Speeding ticket question

[lauda]

Hoping for a bit of advice on a speeding ticket query.

I received today a letter from Surrey Police entitled 'Reminder - requirement for name and address of driver' in relation to an alleged speeding offence on 4 October 2015. My immediate thought was that I would dispute this on the basis that the NIP was not issued within 14 days of the alleged offence but re-reading the letter it would seem that they have previously issues an NIP and this is now a chaser letter.

I never received the original NIP (I assume it was lost in the post or delivered to the wrong address by postie) so am not sure where I stand on this. They will obviously say that they issued the original NIP within 14 days and I have no way of proving that it never turned up.

Is there any wriggle room on this or is it just tough luck on my part that their first letter went missing?

[ModernAndy]

I believe the minimum requirement they have is to send the letter out by a certain class of post within a certain timeframe. Therefore, any missing mail can't be held against them. I could very well be wrong but that is what I understand to be the case.

[SS2.]

[ Assuming that you haven't been nominated, that your details as held by DVLA were correct when the enquiry was made, etc... ]

There are rules of service for Notices of Intended Prosecution. In short:

a notice must be served in such time that it would be delivered within 14 days in the normal course of post;

a notice issued by first class post is deemed to have been served two business days after posting, unless the contrary can be proven;

a notice issued by a recorded / registered delivery service is deemed to have been served, irrespective whether it was delivered or not;

Accepting that the notice in this case was almost certainly issued by 1st class mail, then the question to be asked is whether the OP can prove (to the satisfaction of a court) that the original notice was not served in accordance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

It's do-able, but it certainly wouldn't be a walk in the park and, absent any more evidence than simply the OP's say-so, I wouldn't rate the chances of success as being good.

Example case here.

RTOA 1988 said:

1 Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences.

(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies 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 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.

(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;

(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, 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.

(4) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which this section applies.

[lauda]

Thanks chaps, I figured I was probably just going to have to cough up.

To be honest, it's a fair cop as I was doing 83 in a 70 and saw the camera van so was expecting a letter in the post. Just annoyed as having not heard anything in the couple of weeks after, I thought I'd had a lucky escape!

[speedking31]

reply to the S.172 and request a duplicate of the original NIP. It may have dates on that show it was issued out of time, or they may not be able to locate the original. Don't give up just yet.

[aw51 121565]

speedking31 said:

reply to the S.172 and request a duplicate of the original NIP. It may have dates on that show it was issued out of time, or they may not be able to locate the original. Don't give up just yet.

The bit in bold is the priority now; you really don't want (or need) an MS90 endorsement with 6 points on your licence (it makes insurance significantly more expensive) nor several hundred quids' worth of fine and other costs if you plead guilty to 'fail to furnish'. Pleading not guilty to 'fail to furnish' and being found guilty can lead to fines/costs/charges north of a grand if the wind is blowing the wrong way .

Versus £100/3points - or even perhaps an SAC - if you name yourself as the driver, replying to the s.172 request (to name the driver) rather than ignoring it is a no-brainer .

The rest isn't so urgent, but do it as well (you never know... ).


ps a small point, but we are assuming, OP, that you are the registered keeper on the V5C?

[helix402]

As the previous poster says, the NIP is deemed to be served within 14 days unless the accused can prove otherwise. I had a speeding charge dismissed as the Police arrived on my doorstep 2 months after the alleged offence with the original NIP in an unopened envelope in their hand.