2nd class NIP - What makes it invalid

[pmanson]

I was chatting to my lecturer today about NIP's. (We talking about how things are deemed accepted in law just by posting said item).

I told him about NIP's being served by second class stamp being invalid and he asked why this was?

At this point I said I don't know but i'm sure I can find out hence this post!

[Parrot of doom]

Because legal documents must be served by either special delivery, recorded delivery, or 1st class - AFAIK.

[Dwight VanDriver]

The Act itself covering the service of NOIP's specifically states as far as post is concerned the three types including First Class Post.

It was the boast of the GPO that First Class Post resulted in receeipt the following day whereas Second Class was not.

Bearing in mind that there is a short time limit on NOIPs then one can maybe see why Second Class post not acceptable.

A Section 172 (name and shame) request only has to be 'posted'.

dvd

[SS2.]

The 1st class or better rule applies only to the original NIP if a chain of NIPs exists - where the RK is not the person driving the vehicle at the time of the offence (ie company registered vehicle).

Subsequent NIPs can be (and often are) sent 2nd class.

[Flat in Fifth]

Ask your lecturer what he makes of this thread esp the debate DVD vs Observer2.

For my part something which sticks in my craw is a system whereby one party can say "I posted it and therefore that legally proves it was delivered."

Delivered by a system that is known to be flawed and such is public knowledge and acknowledged by thoes eresponsible for the delivery system.

Yet the party disputing the delivery ever being made is expected to prove that an event didn't happen, which is clearly impossible, They can only use the means of sworn statement etc. Does that carry the same weight in the court's mind as the original statement of posting.

[smeggy]

opsi.gov.uk said:

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

www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_2.htm

2nd class isn't stipulated, hence that form of delivery isn't recognised as a lawful method of delivery
(oddly enough 1st class also isn't mentioned??)

[SS2.]

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 6.-(3)
inserted the following sub-section into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

(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.

[smeggy]

Thanks SS2

[pdV6]

What ticks me off is that the Scamera Partnerships are allowed to keep enough cash from speeding fines to cover the expenses of running their operations, so why not just send all NIPs recorded delivery as a minimum? Its not going to cost them anything in the long run so why run the gauntlett of a flawed system?

[cynic]
Could it be that as they know full well that the postal system is flawed, they can get away with sending NIPs out late or not bothering at all and just going straight down the "failure to supply" route whilst pretending that the original NIPs were sent in time via 1st class post - they know full well there are no records to prove otherwise?
[/cynic]

[SS2.]

pdV6 said:

What ticks me off is that the Scamera Partnerships are allowed to keep enough cash from speeding fines to cover the expenses of running their operations, so why not just send all NIPs recorded delivery as a minimum? Its not going to cost them anything in the long run so why run the gauntlett of a flawed system? [cynic] Could it be that as they know full well that the postal system is flawed, they can get away with sending NIPs out late or not bothering at all and just going straight down the "failure to supply" route whilst pretending that the original NIPs were sent in time via 1st class post - they know full well there are no records to prove otherwise? [/cynic]

An alternative cynical opinion...

Question - would you sign for a document knowing full well it was a NIP ? If you refused to sign for and thus refused to accept the letter, it would be returned to sender, the post office would have proof of non-delivery and, accordingly, proof of non-service..

[pdV6]

SS2. said:

An alternative cynical opinion... Question - would you sign for a document knowing full well it was a NIP ? If you refused to sign for and thus refused to accept the letter, it would be returned to sender, the post office would have proof of non-delivery and, accordingly, proof of non-service..

Good point!

[kevinday]

SS2. said:

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 6.-(3) inserted the following sub-section into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. (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.

Surely this contradicts your previous statement?

SS2. said:

The 1st class or better rule applies only to the original NIP if a chain of NIPs exists - where the RK is not the person driving the vehicle at the time of the offence (ie company registered vehicle). Subsequent NIPs can be (and often are) sent 2nd class.

The insertion into the RTA does not differentiate between first NIP and subsequent NIPS. I would interpret that as meaning any NIP has to be delivered in the approved way, not just the first.

[Observer2]

kevinday said:

Surely this contradicts your previous statement?

Subsection 1(1)(c) RTOA:

(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 [1988 c. 52.] 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.

[outnumbered]

SS2. said:

Question - would you sign for a document knowing full well it was a NIP ? If you refused to sign for and thus refused to accept the letter, it would be returned to sender, the post office would have proof of non-delivery and, accordingly, proof of non-service..

That's certainly the reason they don't use recorded delivery - nothing to do with cost.


>> Edited by outnumbered on Wednesday 30th November 14:50

[Dwight VanDriver]

pdV6 said:

SS2. said: An alternative cynical opinion... Question - would you sign for a document knowing full well it was a NIP ? If you refused to sign for and thus refused to accept the letter, it would be returned to sender, the post office would have proof of non-delivery and, accordingly, proof of non-service.. Good point!

(Hope Observer is otherwise engaged......)

Cough, cough...

Section 1(2) RTOAct 1988 " A notice shall be deemed for the purpose of sub section (1)(c)- [sending out within 14days and served on the person or Reg Keeper-]to HAVE BEEN SERVED on a person if it was sent by Reg Post or Recorded Delivery [or First Class Post]addressed to him at his last known address NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED AS UNDELIVERED (which would be the case if unsigned for) OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON WAS NOT RECEIVED BY HIM.

Game, set and match chaps...

Dont' shoot me I'm only the messenger
DvD

[SS2.]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Section 1(2) RTOAct 1988 " A notice shall be deemed for the purpose of sub section (1)(c)- [sending out within 14days and served on the person or Reg Keeper-]to HAVE BEEN SERVED on a person if it was sent by Reg Post or Recorded Delivery [or First Class Post]addressed to him at his last known address NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED AS UNDELIVERED (which would be the case if unsigned for) OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON WAS NOT RECEIVED BY HIM. Game, set and match chaps... Dont' shoot me I'm only the messenger DvD

Hehe - I came across that little gem earlier today but never got around to editing my post. You live and learn...