the NIP. It would appear, therefore, that the substantive charge of speeding has no prospect of succes, and I would respectfully invite you to drop the charge.

Yours etc
crashbang
Firefly
Thank you for that --it reads more succinctly than mine and I will amend my letter to that effect.
much appreciated
Crashbang
crashbang
I have sent off my letter to the Met pretty much as above(see Firelfly's excellent version). When I got home i had received a CoFP.
What do I do now?
Should I ignore the CoFP and see if I get a reply to my letter from the Met?
Cheers
Crashbang.
firefly
They're trying it on.

You have a very strong case, and if I were you I would be ignoring the COFP and awaiting the scammer's next move: if there is one. wink.gif
crashbang
QUOTE (firefly @ Tue, 17 Jan 2006 - 08:11) *
They're trying it on.

to be fair- the Met sent out the CoFP before they would have received my last letter. So the CoFP is the course of action they said they were going to take in their last letter to me. Albeit that in my first 2 letters they have ignored the fact that i didn't receive the original NIP.
Crashbang icon_cheers.gif
crashbang
Well Well Well. Here is the letter i've jsut received form the Met.
Click to view attachment

They are repeating themselves --i really want to have a go at them and let them know that i think that this is a vexatious(?) and malicious case as I didn't recieve the original NIP and also they have never specified the alleged offence in any of the NIP reminders or the copy of the original.
I would also like to let them know that i will be wanting costs. My daily fee for photography or consultancy is £1000. I want to charge that if i have to take a day off for court. What sort of letter should I write? What should I say?
All help appreciated
Crashbang
firefly
Hi cb,

Classic horsesh!t from scammer central. Most people capitulate and throw in the towel when faced with such bare-faced lies, but you've got an extremely persuasive case and I would be tempted to do sod-all and let them make the next move.

What you have to remember is that they aren't interested in justice. All they want is £60, and in order to get it, they're prepared to say almost anything to make you give them it.

It never fails to infuriate me that the police are allowed to print such scaremongering threats.

Oh, and if it goes to court (providing it's in London) then you'll have at least one person there helping you. wink.gif

I'll bet 10 Scottish pounds that it doesn't...
crashbang
hi Firefly
I'd just like to vent a bit at them. Or if I was to write saying that I intend to charge a full days fee and that I think they are wasting taxpayers money in the face of my not receiving the original NIP and in the face of the mistake that they have made by not stating the alleged offence--if it did go to court I could show the magistrate that I had even warned them of their folly and that i would ask for costs lost wages etc etc. Obviously I'm not going to do anything to jeopardise my case - but have you ever written to scammers and given them some stick so to speak?
Crashbang
crashbang
well hello there--its been a while 'cos i haven't heard anything from the met. I have not been sent a court date or anything since my last post.(see above)
It is now 6 months since the alleged offence took place on 5th October 2005. Does this mean that my case has now timed out? If so I would like to thank everyone who has read my case and helped out on this site. It is a great place for advice and i will be donating to the site.
Many thanx and to anyone who has been "scammed" DONT GIVE UP.
Crashbang rolleyes.gif
andy_foster
The 6 months is for them to lay an information for a summons to be issued. The summons might not be served immediately, but AFAIK only Humberside backdate them this much serve them this late - so it's fair to sday that you're probably in the clear.
Barking Mad
Hi there,

Re the 6 month rule:

My date of 'offence' - 10 April 2005

'Time out' date supposedly 9 October 2005

2 summonses received 22 October 2005 by 1st classs mail - but dated 6 October 2005.

IMHO you probably have another 3 weeks to wait; don't be too hopeful just yet.

You could always ring the court and ask whether there is anything in their in-tray with your name on it.
firefly
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 3 May 2006 - 10:06) *
<...> but AFAIK only Humberside backdate them this much serve them this late -
biggrin.gif
crashbang
It is now over a year since the alleged offence and i reckon its TIMED OUT.
So another success. Not possible wouthout Pepipoo expert advice from Andy Foster, Firefly, Jeffrey Archer and thanx to anybody else as well who contributed.
Crashbang
firefly
Hi crashbang,

Nice post! wink.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 © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.