The 14 Days thing.
Discussion
I know this has probably been covered a million zillion times here but the search just seems to be a display all posts command.
A friend of mine has been issued with an NIP 15 weeks after the offence (that's 15 weeks). I'm not sure whether he's the first person they sent it to (registered keeper and all that). What's the limit for finding the driver if the NIP goes to the wqrong place first? I was under the imprssion that it was 6 months. the offecne was in Scotland, if that makes a difference.
Ta muchly
A friend of mine has been issued with an NIP 15 weeks after the offence (that's 15 weeks). I'm not sure whether he's the first person they sent it to (registered keeper and all that). What's the limit for finding the driver if the NIP goes to the wqrong place first? I was under the imprssion that it was 6 months. the offecne was in Scotland, if that makes a difference.
Ta muchly
Briefly
The NIP must be served within 14 days of the offence. This does not mean that the guilty person has to recieve it within 14 days. If it went in the first class post within the first 14 days (not including the day of the offence), then that is classed as served. It may have gone to a previous address or the previous registered owner if the NIP was sent at the time the vehicle changed hands.
The statutory limit on proceedings is 6 months.
That means that the information must be laid (in a summons) before the court for signature by a Magistrate or Magistrates Clerk within 6 months from the date of the offence.
There are 2 exceptions
1. No insurance
2. No Excise Licence
These have a statutory limitation on proceedings of 3 years.
So, if the summons is issued by CPS and signed within 6 months by a Magistrate or Magistrates Clerk, then it can be served even years later and is still valid.
The NIP must be served within 14 days of the offence. This does not mean that the guilty person has to recieve it within 14 days. If it went in the first class post within the first 14 days (not including the day of the offence), then that is classed as served. It may have gone to a previous address or the previous registered owner if the NIP was sent at the time the vehicle changed hands.
The statutory limit on proceedings is 6 months.
That means that the information must be laid (in a summons) before the court for signature by a Magistrate or Magistrates Clerk within 6 months from the date of the offence.
There are 2 exceptions
1. No insurance
2. No Excise Licence
These have a statutory limitation on proceedings of 3 years.
So, if the summons is issued by CPS and signed within 6 months by a Magistrate or Magistrates Clerk, then it can be served even years later and is still valid.
I would recommend that your "friend" who is not you of course writes back stating that the NIP/S172 (normally sent together) was out of time, enclosing a copy of the document showing the date it was produced. I'd not go into too much detail in the first letter, there will be others.
They'll probably send back a letter which does not seem to be addressing the points in your letter.
Write back again this time going into detail. As has been said they don't have to have sent it within 14 days if for example the vehicle was registered in another name and they had to track you down, but whether or not the police have had a legitimate reason for the delay your tactics should be the same.
The Road Traffic Offenders Act s.1 states that the notice shall be deemed to have been sent properly unless and until proven otherwise.
Write back to the effect that you are proving that the notice was not sent within the deadline by including a copy of the notice (AND ORIGINAL LETTER) showing a date that is not within the 14 day limit (not including date of offence) and that no conviction should take place and the notice should be withdrawn. Write that if they feel that special circumstances exist that legitimately entitle them to persist with a conviction that they should provide evidence to prove to the contrary.
Say that your having proven that the notice was invalid and their having failed to prove to the contrary since your first letter removes from you the obligation to identify the driver as required by s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1998.
Should do it.
They'll probably send back a letter which does not seem to be addressing the points in your letter.
Write back again this time going into detail. As has been said they don't have to have sent it within 14 days if for example the vehicle was registered in another name and they had to track you down, but whether or not the police have had a legitimate reason for the delay your tactics should be the same.
The Road Traffic Offenders Act s.1 states that the notice shall be deemed to have been sent properly unless and until proven otherwise.
Write back to the effect that you are proving that the notice was not sent within the deadline by including a copy of the notice (AND ORIGINAL LETTER) showing a date that is not within the 14 day limit (not including date of offence) and that no conviction should take place and the notice should be withdrawn. Write that if they feel that special circumstances exist that legitimately entitle them to persist with a conviction that they should provide evidence to prove to the contrary.
Say that your having proven that the notice was invalid and their having failed to prove to the contrary since your first letter removes from you the obligation to identify the driver as required by s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1998.
Should do it.
I was only kidding about that. I'd still go through the motions of refuting the validity of the notice. In "pass the NIP" when the person driving the car finally gets one through their door it will have been re-printed with their name and address and a new date. It's likely that the date is outside the 14 day period. Send it back saying it's out of time, as suggested and get them to prove that exceptional circumstances exist.
They may have lost the paperwork or it may cost too much to follow it through, after all they're trying to raise £60 tax from you and there's not much point in doing this if it costs £100 to process, and this is why everyone should make as much fuss and bother as possible.
The legal position is not entirely clear in terms of what constitutes proof that a notice is invalid or not,
and this is in your favour. It may be that a court would agree that your having sent a copy of the notice with a date outside of the 14 day period and the failure of the Police to prove otherwise is acceptable and dismiss the case (then the police would have to change their procedures to ensure that any notice sent to you contained the date it was originally sent + other info).
Or they might consider that your ignorance of the pass the NIP events prior to your receiving it is no barrier to a successful prosecution, which would frankly be rather unfair.
They may have lost the paperwork or it may cost too much to follow it through, after all they're trying to raise £60 tax from you and there's not much point in doing this if it costs £100 to process, and this is why everyone should make as much fuss and bother as possible.
The legal position is not entirely clear in terms of what constitutes proof that a notice is invalid or not,
and this is in your favour. It may be that a court would agree that your having sent a copy of the notice with a date outside of the 14 day period and the failure of the Police to prove otherwise is acceptable and dismiss the case (then the police would have to change their procedures to ensure that any notice sent to you contained the date it was originally sent + other info).
Or they might consider that your ignorance of the pass the NIP events prior to your receiving it is no barrier to a successful prosecution, which would frankly be rather unfair.
Oversteer said: I was only kidding about that. I'd still go through the motions of refuting the validity of the notice. In "pass the NIP" when the person driving the car finally gets one through their door it will have been re-printed with their name and address and a new date. It's likely that the date is outside the 14 day period. Send it back saying it's out of time, as suggested and get them to prove that exceptional circumstances exist.
They may have lost the paperwork or it may cost too much to follow it through, after all they're trying to raise £60 tax from you and there's not much point in doing this if it costs £100 to process, and this is why everyone should make as much fuss and bother as possible.
The legal position is not entirely clear in terms of what constitutes proof that a notice is invalid or not,
and this is in your favour. It may be that a court would agree that your having sent a copy of the notice with a date outside of the 14 day period and the failure of the Police to prove otherwise is acceptable and dismiss the case (then the police would have to change their procedures to ensure that any notice sent to you contained the date it was originally sent + other info).
Or they might consider that your ignorance of the pass the NIP events prior to your receiving it is no barrier to a successful prosecution, which would frankly be rather unfair.
Yeah, if it was me i'd do that. He's trying to avoid it going to court, as any court appearence wil lhar mis reputation (he runs his own business).
Thanks for the advice.
agent006 said:
Yeah, if it was me i'd do that. He's trying to avoid it going to court, as any court appearence wil lhar mis reputation (he runs his own business).
Thanks for the advice.
Why would it harm his reputation, his customers would not know about it, and anyway, speeding is commonplace these days?
kevinday said:
agent006 said:
Yeah, if it was me i'd do that. He's trying to avoid it going to court, as any court appearence wil lhar mis reputation (he runs his own business).
Thanks for the advice.
Why would it harm his reputation, his customers would not know about it, and anyway, speeding is commonplace these days?
It would end up in the court reports in the local paper. He'd just rather it didn't.
There's certainly a risk that it could go to court, but if all goes well you can get out of it completely, I certainly did. The cost? 2 first class stamps, better than 3 points and a £60 fine.
I'll just run through a hypothetical case. A vehicle is photographed at 46mph in a 40mph zone on 1/11/02. There has been a delay updating the DVLA registered keeper details and the NIP is sent to the previous owner on 12/11/02 (it has recently changed hands but the forms have been sent). The previous keeper returns the NIP re-stating the new keeper details. A NIP/s.172 is then sent to the new owner (who was in fact driving at the time of the alleged offence) and this has a date on the face of 30/11/02.
The new owner who knows nothing about the sending of the NIP to the previous owner receives legal advice to the effect that the NIP was sent outside the 14 day limit. They don't just ignore it and throw it in the bin, they write back to the fixed penalty unit and point out that the notice has been sent outside the time limit because the document is dated 29 days after the date of the alleged offence, and must therefore be invalid.
At this point the fixed penalty unit can do one of three things:
1. Write to the effect that a notice for this offence was sent on 12/11/02 and that under s.1 RTOA 1998 you've still got to respond.
2. Give up because it's too much aggro.
3. Not respond to the letter sent to them and carry on as if it never existed.
In the case of 1 you're no worse off than you were, but at least you had a go, their paperwork is all in order and you can always plead not guilty having identified the driver.
In the case of 2 you can buy your mates a curry with the £60 you've saved (+insurance savings).
For 3, assuming there's no other corresponence the natural outcome will be a summons under s.172 for failure identify the driver and for speeding. The worst likely outcome is 6 points and an increased fine.
But the magistrates would have to take into account the fact that your letter has been ignored by the fixed penalty unit, and this isn't going to look good.
Despite ignorance being no defence you've got an interesting argument that the notice you received was outside the time limit. As far as you knew it was invalid and this was why you didn't respond, also that you had proven that it was invalid by sending the notice with a date of 30/11/02 back to the FPU and they did not provide any counter evidence. Also they would have to disclose evidence about the 12/11/02 NIP prior to any hearing for it to be admissible as evidence.
How do the bench find the defendant in respect of the s.172 failure to identify the driver? (the speeding is another matter!)
p.s. 006 - your mate isn't the local Vicar by chance?
>> Edited by Oversteer on Wednesday 4th December 13:21
I'll just run through a hypothetical case. A vehicle is photographed at 46mph in a 40mph zone on 1/11/02. There has been a delay updating the DVLA registered keeper details and the NIP is sent to the previous owner on 12/11/02 (it has recently changed hands but the forms have been sent). The previous keeper returns the NIP re-stating the new keeper details. A NIP/s.172 is then sent to the new owner (who was in fact driving at the time of the alleged offence) and this has a date on the face of 30/11/02.
The new owner who knows nothing about the sending of the NIP to the previous owner receives legal advice to the effect that the NIP was sent outside the 14 day limit. They don't just ignore it and throw it in the bin, they write back to the fixed penalty unit and point out that the notice has been sent outside the time limit because the document is dated 29 days after the date of the alleged offence, and must therefore be invalid.
At this point the fixed penalty unit can do one of three things:
1. Write to the effect that a notice for this offence was sent on 12/11/02 and that under s.1 RTOA 1998 you've still got to respond.
2. Give up because it's too much aggro.
3. Not respond to the letter sent to them and carry on as if it never existed.
In the case of 1 you're no worse off than you were, but at least you had a go, their paperwork is all in order and you can always plead not guilty having identified the driver.
In the case of 2 you can buy your mates a curry with the £60 you've saved (+insurance savings).
For 3, assuming there's no other corresponence the natural outcome will be a summons under s.172 for failure identify the driver and for speeding. The worst likely outcome is 6 points and an increased fine.
But the magistrates would have to take into account the fact that your letter has been ignored by the fixed penalty unit, and this isn't going to look good.
Despite ignorance being no defence you've got an interesting argument that the notice you received was outside the time limit. As far as you knew it was invalid and this was why you didn't respond, also that you had proven that it was invalid by sending the notice with a date of 30/11/02 back to the FPU and they did not provide any counter evidence. Also they would have to disclose evidence about the 12/11/02 NIP prior to any hearing for it to be admissible as evidence.
How do the bench find the defendant in respect of the s.172 failure to identify the driver? (the speeding is another matter!)
p.s. 006 - your mate isn't the local Vicar by chance?
>> Edited by Oversteer on Wednesday 4th December 13:21
bobthebench said: Was it NIP or S172 request ?
Sorry to be repetitive, but it wasn't a trick question. Law in Scotland is different from E&W, so critical to know which was sent. It makes all the difference between a case being blown out, and a conviction. Worth checking, with your mate of course !!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff