Notice of intended prosecution sent to wrong address
Discussion
I'm sure this gets brought up a lot and in spite of a search I could find anything that addresses this point specifically:
I have been sent a NoIP for 'exceeding 30mph in a 30 zone' - what speed I was supposedly doing was not stated, never seen this before.
The first notice was sent to my previous addresses after I had already updated my registered keeper address on my V05. I changed my V05 in mid Jan and the offence allegedly took place on 4th Feb.
I therefore didn't receive this first notice until 33 days after the 4th Feb, after it had taken time to go through the various forwarding processes.
Coincidentally the 'Second and Final Notice' arrived a day after the first - 34 days after the alleged offence.
I understand that 'date of posting = date of delivery' and they are only required to 'serve' it not deliver it in 14 days.
I filled in and returned the second notice only to state that I would have been driving the car at that time, which of course doesn't change the aforementioned facts.
Is the fact they served it to an incorrect address despite me having updated my details in good time prior to the offence enough to scrape me out of potential prosecution on the 14-day rule?
I have been sent a NoIP for 'exceeding 30mph in a 30 zone' - what speed I was supposedly doing was not stated, never seen this before.
The first notice was sent to my previous addresses after I had already updated my registered keeper address on my V05. I changed my V05 in mid Jan and the offence allegedly took place on 4th Feb.
I therefore didn't receive this first notice until 33 days after the 4th Feb, after it had taken time to go through the various forwarding processes.
Coincidentally the 'Second and Final Notice' arrived a day after the first - 34 days after the alleged offence.
I understand that 'date of posting = date of delivery' and they are only required to 'serve' it not deliver it in 14 days.
I filled in and returned the second notice only to state that I would have been driving the car at that time, which of course doesn't change the aforementioned facts.
Is the fact they served it to an incorrect address despite me having updated my details in good time prior to the offence enough to scrape me out of potential prosecution on the 14-day rule?
There will be a Doc-Ref date on your V5. This will indicate when DVLA actually updated their records. This will almost certainly be after you'd moved.
As the first NIP was almost certainly delivered within 14 days then there is no get-out there.
Pepipoo will be able to give you better advice on getting back to the original situation - you receiving an S172 to name the driver at the time etc.
As the first NIP was almost certainly delivered within 14 days then there is no get-out there.
Pepipoo will be able to give you better advice on getting back to the original situation - you receiving an S172 to name the driver at the time etc.
Complex said:
I understand that 'date of posting = date of delivery' and they are only required to 'serve' it not deliver it in 14 days.
Your understanding would appear to be is incorrect - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/292... *I do wish people would stop believing the nonsense dished out by bar room pundits. Whoever fed you this one needs
The tricky part is providing sufficient compelling evidence to prove late service. IIRC in the above case the defence had already done so and the only argument was whether the 'received by' 14 day rule was absolute. The High Court said it was and magistrates courts are thus bound by the decision.
I only deduced the post rule from what appears to be the current state on Contract Law and applied it here.
The date on my newly updated V05 document is at least one day before the supposed offence... so their information was up to date when they served the Notice to the incorrect address.
The date on my newly updated V05 document is at least one day before the supposed offence... so their information was up to date when they served the Notice to the incorrect address.
Complex said:
I only deduced the post rule from what appears to be the current state on Contract Law and applied it here.
Since when has the law of contract been relevant to criminal offences?If you conflate different branches it's no surprise that you arrive at an incorrect conclusion.
Just look at the relevant Act and judicial decisions if you want to find the correct one.
vonhosen said:
PNC won't be updated immediately a new V5 is issued. NIP will be sent out to the details held on PNC at the time the search was made.
Hmmm...FoIR request said:
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the police interchange computer information on a daily basis.
If the DVLA record has a current address at the issue date of the V5C, I reckon a fair number of us on PH would be interested to know the extent of the delay from the interchange stated above to the update of the PNC. If the system in use is incapable of doing so by the end of the following day* it is not fit for purpose. In the 21st century it is a national disgrace imo, given that it affects citizens' interaction with the state in a matter which can lead to a prosecution and penalty. *
Complex said:
The date on my newly updated V05 document is at least one day before the supposed offence...
Good call on the V05 shampoo! Been dealing in alphanumeric codes all week so it was only a matter of time...
The date on the V5 is 2nd February, the date of the offence is the 3rd February - I don't know if these would be processed on the same day the offence took place.
Re the comment on "Stop moaning and accept the punishment": I roll over for something that:
1. Isn't even being administered within its own guidelines.
2. Claims to be trying to catch people to aid safety, when there are never any pedestrians in that village at that time but in the previous village there is a school that has a high number of pedestrians near it at said time. Anyone speeding in the village with the camera will have already sped past the school so potential damage has been done. The van was exactly where I'd put it to maximise the number of people caught and as far away as possible from where I'd put it if I was to shock (or catch) people into slowing down for a heavily pedestrianised zone for the sake of people's safety.
3. Has a greatly disproportionate punishment on me compared to others (older people). I drive a big automatic Lexus and drive it, generally, slowly and with great attention to myself and others and take periodic advanced driving lessons to make sure I stay that way. I had only recently bought it and the lack of engine braking going down a hill was unfamiliar - I'm not used to gaining 8-9mph in a short distance without touching the throttle, I am now adjusted to this. Unfortunately since I am young, 3 points is a £700-£800 hike in insurance which isn't going to make anyone safer.
I won't try to escape any due punishment by lying or being deceitful but if I have a fair shot at avoiding handing over a lot of money to an insurance company and it's all straight and within the law then I will take it.
Thank you for all your comments, they've been both interesting and helpful. I'll see how it goes and hopefully remember to update the thread for anyone's future reference.
The date on the V5 is 2nd February, the date of the offence is the 3rd February - I don't know if these would be processed on the same day the offence took place.
Re the comment on "Stop moaning and accept the punishment": I roll over for something that:
1. Isn't even being administered within its own guidelines.
2. Claims to be trying to catch people to aid safety, when there are never any pedestrians in that village at that time but in the previous village there is a school that has a high number of pedestrians near it at said time. Anyone speeding in the village with the camera will have already sped past the school so potential damage has been done. The van was exactly where I'd put it to maximise the number of people caught and as far away as possible from where I'd put it if I was to shock (or catch) people into slowing down for a heavily pedestrianised zone for the sake of people's safety.
3. Has a greatly disproportionate punishment on me compared to others (older people). I drive a big automatic Lexus and drive it, generally, slowly and with great attention to myself and others and take periodic advanced driving lessons to make sure I stay that way. I had only recently bought it and the lack of engine braking going down a hill was unfamiliar - I'm not used to gaining 8-9mph in a short distance without touching the throttle, I am now adjusted to this. Unfortunately since I am young, 3 points is a £700-£800 hike in insurance which isn't going to make anyone safer.
I won't try to escape any due punishment by lying or being deceitful but if I have a fair shot at avoiding handing over a lot of money to an insurance company and it's all straight and within the law then I will take it.
Thank you for all your comments, they've been both interesting and helpful. I'll see how it goes and hopefully remember to update the thread for anyone's future reference.
Complex said:
Is the fact they served it to an incorrect address despite me having updated my details in good time prior to the offence enough to scrape me out of potential prosecution on the 14-day rule?
Possibly but probably not.Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences said:
Where the police made inquiry of the Motor Licences Department (now the DVLA) in good time but were given wrong information, it was held that they had shown reasonable diligence and their failure to send the notice to the correct person was in those circumstances no bar to conviction (Clarke v Mould [1945] 2 All E.R. 551; see also Rogerson v Edwards above, and Carr v Harrison, The Times, November 18, 1966, the only report on this point, where it was held that the police in approaching the licensing authority in good time had shown reasonable diligence, though the authority had been slow in supplying the information). This paragraph should be read in conjunction with § 2.202 in cases of accidents.
2.217
Where the police were supplied with the wrong name of the registered keeper at the relevant time and accordingly sent the notice to the wrong person at the wrong address, this failure to send a notice to the registered keeper is no bar to conviction because they will have shown due diligence under s.2(3) (Haughton v Harrison [1976] R.T.R. 208). Once the police have established under s.2(3) that their failure to serve a notice is no bar to a conviction, the police are under no duty to serve any further notices as soon as they are told of the correct name and address of the registered keeper (ibid.).
2.217
Where the police were supplied with the wrong name of the registered keeper at the relevant time and accordingly sent the notice to the wrong person at the wrong address, this failure to send a notice to the registered keeper is no bar to conviction because they will have shown due diligence under s.2(3) (Haughton v Harrison [1976] R.T.R. 208). Once the police have established under s.2(3) that their failure to serve a notice is no bar to a conviction, the police are under no duty to serve any further notices as soon as they are told of the correct name and address of the registered keeper (ibid.).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff