Speeding ticket had printing error is it valid still??

[diggerjohno]

Wonder if any one can help with this. I got a speeding ticket through the post but it had 2 printing errors. Half the Data Protection Act notice was missing and some of the communications questions (FAQ) was also missing. I replied stating the tickt was invalid as it was incomplete. I received another ticket a week later with no printing errors and a letter apologising for the previous ticket with printing errors. I replied stating the first ticket was invalid and the replacement was delivered after the 14 days they have to inform you of Intention to Prosecute.

A few more letters back and forward and now they are saying we will no longer communicate and they are now also charging me with failing to provide driver details within 28 days.....

Can anyone help with this???

Thanks

[Vaud]

Yes. You are trying to be too smart...

Furnish them with all the details and pay your fine. They may drop the failure to provide.

[Monkeylegend]

In answer to your question, they clearly think it still is.

[HantsRat]

Whether or not some text was faded, the original ticket/letter is still the NIP. You'd be hard pressed to convince the court this was not the case.

[marshalla]

You seem to know exactly what information was missing, so you don't seem to have a very strong argument that the absence of the information led to any potential for a miscarriage of justice.

[agtlaw]

Missing information not required by the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 does not "invalidate the ticket." Ludicrous defence.

[diggerjohno]

Thanks for the comments. Ill send the details off now and hope they accept that I was trying to clarify an error.

[btcc123]

diggerjohno said:

Wonder if any one can help with this. I got a speeding ticket through the post but it had 2 printing errors. Half the Data Protection Act notice was missing and some of the communications questions (FAQ) was also missing. I replied stating the tickt was invalid as it was incomplete. I received another ticket a week later with no printing errors and a letter apologising for the previous ticket with printing errors. I replied stating the first ticket was invalid and the replacement was delivered after the 14 days they have to inform you of Intention to Prosecute.

A few more letters back and forward and now they are saying we will no longer communicate and they are now also charging me with failing to provide driver details within 28 days.....

Can anyone help with this???

Thanks

It would be interesting to know what was said in the few more letters sent back and forward.You must have pissed them off to stop communicating and to do you for failure to provide driver details that the punishment is 6 points ans up to £1000 fine,so a dangerous game you are playing.

Its good that you have seen the light and will give them all the details required and an apology will hopefully get you off the failure to provide charge.

Good luck.

[Meoricin]

diggerjohno said:

Thanks for the comments. Ill send the details off now and hope they accept that I was trying to clarify an error.

No you weren't, you were trying to pull a fast one on the basis of an error. Otherwise you'd have gone ahead and accepted the replacement ticket, and wouldn't have ended up in the mess you're in.

[anonymous-user]

Is it ok if the OP sends back only half the information required then?

[NugentS]

One further point.

The form you got has two part. S172 and a NIP. Its one form with two personalities if you will.

The NIP must be received within 14 days after which, special circumstances notwithstanding, its invalid - but the form itself is not invalid
The S172 requirement to name the drive has no 14 day time out. If the NIP times out then the S172 is useless - but it MUST be responded to in the defined timescales

Your refusing to name the driver has landed you straight into a slam dunk failure to name the driver charge. 6 pts £1,000 (max I think). Kaching

I have no idea whether the original NIP was invalid - that would need to be tested in court - but they have you on the S172

Regards

Sean

[bad company]

Meoricin said:

diggerjohno said:

Thanks for the comments. Ill send the details off now and hope they accept that I was trying to clarify an error.

No you weren't, you were trying to pull a fast one on the basis of an error. Otherwise you'd have gone ahead and accepted the replacement ticket, and wouldn't have ended up in the mess you're in.

So what? If the op could have got off due to an admin error good luck to him. I would have done the same.

Having said that, sorry op I think you're done this time.