What constitutes "Served"?
Discussion
Speeding ticket was issued on the M25 while the driver was on their way to Dover for a continental holiday.
However, when the ticket was posted, the envelope was mis-franked, presumably another envelope overlapped, and only a sliver of the frank ended up on the envelope.
Consequently, the Royal Mail decided that it had no stamp, and wanted a payment of £1.53 to deliver it.
Seeing as the driver was not at home, they returned the letter containing the PCN to their depot and put a card through the door saying that their was postage to pay, and the mail could be collected from their depot.
By the time the driver returned from holiday, and got around to collecting the PCN from the Delivery Depot (which is some distance from his home, in the opposite direction to which they work) it was 21 days from the date of issue.
Conveniently the Royal Mail can guarantee the time when the letter was picked up - but can it be deemed as SERVED within 14 days of issue, if it was not delivered by the Royal Mail, and had to be collected?
I am assured the driver had no way of knowing what was being collected until the envelope was opened, which has a sticker on it saying postage to pay, and of course only a slender part of the frank which also gives no clue as to who sent it.
However, when the ticket was posted, the envelope was mis-franked, presumably another envelope overlapped, and only a sliver of the frank ended up on the envelope.
Consequently, the Royal Mail decided that it had no stamp, and wanted a payment of £1.53 to deliver it.
Seeing as the driver was not at home, they returned the letter containing the PCN to their depot and put a card through the door saying that their was postage to pay, and the mail could be collected from their depot.
By the time the driver returned from holiday, and got around to collecting the PCN from the Delivery Depot (which is some distance from his home, in the opposite direction to which they work) it was 21 days from the date of issue.
Conveniently the Royal Mail can guarantee the time when the letter was picked up - but can it be deemed as SERVED within 14 days of issue, if it was not delivered by the Royal Mail, and had to be collected?
I am assured the driver had no way of knowing what was being collected until the envelope was opened, which has a sticker on it saying postage to pay, and of course only a slender part of the frank which also gives no clue as to who sent it.
Wow, this is the third time in as many days that service of a NoIP has surfaced on here. The High Court has ruled that the 14 day period is cast in stone. In this case the failure to prepay the postage has resulted in RM not delivering it (i.e. putting it through the addressee's letter box). It was their choice to to take it back rather than deliver it and then ask for the unpaid postage (I can fully understand why they didn't but it doesn't change the facts). In this case I reckon there is a reasonable chance of batting it into the long grass. It might need the help of someone like this* to persuade them though.
* PH member.
* PH member.
Interesting. I had a situation where documents I sent (signed & tracked service) weren't delivered (no reply) and a note was left at the address by the post office. The recipient never saw the note so didn't collect the documents. It wasn't an important matter but had they been 'legal' would they have been served? They were returned to me and I sent them at a later date.
Boosted LS1 said:
I had a situation where documents I sent (signed & tracked service) weren't delivered (no reply) and a note was left at the address by the post office.
The rules regarding the service of NIPs differs depending on the type of postage used.If the notice was issued by 1st class mail, a [rebuttable] presumption exists that it would be served two business days after posting.
A notice issued by recorded / special delivery would be deemed to be served, irrespective whether it was delivered or not ie the presumption of service is irrebuttable.
Boosted LS1 said:
^ But it was returned to me by the PO as clearly not delivered. How could that be classed as 'served' if it came back?
The Road Traffic Offenders Act '88 has a specific provision for NIPs issued by a recorded / registered delivery service - as long as the police can provide a record of the notice being posted, it will be deemed served whether it's returned undelivered, never left the sorting office or dumped in a canal.SS2. said:
Boosted LS1 said:
I had a situation where documents I sent (signed & tracked service) weren't delivered (no reply) and a note was left at the address by the post office.
The rules regarding the service of NIPs differs depending on the type of postage used.If the notice was issued by 1st class mail, a [rebuttable] presumption exists that it would be served two business days after posting.
A notice issued by recorded / special delivery would be deemed to be served, irrespective whether it was delivered or not ie the presumption of service is irrebuttable.
i think trying it on with the Interpretation Act is the kind of vainglorious green ink pyhrric victory thing where if it is successful you are lumbered with a huge court costs bill instead of just taking the points+ fine or doing the SAC/ DAC ...
mph1977 said:
..and as there is a RM ' you have an item waiting for you at the LDO ' card posted through the letterbox - if that was completed properly that could count perhaps ?
A 'we tried to deliver' message from RM is not a notice of intended prosecution.IMO, an item with insufficient postage for first class post hasn't been issued by first class post and, because the strict service requirements of the RTOA '88 haven't been satisfied, it should prove a bar to prosecution.
As has been suggested in an earlier post, I'd respond (probably by letter), providing all of the information requested on the s.172 form, with a paragraph detailing the issues with postage. I'd also include photocopies of the envelope and the note from Royal Mail.
I'd make sure the letter contained an explanation as to why I believed the notice could not be proceeded and that I hoped this marked the end of the matter. I'd also ensure the letter was signed and returned within 28 days of its receipt.
mph1977 said:
i think trying it on with the Interpretation Act is the kind of vainglorious green ink pyhrric victory thing where if it is successful you are lumbered with a huge court costs bill instead of just taking the points+ fine or doing the SAC/ DAC ...
This has to be the key. Unless there's a ban in the offing (in which case, you'll be dusting the suit off anyway), it has to be FAR more hassle than it's worth, surely?A letter containing a signed statement confirming the details of the driver at the time of the alleged offence would satisfy the requirements of the s.172 request.
An additional paragraph within the letter which raises the issue of non-service is zero risk and costs nothing.
If the response from the SCP confirms NFA, great - job done, happy days.
If the SCP adopts a more beligerent approach and refuses to fold at the first hurdle, the accused can then review their options and choose how to proceed.
There seems absolutely zero point in simply rolling over at this stage.
An additional paragraph within the letter which raises the issue of non-service is zero risk and costs nothing.
If the response from the SCP confirms NFA, great - job done, happy days.
If the SCP adopts a more beligerent approach and refuses to fold at the first hurdle, the accused can then review their options and choose how to proceed.
There seems absolutely zero point in simply rolling over at this stage.
I think what worried the driver most, was the fact that because he was abroad on holiday, he did not see the card notifying him that the letter was at the delivery office to be collected - but in view of the responses above, it seems he has little to worry about - the SCP has dropped the ball by not ensuring the notice had the appropriate postage on the envelope in the first place.
Would it be wise to respond to the S172 part.. or is that also rendered pointless by the postage error?
Would it be wise to respond to the S172 part.. or is that also rendered pointless by the postage error?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff