Mum got an NIP, 40 in a 30 but the letter is LATE
Discussion
PistonHeaders! Once again if I may call on your expertise. Here are the details.
Offence date: 25/04/2012
Date of letter for NIP: 02/05/2012
Received letter for NIP: 15/05/2012
That's 20 days after the *OFFENCE* but 13 days after the letter of NIP.
It's a private vehicle, registered in her name and she was driving at the time.
So is that they have 14 days after the *OFFENCE* to serve NIP to her or after the date on the LETTER of NIP?
If it after the date of the offence, how does she go about getting rid of it?
How does she prove that she received the letter on the 15th? How do they prove she DIDN'T? It wasn't sent recorded delivery.
On the 'helpful' information sheet they provided (and this is why I hated the UK so much I moved to the US), they provided lots of little bits of information about how all the get out clauses are invalid and how you are still bang to rights but there is ZERO information about what you can do and your rights if the ticket *IS* invalid.
Here is the appropriate section word for word and bolded in the same places:
- My notice arrived more than 14 days after the alleged offence. Is it still valid?
The NIP is initially issued and posted to the registered owner/keeper, according to the details held by the DVLA, within 14 days of the alleged offence. Postal delay will not invalidate service. The registered owner/keeper has the responsibility to ensure that all the details held by the DVLA are correct. This time limit does not apply to any NIP subsequently issued to a named driver, hirer or owner who has been nominated or following further Police enquires. Please be aware that even though your driving license may have the correct address, your vehicle registration document (V5) may not. Also, although you may be a "long lease" hirer of a vehicle, the vehicle may possibly be registered to the hire company and not you as an individual.
Lovely and helpful isn't?
Tells you exactly how in all those instances the NIP is still VALID but at NO POINT does it confirm when the NIP is INVALID, like say, receiving it MORE than 14 days after.
So your advice is much appreciated ladies and gentlemen! I'll feed this back to mum though she'll probably panic and just pay it or comply because that's what the government has taught us to be, good little citizens and that they are never wrong and to never fight the system.
Yes, it's because of things like this that made me hate the UK *so much* that I didn't want to live there anyway, I actually have more rights here in the US believe it or not.
Offence date: 25/04/2012
Date of letter for NIP: 02/05/2012
Received letter for NIP: 15/05/2012
That's 20 days after the *OFFENCE* but 13 days after the letter of NIP.
It's a private vehicle, registered in her name and she was driving at the time.
So is that they have 14 days after the *OFFENCE* to serve NIP to her or after the date on the LETTER of NIP?
If it after the date of the offence, how does she go about getting rid of it?
How does she prove that she received the letter on the 15th? How do they prove she DIDN'T? It wasn't sent recorded delivery.
On the 'helpful' information sheet they provided (and this is why I hated the UK so much I moved to the US), they provided lots of little bits of information about how all the get out clauses are invalid and how you are still bang to rights but there is ZERO information about what you can do and your rights if the ticket *IS* invalid.
Here is the appropriate section word for word and bolded in the same places:
- My notice arrived more than 14 days after the alleged offence. Is it still valid?
The NIP is initially issued and posted to the registered owner/keeper, according to the details held by the DVLA, within 14 days of the alleged offence. Postal delay will not invalidate service. The registered owner/keeper has the responsibility to ensure that all the details held by the DVLA are correct. This time limit does not apply to any NIP subsequently issued to a named driver, hirer or owner who has been nominated or following further Police enquires. Please be aware that even though your driving license may have the correct address, your vehicle registration document (V5) may not. Also, although you may be a "long lease" hirer of a vehicle, the vehicle may possibly be registered to the hire company and not you as an individual.
Lovely and helpful isn't?
Tells you exactly how in all those instances the NIP is still VALID but at NO POINT does it confirm when the NIP is INVALID, like say, receiving it MORE than 14 days after.
So your advice is much appreciated ladies and gentlemen! I'll feed this back to mum though she'll probably panic and just pay it or comply because that's what the government has taught us to be, good little citizens and that they are never wrong and to never fight the system.
Yes, it's because of things like this that made me hate the UK *so much* that I didn't want to live there anyway, I actually have more rights here in the US believe it or not.
Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/292...
Have a read - but it basically covers the lateness issue you mention.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/292...
Have a read - but it basically covers the lateness issue you mention.
This is the only thing I can think they'll do, just claim the mail was delayed or that she received it earlier.
I find it interesting that they DON'T have to send it recorded delivery, again it's one rule for them and another for us.
I'll continually urge people to leave the UK and move elsewhere, I do not hide the fact that I hate that country even though I've lived there for 30 years.
Forgot to add Pepipoo post: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=7057...
I find it interesting that they DON'T have to send it recorded delivery, again it's one rule for them and another for us.
I'll continually urge people to leave the UK and move elsewhere, I do not hide the fact that I hate that country even though I've lived there for 30 years.
Forgot to add Pepipoo post: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=7057...
It's all very simple.
Pre-Gidden, the law related to the Interpretation Act 1978 s7,which allowed that once a letter had been correctly addressed, prepaid and posted, that it was 'served'.
The Justices in Gidden held that this was not, in fact, the correct way and that 'service' meant an item of post having been received by the intended recipient. This had the effect of making service by post a rebuttable presumption.
Thus, upon the sending of the NIP, it is for the defendant to show on the balance of probabilities that he did not receive it, and so it was not served, within the fourteen whole days after the date of offence.
This is achieved by the serving of a signed s9 Witness Statement to that effect.
The prosecution then must show, beyond all reasonable doubt, by cross examination at Court or by some other compelling evidence, that the content of the s9 is false and that the service of the NIP was valid.
So, in this case, mummy dearest serves upon the CPS the aforementioned s9, the Crown Prosecutor decides that he has bigger fish to fry than a petty speeding matter, and duly drops the case like a hot potato. You get a NOD in the post, job done.
HTH,
Simon.
Pre-Gidden, the law related to the Interpretation Act 1978 s7,which allowed that once a letter had been correctly addressed, prepaid and posted, that it was 'served'.
The Justices in Gidden held that this was not, in fact, the correct way and that 'service' meant an item of post having been received by the intended recipient. This had the effect of making service by post a rebuttable presumption.
Thus, upon the sending of the NIP, it is for the defendant to show on the balance of probabilities that he did not receive it, and so it was not served, within the fourteen whole days after the date of offence.
This is achieved by the serving of a signed s9 Witness Statement to that effect.
The prosecution then must show, beyond all reasonable doubt, by cross examination at Court or by some other compelling evidence, that the content of the s9 is false and that the service of the NIP was valid.
So, in this case, mummy dearest serves upon the CPS the aforementioned s9, the Crown Prosecutor decides that he has bigger fish to fry than a petty speeding matter, and duly drops the case like a hot potato. You get a NOD in the post, job done.
HTH,
Simon.
This does help thank you!
Also, the envelope is prepaid with NO date markings on it, again I'm guessing they (the establishment) hoped to do this so as to be able to stop anyone from saying that the letter wasn't in time and they could in fact now send it whenever the hell they felt like it and you still had to comply.
Notice my theme of contempt against 'the establishment' and how they've engineered everything so that in 99% of cases, you're f
ked...
And we're attacking other countries for their lack of human rights? Seems ironic to me...
Also, the envelope is prepaid with NO date markings on it, again I'm guessing they (the establishment) hoped to do this so as to be able to stop anyone from saying that the letter wasn't in time and they could in fact now send it whenever the hell they felt like it and you still had to comply.
Notice my theme of contempt against 'the establishment' and how they've engineered everything so that in 99% of cases, you're f
ked...And we're attacking other countries for their lack of human rights? Seems ironic to me...
WhereamI said:
Of course she could just accept her guilt, pay the fine and move on without trying to wriggle out on a technicality. A guess that since you rant about the British justice system you've yet to get the wrong side of the US one, good luck to you if you do.
Bless you, you're one of those.... Good luck with the world you and your people want to create and choose to live in, also I didn't ask for your moral advice, I asked for LEGAL advice which as it currently seems, she has a LEGAL RIGHT to contend the ticket since a LAW has been broken by the constabulary and she would not be 'wriggling out on a technicality', this is LAW set by them, not us. You people scare me the most as you've already been brain washed into just bending over and accepting what is dished out to you with no questions asked. You've already given up the fight, please don't try and suddenly try and find it again here in this thread.
WhereamI said:
Of course she could just accept her guilt, pay the fine and move on without trying to wriggle out on a technicality. A guess that since you rant about the British justice system you've yet to get the wrong side of the US one, good luck to you if you do.
Why should she just fold over ?If they cannot follow even the simplest of procedures properly, what hope do they have of handling a more serious charge properly ?
sinizter said:
Why should she just fold over ?
If they cannot follow even the simplest of procedures properly, what hope do they have of handling a more serious charge properly ?
Of course this being the internet we are taking the op's details as fact! Just like the courts would... If everyone caught speeding said ah it didn't arrive until after 14 days and there word was good enough where would we be? If they cannot follow even the simplest of procedures properly, what hope do they have of handling a more serious charge properly ?
Parliament passes the legislation. Judges interpret it. It is not for the CPS/SCPs/Government Agencies to bend the rules for their convenience or income generation.
Mendaciousness by law enforcement agencies is wholly inappropriate. The rules apply to both sides. I am neither impressed nor cowed by apparatchiks blindly following the party line.
Bear in mind that Gidden had an independent third party witness to late delivery - his postman. The CPS never contested the fact that it was delivered after the 14th day. The case hinged on what constituted 'service'.
The rebuttable presumption applies only to first class post not registered. If they get it wrong and send it second class AIUI their case is fatally flawed.
Mendaciousness by law enforcement agencies is wholly inappropriate. The rules apply to both sides. I am neither impressed nor cowed by apparatchiks blindly following the party line.
Bear in mind that Gidden had an independent third party witness to late delivery - his postman. The CPS never contested the fact that it was delivered after the 14th day. The case hinged on what constituted 'service'.
The rebuttable presumption applies only to first class post not registered. If they get it wrong and send it second class AIUI their case is fatally flawed.
Edited by Red Devil on Wednesday 16th May 07:00
IIRC Gidden had a witness statement from the postman. That is important as it introduces evidence from a 3rd party rather than just the defendant.
Gidden is a PH member I believe
As for WhereamI's comments - Technicality is irrelevant, if the prosecutors are unable to comply with legislation themselves why should a defenadant roll over. If they cannot post a letter on time, if they misdate a letter how can they be relied on to calibrate equipment properly, understand the RTA for the road in question etc. WhereamI, I assume you would like to say "the law is the law" in which case it applies to all and is not selective
Gidden is a PH member I believe
As for WhereamI's comments - Technicality is irrelevant, if the prosecutors are unable to comply with legislation themselves why should a defenadant roll over. If they cannot post a letter on time, if they misdate a letter how can they be relied on to calibrate equipment properly, understand the RTA for the road in question etc. WhereamI, I assume you would like to say "the law is the law" in which case it applies to all and is not selective
Apache said:
work colleague has a bin full and no repurcussions
Good for him, but if the OP's mother has a reasonable (and legitimate) defence, then why run the risk of 6 points, a big fine and hiked insurance for the next 5 years on what would be a very risky (and unnecessary) gamble ?SS2. said:
Apache said:
work colleague has a bin full and no repurcussions
Good for him, but if the OP's mother has a reasonable (and legitimate) defence, then why run the risk of 6 points, a big fine and hiked insurance for the next 5 years on what would be a very risky (and unnecessary) gamble ?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff