NIP after 16 Days - Pleading Not Guilty - Update
Discussion
If there was a postal strike on then surely the authorites would know that if even the letter was "posted" on day 13 there would be no chance at all of the letter arriving on day 14? Thus it would have been impossible to "serve" the offender?
They should have sent it via courier to ensure it was served within the correct time frame.
Merely posting the letter knowing full well that there is a postal strike that would delay the letter is not suffice?
They should have sent it via courier to ensure it was served within the correct time frame.
Merely posting the letter knowing full well that there is a postal strike that would delay the letter is not suffice?
vonhosen said:
1st class post can be just put through the letterbox, recorded delivery can't.
Should read "...recorded delivery shouldn't"
In my street, the regular postman just puts Recorded items through the door, complete with label (including the part he's supposed to tear off and stick to this sheet - no attempt at anything).
It would be interesting to present such an envelope in court, complete with the evidence of post office inaction, and argue that it was NOT sent by registered post since the POst Office frustrated that by not treating it as registered post nor providing the service of registered post. However I probably don't have enough money for that one
Edited by skwdenyer on Saturday 26th July 22:48
I saw a mate last night, for the first time in a while. His girlfriend received a notice from the local SCP stating that she was being called to court for failing to respond to an NIP. The NIP had never arrived.
My mate looked at the envelope that the letter came and the rather familiar type face.... Mmmm, where have I seen that before:-
A few weeks earlier RM had dropped a card through their letter box saying they had a letter at the sorting office for them. He went to collect it and was advised it was sent with zero postage on it. They were asking for £2 or so for him to collect it. He asked to see it, assumed it was junk mail and declined saying 'just send it back'
Turns out that the 'junk mail' was in face the first NIP....
Effing SCP stated that because they had not had it back they would class it as served and the charge still stood! Rather than fight it and drag postal employee to court they just paid up. These SCP staff should be the ones being dragged into to court for perverting the course of justice!
My mate looked at the envelope that the letter came and the rather familiar type face.... Mmmm, where have I seen that before:-
A few weeks earlier RM had dropped a card through their letter box saying they had a letter at the sorting office for them. He went to collect it and was advised it was sent with zero postage on it. They were asking for £2 or so for him to collect it. He asked to see it, assumed it was junk mail and declined saying 'just send it back'
Turns out that the 'junk mail' was in face the first NIP....
Effing SCP stated that because they had not had it back they would class it as served and the charge still stood! Rather than fight it and drag postal employee to court they just paid up. These SCP staff should be the ones being dragged into to court for perverting the course of justice!
Dwight VanDriver said:
I would have thought that was perfect get out.
Not PRE PAYED.
Requirement under Interpretaion Act for service
dvd
The issue seems to be that the letter wasn't in their hands, it was left at the post office and then, presumably, returned (via Belfast). To prove that it was not pre-paid would have required calling the postal worker as a witness, which starts to get to be a lot of hassle to avoid a £60 fine and some points.Not PRE PAYED.
Requirement under Interpretaion Act for service
dvd
Unfortunately this just starts to slowly erode the respect the citizens have for authority, but that's been happening since World War I, so nothing new.
skwdenyer said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
I would have thought that was perfect get out.
Not PRE PAYED.
Requirement under Interpretaion Act for service
dvd
The issue seems to be that the letter wasn't in their hands, it was left at the post office and then, presumably, returned (via Belfast). To prove that it was not pre-paid would have required calling the postal worker as a witness, which starts to get to be a lot of hassle to avoid a £60 fine and some points.Not PRE PAYED.
Requirement under Interpretaion Act for service
dvd
Unfortunately this just starts to slowly erode the respect the citizens have for authority, but that's been happening since World War I, so nothing new.
big hair said:
If there was a postal strike on then surely the authorites would know that if even the letter was "posted" on day 13 there would be no chance at all of the letter arriving on day 14? Thus it would have been impossible to "serve" the offender?
They should have sent it via courier to ensure it was served within the correct time frame.
Merely posting the letter knowing full well that there is a postal strike that would delay the letter is not suffice?
So what argument in law would one use if this was the case? Is there any "care or responsibility" or common sense due on the part of the authorities or can they just throw it in a sack regardless...They should have sent it via courier to ensure it was served within the correct time frame.
Merely posting the letter knowing full well that there is a postal strike that would delay the letter is not suffice?
peterguk V6 KWK said:
big hair said:
If there was a postal strike on then surely the authorites would know that if even the letter was "posted" on day 13 there would be no chance at all of the letter arriving on day 14? Thus it would have been impossible to "serve" the offender?
They should have sent it via courier to ensure it was served within the correct time frame.
Merely posting the letter knowing full well that there is a postal strike that would delay the letter is not suffice?
So what argument in law would one use if this was the case? Is there any "care or responsibility" or common sense due on the part of the authorities or can they just throw it in a sack regardless...They should have sent it via courier to ensure it was served within the correct time frame.
Merely posting the letter knowing full well that there is a postal strike that would delay the letter is not suffice?
chr15b said:
skwdenyer said:
Dwight VanDriver said:
I would have thought that was perfect get out.
Not PRE PAYED.
Requirement under Interpretaion Act for service
dvd
The issue seems to be that the letter wasn't in their hands, it was left at the post office and then, presumably, returned (via Belfast). To prove that it was not pre-paid would have required calling the postal worker as a witness, which starts to get to be a lot of hassle to avoid a £60 fine and some points.Not PRE PAYED.
Requirement under Interpretaion Act for service
dvd
Unfortunately this just starts to slowly erode the respect the citizens have for authority, but that's been happening since World War I, so nothing new.
peterguk V6 KWK said:
big hair said:
If there was a postal strike on then surely the authorites would know that if even the letter was "posted" on day 13 there would be no chance at all of the letter arriving on day 14? Thus it would have been impossible to "serve" the offender?
They should have sent it via courier to ensure it was served within the correct time frame.
Merely posting the letter knowing full well that there is a postal strike that would delay the letter is not suffice?
So what argument in law would one use if this was the case? Is there any "care or responsibility" or common sense due on the part of the authorities or can they just throw it in a sack regardless...They should have sent it via courier to ensure it was served within the correct time frame.
Merely posting the letter knowing full well that there is a postal strike that would delay the letter is not suffice?
I would suggest that a letter is not 'sent' until until put in a letter box, deposited at a PO or sorting office or picked up by a postal worker. Once it is with the Royal Mail it is of course out of the enforcement authorities' hands.
If however, you take the traditional approach then I see no reason why you do not have the opportunity to prove that the NIP was not received (and so not served) until it was actually received or not at all if it never was received.
Edited by Zeeky on Sunday 27th July 23:53
Progress!!!!
Trial adjourned again to 29th October due to my witness on holiday.
Meanwhile, with massive, massive thanks to a fellow PH member, i sent my defence statement to CPS.
Well, CPS have replied, in writing, agreeing with my legal argument, and that all that remains is for me to convince the magistrates of the late arrival of the NIP, which of course should be straightforward since my witness is a Royal Mail employee.
Trial adjourned again to 29th October due to my witness on holiday.
Meanwhile, with massive, massive thanks to a fellow PH member, i sent my defence statement to CPS.
Well, CPS have replied, in writing, agreeing with my legal argument, and that all that remains is for me to convince the magistrates of the late arrival of the NIP, which of course should be straightforward since my witness is a Royal Mail employee.
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Mr Trophy said:
I've been following this from day 1, but never posted. I wish you the best of luck! 
Thanks. Hard work done. CPS will not be contesting the legal issues. Just got to get my witness to court now!So where are all the naysayers now, with their legal arguments shot to pieces??
Andy Zarse said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Mr Trophy said:
I've been following this from day 1, but never posted. I wish you the best of luck!
Thanks. Hard work done. CPS will not be contesting the legal issues. Just got to get my witness to court now!So where are all the naysayers now, with their legal arguments shot to pieces??
Zeeky said:
This last part is contentious as VH is saying we should ignore it on the basis that para 1a of the RTOA is clear that receipt is unnecessary.
He also says that we must rely on the rest of the definition to understand the meaning of service as this isn't clear in para 1a.
Para 1a is the key. It is the interpretation of this that will decide whether or not non-receipt is available as a defence to the accused when notice is sent by first class post.
Which i suppose goes to proove simply that Von's talents lie in imposing the law rather than interpreting it; take that black cloth off your head Von and step away from the gavel!He also says that we must rely on the rest of the definition to understand the meaning of service as this isn't clear in para 1a.
Para 1a is the key. It is the interpretation of this that will decide whether or not non-receipt is available as a defence to the accused when notice is sent by first class post.
Certainly be interesting to know how it goes but having a very quick scan in Butterworths:
Butterworths said:
A notice sent by post must be despatched so that in the normal time of postal delivery it will arrive within fourteen days. If it is so posted, but is held up in the post and is delivered outside the fourteen-day period; consequently, the driver can still be convicted.
I know people have posted a lot of other things but I reckon you're on a 50/50 here. Good luck though.TPAC said:
Andy Zarse said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Mr Trophy said:
I've been following this from day 1, but never posted. I wish you the best of luck!
Thanks. Hard work done. CPS will not be contesting the legal issues. Just got to get my witness to court now!So where are all the naysayers now, with their legal arguments shot to pieces??
, but since there are only the testimonies of my witness and myself, maybe the CPS will attempt to rubbish/discredit us in court???peterguk V6 KWK said:
TPAC said:
Andy Zarse said:
peterguk V6 KWK said:
Mr Trophy said:
I've been following this from day 1, but never posted. I wish you the best of luck!
Thanks. Hard work done. CPS will not be contesting the legal issues. Just got to get my witness to court now!So where are all the naysayers now, with their legal arguments shot to pieces??
, but since there are only the testimonies of my witness and myself, maybe the CPS will attempt to rubbish/discredit us in court???I'd be interested to read the letter from them TBH.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff