NIPs Over 14days
Discussion
My dad got gatsoed in the company car on 25/7/02 according to the NIP. The NIP was not posted till 13/8/02 and received 14/8/02.
As the director who deals with the NIPs at our place what is the score as it was not received by us till after 14 days. I know about the 6mths to get to driver but what about the first recepiant?
Funnily enough he can't remember who was driving, could be some photos coming up.
The NIP also unlike others doen't offer a fixed penalty and doesn't state what speed they were doing does that mean he/she was doing over the threshold and it is going to be a court job??
As the director who deals with the NIPs at our place what is the score as it was not received by us till after 14 days. I know about the 6mths to get to driver but what about the first recepiant?
Funnily enough he can't remember who was driving, could be some photos coming up.
The NIP also unlike others doen't offer a fixed penalty and doesn't state what speed they were doing does that mean he/she was doing over the threshold and it is going to be a court job??
www.speed-trap.co.uk/index.html
www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm
www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm
quote:
The Police have 14 days to send you a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP). They also get an allowance of a couple of days for the post to deliver it. So if its more than 17days since you were flashed they are too late to prosecute you, unless you were driving a company car, hire car or someone elses car. In these circumstances they are allowed more time to track you down.
The regulations are as follows
Sect 1 R.T. Offenders A. 1988
(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 personally
b) By addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address
c) By sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service OR FIRST CLASS POST addressed to him at his last known address.
(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) 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, not withstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.
(3) The requirement of subsection (1A) above SHALL IN EVERY CASE BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED.
From the information that you have provided, it would appear that the issue of the notice has been OUT OF TIME. A photo copy of the notice, Envelope it was in with the date of the posting mark on it if it is legible and a suitably worded letter that the notice was not served within the statutory 14 days from the DATE OF THE OFFENCE, as is required by Section 1(1)(b) of Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
This should support the provision of Section 1(3)above, whereby ....UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED.
I hope that resolves the issue for you. You should have the notice withdrawn after your letter is received.
>> Edited by madcop on Monday 19th August 02:13
Sect 1 R.T. Offenders A. 1988
(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 personally
b) By addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address
c) By sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service OR FIRST CLASS POST addressed to him at his last known address.
(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) 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, not withstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.
(3) The requirement of subsection (1A) above SHALL IN EVERY CASE BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED.
From the information that you have provided, it would appear that the issue of the notice has been OUT OF TIME. A photo copy of the notice, Envelope it was in with the date of the posting mark on it if it is legible and a suitably worded letter that the notice was not served within the statutory 14 days from the DATE OF THE OFFENCE, as is required by Section 1(1)(b) of Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
This should support the provision of Section 1(3)above, whereby ....UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED.
I hope that resolves the issue for you. You should have the notice withdrawn after your letter is received.
>> Edited by madcop on Monday 19th August 02:13
quote:
Bit of an old thread this one, but got an interesting addition..
What if the NIP is sent but the details of the offence are incorrect, and they then write and send you another NIP which this time is correct, but is outside the 14-days?
I would imagine that if the original was wrong in a minor detail such as the time of the offence/s, the wrong vehicle number, or a mistake in who it has been sent to, then you could feesibly plead not guilty and let the court decide to what element of doubt that had thrown on the case. If the NIP was wrong and issued shortly after the offence then that may have a bearing on the evidence that is offered by the prosecution.
They may however, decide that the purpose of the NIP was to inform you that you may be prosecuted for one of the listed offences (as its purpose). If you are correctly addressed on the form, a minor mistake in some other area may not be sufficient.
The NIP had arrived initially in time albeit incorrect does not therefore mean that a second one correcting a minor mistake is actually wrong.
If the mistake had been on the statement of facts on the summons though, there is every possibility that you could get that thrown out.
Madcop, where did you find your RTOA 1988 info?
The HMSO web site, www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_1.htm shows a few subtle but important differences:
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
(c) 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)(c) 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.
First of all, the NIP must be served within 14 days of the commission of the offence, not be in transit on day 14. The only leeway I'm aware of is that if it would normally have arrived within the 14-day limit, eg sent on day 13 first class, then that's acceptable. If it would normally have arrived after the 14-day limit, eg posted second class on day 13, then I believe it's toast.
Second, you'll notice that there's no mention of first class post, only of "registered post or recorded delivery service". Hmmm. Maybe that's what the police would like to think but unless the HMSO web site is out of date, that's not what the law actually says.
Where did you find your copy of the RTOA?
The HMSO web site, www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_1.htm shows a few subtle but important differences:
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
(c) 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)(c) 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.
First of all, the NIP must be served within 14 days of the commission of the offence, not be in transit on day 14. The only leeway I'm aware of is that if it would normally have arrived within the 14-day limit, eg sent on day 13 first class, then that's acceptable. If it would normally have arrived after the 14-day limit, eg posted second class on day 13, then I believe it's toast.
Second, you'll notice that there's no mention of first class post, only of "registered post or recorded delivery service". Hmmm. Maybe that's what the police would like to think but unless the HMSO web site is out of date, that's not what the law actually says.
Where did you find your copy of the RTOA?
quote:
Madcop, where did you find your RTOA 1988 info?
The HMSO web site, www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_1.htm shows a few subtle but important differences:
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
(c) 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)(c) 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.
First of all, the NIP must be served within 14 days of the commission of the offence, not be in transit on day 14. The only leeway I'm aware of is that if it would normally have arrived within the 14-day limit, eg sent on day 13 first class, then that's acceptable. If it would normally have arrived after the 14-day limit, eg posted second class on day 13, then I believe it's toast.
Second, you'll notice that there's no mention of first class post, only of "registered post or recorded delivery service". Hmmm. Maybe that's what the police would like to think but unless the HMSO web site is out of date, that's not what the law actually says.
Where did you find your copy of the RTOA?
ie dont sign for the bloody thing peeps
so its now undelivered they aint got the cash or time to chase you around trying too serve you by hand :-)
quote:
Madcop, where did you find your RTOA 1988 info?
The HMSO web site, www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_1.htm shows a few subtle but important differences:
First of all, the NIP must be served within 14 days of the commission of the offence, not be in transit on day 14. The only leeway I'm aware of is that if it would normally have arrived within the 14-day limit, eg sent on day 13 first class, then that's acceptable. If it would normally have arrived after the 14-day limit, eg posted second class on day 13, then I believe it's toast.
Second, you'll notice that there's no mention of first class post, only of "registered post or recorded delivery service". Hmmm. Maybe that's what the police would like to think but unless the HMSO web site is out of date, that's not what the law actually says.
Where did you find your copy of the RTOA?
My copy of the Road Traffic act and the regulations typed above are correct to a letter. They are typed straight from the regulation. However, for your benefit, I have also included some of the case law that has arisen over the years in relation to lots of topics that I post on.
I assure you that my information is accurate.
You have merely re-typed the regulations without researching the whole subject.
By the way. I think you will find that the website you have quoted from is in fact correct but does not tell you the whole story.
The word service has been legally defined by the courts.
Service is acceptable by first class post and also the NIP must be posted within 14 days and not received. the example is where the NIP was posted to someone who had recently moved within the 14 days from its conception and could not be traced for the service of the notice prior to that time. The courts accept that as long as the notice was posted within the 14 days, it is proved served. If you read and translate the regulation properly then you will see that it covers this point in subsection (2).
I hope that clears up your confusion.
By the way much of what I post is from 22 years experience of dealing with the law and the courts. I occasionally post the actual acts so that those that are interested can read it for themselves.
If you want to research it more, look in BLACKSTONES traffic law or WILKINSONS ROAD TRAFFIC LAW, both are available at the local library.
>> Edited by madcop on Tuesday 1st October 06:28
>> Edited by madcop on Tuesday 1st October 06:39
Madcop. Wow, posting at 06:23! You must be keen.
If your copy is typed out to the letter and it differs from the HMSO web version, then one of them's not quite right -- unless the HMSO version has been superseded by later legislation, but I don't believe that to be the case. Is your copy a copy of the Act of Parliament or a distilled version in another publication (eg Wilkinson's Road Traffic Law which, incidentally, looks like a top read and a must-have for my library)?
Perhaps you could point us to the particular bit of legislation or precedent where the term "service" is defined -- and, in particular, the bit about first class post. I'm not doubting the sincerity of your belief but I have a healthy scepticism of unfounded claims, you understand.
Finally, I can read ('onest guvnor) and a rereading of subsection 2:
(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) 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.
says to me that a notice is served if it is sent "by registered post or recorded delivery service" etc. The 14-day limit, which is the point of contention here, is already covered is subsection 1(c), and subsection 2 simply seems to weaken (or at least lend no support to) your assertion that first class post is acceptable.
>> Edited by BarkingMad on Tuesday 1st October 19:00
If your copy is typed out to the letter and it differs from the HMSO web version, then one of them's not quite right -- unless the HMSO version has been superseded by later legislation, but I don't believe that to be the case. Is your copy a copy of the Act of Parliament or a distilled version in another publication (eg Wilkinson's Road Traffic Law which, incidentally, looks like a top read and a must-have for my library)?
Perhaps you could point us to the particular bit of legislation or precedent where the term "service" is defined -- and, in particular, the bit about first class post. I'm not doubting the sincerity of your belief but I have a healthy scepticism of unfounded claims, you understand.
Finally, I can read ('onest guvnor) and a rereading of subsection 2:
(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) 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.
says to me that a notice is served if it is sent "by registered post or recorded delivery service" etc. The 14-day limit, which is the point of contention here, is already covered is subsection 1(c), and subsection 2 simply seems to weaken (or at least lend no support to) your assertion that first class post is acceptable.
>> Edited by BarkingMad on Tuesday 1st October 19:00
Barking Mad
I will copy exactly the act from Blackstones Traffic law.
Section 1 of the Road traffic Offenders act 1988 states
(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on the 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
c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.
(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection 1(c) 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, not withstanding 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 beencomplied with unless the contrary is proved.
So there you have it. I do not believe that Blackstones is wrong in this area. This comes under the heading PROOF Blackstones is also the Police Promotion examination text book. It is checked thoroughly for errors before going to print.
There are other bits of case law such as
1. If the defendant is not at his home address, for instance because he is in hospital or on holiday, service to his last known address will suffice even if the Police are aware of the fact (Phipps V McCormack [1972] Crim LR 540)
As the purpose of the notice is to alert the defendant to the likelihood of prosecution, it is not necessary to specify exactly which offence is being considered; It is enough that the defendant is made aware of the nature of the offence (Pope V Clarke [1953] 2 All ER 704)
So All I can suggest is that if you get an NIP in the first class post and you are not at home, being in hospital or on holiday then you may as well try your luck and see what happens. I think the lawyers fee though may just about cancel out any benefit you acheive.
Posting at these odd times is not keeness, just finished a particularly long shift on both occasions and use PH to wind down before
I will copy exactly the act from Blackstones Traffic law.
Section 1 of the Road traffic Offenders act 1988 states
(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on the 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
c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.
(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection 1(c) 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, not withstanding 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 beencomplied with unless the contrary is proved.
So there you have it. I do not believe that Blackstones is wrong in this area. This comes under the heading PROOF Blackstones is also the Police Promotion examination text book. It is checked thoroughly for errors before going to print.
There are other bits of case law such as
1. If the defendant is not at his home address, for instance because he is in hospital or on holiday, service to his last known address will suffice even if the Police are aware of the fact (Phipps V McCormack [1972] Crim LR 540)
As the purpose of the notice is to alert the defendant to the likelihood of prosecution, it is not necessary to specify exactly which offence is being considered; It is enough that the defendant is made aware of the nature of the offence (Pope V Clarke [1953] 2 All ER 704)
So All I can suggest is that if you get an NIP in the first class post and you are not at home, being in hospital or on holiday then you may as well try your luck and see what happens. I think the lawyers fee though may just about cancel out any benefit you acheive.
Posting at these odd times is not keeness, just finished a particularly long shift on both occasions and use PH to wind down before
I can confirm that posted first class is deemed as served in eyes of the law.
However I can also confirm that in these days of agencies supplying illegal immagrants and asylum seekers to the Royal Mail /Insignia what ever it's called this week, who very often dump your post in the nearest bush and go off to one of their other black economy jobs it's a complete farce, the president was set in the days when postman wore caps, polished their buttons and knew all their round by name and face. I think if the same case was heard in a modern court a different conclusion might be reached, infact maybe it's time that someone with principles and the money to back them had a go.
Oh yes and by the way don't think I'm knocking madcop (or his collegues) with this he is a copper who does his job within the framework and using the tools he's given to the best of his ability, It's tossers higher up the food chain that need a rocket up their arses how the hell can they write legislation that means that peoples freedom and liberty can be dependant on an organisation like the post office that are without doubt up shit creek without even a paddle in sight.
However I can also confirm that in these days of agencies supplying illegal immagrants and asylum seekers to the Royal Mail /Insignia what ever it's called this week, who very often dump your post in the nearest bush and go off to one of their other black economy jobs it's a complete farce, the president was set in the days when postman wore caps, polished their buttons and knew all their round by name and face. I think if the same case was heard in a modern court a different conclusion might be reached, infact maybe it's time that someone with principles and the money to back them had a go.
Oh yes and by the way don't think I'm knocking madcop (or his collegues) with this he is a copper who does his job within the framework and using the tools he's given to the best of his ability, It's tossers higher up the food chain that need a rocket up their arses how the hell can they write legislation that means that peoples freedom and liberty can be dependant on an organisation like the post office that are without doubt up shit creek without even a paddle in sight.
Madcop. Posting at 03:45... I'm even more impressed.
Thanks for your input. I think it is fair to point out the apparent differences, in particular to the suitability of first-class post, in the Blackstone's version of the act and the HMSO (web) version, even if we can't account for them.
By the way, the case law you cite seems to be in agreement with the wording of subsection 1(c): specifying the nature of the alleged offence and subsection 2: ... 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, but interesting nevertheless.
>> Edited by BarkingMad on Wednesday 2nd October 18:41
Thanks for your input. I think it is fair to point out the apparent differences, in particular to the suitability of first-class post, in the Blackstone's version of the act and the HMSO (web) version, even if we can't account for them.
By the way, the case law you cite seems to be in agreement with the wording of subsection 1(c): specifying the nature of the alleged offence and subsection 2: ... 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, but interesting nevertheless.
>> Edited by BarkingMad on Wednesday 2nd October 18:41
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff