NIP - first time. Help?
Discussion
You could have a look in a respected car magazine for advice (like Autocar?)
Alternatively, I think the "not signing NIP" loop-hole still works. Have a look at http://pepipoo.com/.
Alternatively, I think the "not signing NIP" loop-hole still works. Have a look at http://pepipoo.com/.
stuart_forrest said:
Just had an NIP in Bedfordshire back in December. 67 in a 50 zone.
What do I do, and does this mean that I'm in for 3 points and a fine or that I'll have to go to court?
let me guess they were hidding in the bushs on hitchin road againg.
your get 3 and a fine no court
had one to told em what hole to shove it up
so i got 0 points and no fine
stuart_forrest said:
Just had an NIP in Bedfordshire back in December. 67 in a 50 zone.
What do I do, and does this mean that I'm in for 3 points and a fine or that I'll have to go to court?
Also ask about the PACE letter on Pepipoo; copied here.
I am not legally qualified to give this advice and it's use is a matter for you. ( Disclaimer but trying to help). PACE letter follows with thanks to Pepipoo and Safespeed. This letter applies to someone who has already sent the form back signed but may be of use.
Dear Sirs,
Case Ref No………………………………………..
Further to my previous correspondence regarding the above alleged motoring offence:
I am informed that the Honourable Mr Justice Owen has decided, (DPP v Yorke and Mawdesely 2003) that the Section 172 Notice of the NIP amounts to a voluntary confession under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)
I should be grateful if you would please detail why my legal rights under the provisions of PACE were not explained to me prior to my completion of the form.
I would like to submit the following skeleton argument and should grateful if you would ensure I receive a substantive reply by return.
1) The prosecution case is said to be based on a voluntary confession, which has, as aforementioned, been made under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)
2) I will submit that I was neither cautioned nor offered an explanation of my rights, prior to being required to complete the voluntary confession (S172 of the NIP)
3) In the circumstances, I will submit that my rights under the provisions of PACE have been breached.
4) I will further submit that, as I was deprived of my rights under PACE, I have been deprived of my right, under Article 6 of the ECHR, to a fair trial and that I may be the victim of a malicious prosecution.
Under the circumstances therefore any prosecution is bound to fail.
In the light of this, you may wish to consider withdrawing your case rather than waste the Court and witness’ time. In the event that you decide to proceed with the case and my not guilty plea is successful, I will make an application for my costs.
I look forward to hearing from you by return.
Yours faithfully
>> Edited by Tafia on Tuesday 6th January 12:25
>> Edited by Tafia on Tuesday 6th January 12:26
Thanks for all the advice. Much appreciated. There seems to be some debate in the office about this - if I 'fess up will I just be sent a fixed penalty, or does the case have to go to court anyway? The NIP bit frightens me.
Offence took place on the 6th December, letter is dated the 5th January. Bright sunny day on the A1, no traffic around.
Bastards. Ruined my day.
Offence took place on the 6th December, letter is dated the 5th January. Bright sunny day on the A1, no traffic around.
Bastards. Ruined my day.
Tafia says just before the start of the copy letter
>>This letter applies to someone who has already sent the form back signed but may be of use. <<
By signing the form with drivers details you play into the hands of the Prosecution for under Section 12, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, this forms a certificate that can be accepted at Court as evidence that the accused was the driver without any verbal evidence to that effect.
Let me warn you that the unsigned route is torturous, involves an indepth knowledge of various Acts and procedures and can lead to Court of Appeal so a Solicitor well versed in Traffic law is required. There is no guarentee you will be successful. You may by an initial attempt get the authority to drop but if they do not then its going to be expensive.
The other part, using the defence that you are unable to name as you did not know who the driver was and could not ascertain with due diligence, was inserted to help genuine cases. Its been played to death now by abusers that it is no longer believed.
Elsewhere in this Forum are comments about law breaking no DL no MOT drivers etc. What makes anyone blatantly guilty of breaking a Traffic Law i.e. speeding so different?. The guy admits he was speeding. Have we all lost the backbone to admit our errors??
DVD
(Dons Nato helmet, Nomex and grabs shield)
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 6th January 15:04
>>This letter applies to someone who has already sent the form back signed but may be of use. <<
By signing the form with drivers details you play into the hands of the Prosecution for under Section 12, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, this forms a certificate that can be accepted at Court as evidence that the accused was the driver without any verbal evidence to that effect.
Let me warn you that the unsigned route is torturous, involves an indepth knowledge of various Acts and procedures and can lead to Court of Appeal so a Solicitor well versed in Traffic law is required. There is no guarentee you will be successful. You may by an initial attempt get the authority to drop but if they do not then its going to be expensive.
The other part, using the defence that you are unable to name as you did not know who the driver was and could not ascertain with due diligence, was inserted to help genuine cases. Its been played to death now by abusers that it is no longer believed.
Elsewhere in this Forum are comments about law breaking no DL no MOT drivers etc. What makes anyone blatantly guilty of breaking a Traffic Law i.e. speeding so different?. The guy admits he was speeding. Have we all lost the backbone to admit our errors??
DVD
(Dons Nato helmet, Nomex and grabs shield)
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 6th January 15:04
stuart_forrest said:
Offence took place on the 6th December, letter is dated the 5th January. Bright sunny day on the A1, no traffic around.
Are you the registered keeper of the car? If so I think you're in the clear as the original NIP has to be served within 14 days of the offence. If you're not the registered keeper then you'll have to look for another solution.
As for just paying up, I'd expect you'll get a fixed penalty, £60 and 3 points.
DVD - good call. I agree with you. You did wrong. You admit it. You pay the price.
However, as a technicality, if the offence happened more than 14 days before the issuing of the NIP then they are in breach of the rules, and the NIP cannot count. (Or so I have read elsewhere on this forum.) How you get this to work for you in practice I am not sure, others are likely to be better versed in this.
Oli.
Edit - whoops! D-man got in there before me.
>> Edited by zcacogp on Tuesday 6th January 15:25
However, as a technicality, if the offence happened more than 14 days before the issuing of the NIP then they are in breach of the rules, and the NIP cannot count. (Or so I have read elsewhere on this forum.) How you get this to work for you in practice I am not sure, others are likely to be better versed in this.
Oli.
Edit - whoops! D-man got in there before me.
>> Edited by zcacogp on Tuesday 6th January 15:25
Oli
I have posted this elsewhere but if NOIP sent in 14 days to Reg keeper (not driver at time of offence) then it has been served by law.
Re offending driver who is the Reg Keeper, by Law a NOIP is deemed to have been served unless the contrary is proved. If sent out by Post within 14 days, undelivered or lost in post still held to have been served.
What one has to prove is that a NOIP was not sent out in 14 days, not that it was received outside time.
DVD
I have posted this elsewhere but if NOIP sent in 14 days to Reg keeper (not driver at time of offence) then it has been served by law.
Re offending driver who is the Reg Keeper, by Law a NOIP is deemed to have been served unless the contrary is proved. If sent out by Post within 14 days, undelivered or lost in post still held to have been served.
What one has to prove is that a NOIP was not sent out in 14 days, not that it was received outside time.
DVD
stuart_forrest said:
Thanks for all the advice. Much appreciated. There seems to be some debate in the office about this - if I 'fess up will I just be sent a fixed penalty, or does the case have to go to court anyway? The NIP bit frightens me.
Offence took place on the 6th December, letter is dated the 5th January. Bright sunny day on the A1, no traffic around.
Bastards. Ruined my day.
Stuart has the nip been sent to you after the rk has named you as the driver, or is this the first NIP that has been delivered?
If it is the first then I don't beleive it can be used, if it is the second then it is deemed legit as long as the original was served in the first 14 days.
Dwight Van Driver,
You have posted that elsewhere - thanks for that posting, and thanks for this one as well.
I am assuming that the chap with the NIP (Stuart Forrest) is the registered keeper, and that the NIP date is the date of the letter he recieved - 5th Jan (he actually states that this is the case explicitly later on in this forum) and that the offence date was the 6th December. Therefore, the NIP in question has been served outside of the 14 day period, and it is therefore not valid. Is this a correct assumption?
A couple of other questions. Given that the burden of proof of the NIP not being served within the time period rests with the person recieving it (i.e. Mr Forrest, in this case) is actually producing the NIP sufficient proof? After all, the NIP will have the offence date and the date it was served on it, and therefore it will be a self-defeating document - surely?
Another one. If the NIP is out-of-time (as Mr Forrests' is) then can they still take you to court? i.e. does the issuing of an NIP outside the time period mean that the offence CANNOT be prosecuted?
Apologies if these questions are enormously stupid ones. I usually try not to be thick, but fear I may be being slow on the uptake here.
I can see that these arguments in this case turn on whether the NIP in question is the first one recieved by the RK of the vehicle and passed to Mr Forrest by the RK, or whether it is the second one recieved by Mr Forrest as a result of the RK filling in the first one naming Mr Forrest as the driver. There seems to be no time period for the issuing of the second NIP, the 14-day one only applies to the first one.
By The Way Dwight Van Driver, what do you do? Are you in the legal profession, or just a regular guy with a keen interest in these matters?
Oli.
P.S. Sorry Mr Forrest, talking over your head like this. I was flashed 3 1/2 weeks ago for the first time, and haven't yet had an NIP. I have posted other threads on this forum and Dwight Van Driver has provided lots of useful advice. Still no NIP, and I am keeping my fingers crossed that it too will have gone out of time.
You have posted that elsewhere - thanks for that posting, and thanks for this one as well.
I am assuming that the chap with the NIP (Stuart Forrest) is the registered keeper, and that the NIP date is the date of the letter he recieved - 5th Jan (he actually states that this is the case explicitly later on in this forum) and that the offence date was the 6th December. Therefore, the NIP in question has been served outside of the 14 day period, and it is therefore not valid. Is this a correct assumption?
A couple of other questions. Given that the burden of proof of the NIP not being served within the time period rests with the person recieving it (i.e. Mr Forrest, in this case) is actually producing the NIP sufficient proof? After all, the NIP will have the offence date and the date it was served on it, and therefore it will be a self-defeating document - surely?
Another one. If the NIP is out-of-time (as Mr Forrests' is) then can they still take you to court? i.e. does the issuing of an NIP outside the time period mean that the offence CANNOT be prosecuted?
Apologies if these questions are enormously stupid ones. I usually try not to be thick, but fear I may be being slow on the uptake here.
I can see that these arguments in this case turn on whether the NIP in question is the first one recieved by the RK of the vehicle and passed to Mr Forrest by the RK, or whether it is the second one recieved by Mr Forrest as a result of the RK filling in the first one naming Mr Forrest as the driver. There seems to be no time period for the issuing of the second NIP, the 14-day one only applies to the first one.
By The Way Dwight Van Driver, what do you do? Are you in the legal profession, or just a regular guy with a keen interest in these matters?
Oli.
P.S. Sorry Mr Forrest, talking over your head like this. I was flashed 3 1/2 weeks ago for the first time, and haven't yet had an NIP. I have posted other threads on this forum and Dwight Van Driver has provided lots of useful advice. Still no NIP, and I am keeping my fingers crossed that it too will have gone out of time.
Sorry, two other posts while I was writing my epic ...
The question about which NIP it was is now answered.
But, as a hypothetical question, what if the RK in this case was to reply to the NIP stating that Stuart Forrest was the driver, despite the first NIP being out of time? Can the fact that the first NIP was late still be used as a defence by Mr Forrest?
(This may seem like a daft question in this case where Mr Forrest and the RK see each other regularly, but what if the car was a hire car and Mr Forrest had hired it? In this case, he may never know that the NIP was out of time and be forced to cough up.)
Oli.
The question about which NIP it was is now answered.
But, as a hypothetical question, what if the RK in this case was to reply to the NIP stating that Stuart Forrest was the driver, despite the first NIP being out of time? Can the fact that the first NIP was late still be used as a defence by Mr Forrest?
(This may seem like a daft question in this case where Mr Forrest and the RK see each other regularly, but what if the car was a hire car and Mr Forrest had hired it? In this case, he may never know that the NIP was out of time and be forced to cough up.)
Oli.
stuart_forrest said:
First one, sent direct to the registered keeper asking them to name the driver. He seems to think that company cars (and this is deemed to be one) have a longer grace period attached.
Oh, this is sounding good.
The NIP MUST be sent to the registered keeper so that it arrives no later than the 14th day after the offence in the normal course of post.
If this NIP has the following characteristics:
1) It is addressed to the registered keeper and
2) It is dated 5th January and
3) It refers to an offence on 6th December
Then it is "out of time" and has no legal standing. In this case write "OUT OF TIME" across it in large letters and send it back. Do not fill it in or sign it.
Here's hoping that all the facts or the case are straight, because if they are it's dead in the water.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
zcacogp said:
Paul,
Thanks.
If this is the case, and the NIP is blatently out of time, can the case be contested in a court at a later time, or is it completely - as you say - "dead"?
Oli.
If the facts are straight, it's dead, now and forever.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff