NIP received but car sold to a trader a year ago

[Purosangue]

Never encountered anything like this .

Our colleague received a NIP through the post on the 17th oct for a vehicle he sold last year 09 / 2022 , he's understandably upset , so I offered to look into it for him ,

The Nip is for a mobile phone offence dated 13. 10. 2023 from Manchester Police Offence was 09:56 in Rochdale , he lives in Bournemouth Dorset.

reading carefully the wording its states



As he's not the recorded keeper , do the police ask DVLA for previous owners to supply details ? .

Anyway I checked through his documents and was amazed how thorough he was in the sale . He has proof from DVLA of change of ownership , also has the written proof they send via post and has the refund tax from DVLA confirming change of ownership.

On the sale . He sold as a private sale to a Polish motor trader , he asked for ID and photographed the purchasers Polish ID and polish drivers licence , he also took a screenshot of their mobile showing their mobile phone number on the DVLA web page confirming new owner change of ownership to trade company.
He also got a photo of them in the vehicle before they drove off .

interestingly ASK MID shows the vehicle was taxed from 1st Oct 2023 ( due 1st oct 2024) and is insured , its also showing last change of ownership was ................Yesterday !!

I've advised him to complete the NIP section ( not driver ) then section B&C and also to supply all evidence above of the purchasers ID and send it to Manchester police

Question how does this work for a trader , if he seller has the screenshot from DVLA confirming transaction change of keeper on the traders mobile phone , presumably the NIP would have gone to the trader ?, if so did he then dispute ownership ? clearly the seller can prove he's not the recorded keeper any more

thanks

[solo2]

All he needs do is send it back nominating the trader, bonus points if you have a purchase invoice you can include as proof.

Job done.

[Richard-390a0]

I think what you suggest sounds the most sensible course of action. Send the details of the chap / trader he sold it too & that should be the end of it you'd hope.

[T70RPM]

Don't expect that the Police, even the CPS can't be spectacularly incompetent in cases such as these.
It's happened to me.
Wouldn't be suprised if they have all the right information and sent it all to the wrong person.
It happened to me

[BertBert]

Why is he so upset and why is that understandable?

[Purosangue]

BertBert said:

Why is he so upset and why is that understandable?

he's an old chap who was ripped of before by scammers , receiving a NIP if you have never received one after you have tried to follow the process with DVLA correctly can appear intimidating

[sixor8]

If the vehicle had been sold to a 'genuine' trader, did he send off the yellow slip to inform DVLA? Or was it sold to him as a private buy and put into his name?

If the vehicle is 'in trade', surely that should have come up when a query was made and the NIP not sent to the previous owner? DVLA cock up springs to mind.

[p4cks]

T70RPM said:

Don't expect that the Police, even the CPS can't be spectacularly incompetent in cases such as these.
It's happened to me.
Wouldn't be suprised if they have all the right information and sent it all to the wrong person.
It happened to me

This. It's managed as a business these days with high volumes going through their systems. Mistakes happen a lot, so take advantage of their administrative fk ups

[Sheepshanks]

BertBert said:

Why is he so upset and why is that understandable?

I was woken in the middle of the night by Police when something similar happened to me. It had never even been my car, it belonged to a neighbour who had gone back to the US and sold the car through a local auction.

Somehow the adddress on the system was mine, yet it hadn't been when he lived here - he'd had the car for a few yrs and I never got tax reminders for it. After the police visit I got a couple of parking penalty notices, so it wasn't them that messed up.

[Purosangue]

sixor8 said:

If the vehicle had been sold to a 'genuine' trader, did he send off the yellow slip to inform DVLA? Or was it sold to him as a private buy and put into his name?

If the vehicle is 'in trade', surely that should have come up when a query was made and the NIP not sent to the previous owner? DVLA cock up springs to mind.

that was my thought , the seller can easily show due diligence , but what was interesting is the timeline .

vehicle sold 06/09/2022 with 408, 700 km
vehicle Mot'd 06/05/2023 with 416,700 km

vehicle taxed on 1st oct 2023 that must have been the buyer / trader who purchased it ?

offence date 13 / oct 2023
change of owner 19th oct 2023 which was yesterday

looks a bit fishy to me re sudden change of owner after offence

[NFT]

The 172 appears white and wording less threatening, could this be a second 172 sent out after trader nominated last owner?

Or do some forces send white less threatening ones?

[Purosangue]

NFT said:

The 172 appears white and wording less threatening, could this be a second 172 sent out after trader nominated last owner?

Or do some forces send white less threatening ones?

NIP in full

Edited by Purosangue on Friday 20th October 17:41

[Cat]

It's not a NIP it's a section 172 request. As your friend is no longer the person keeping the vehicle he is required to provide any information he has that may lead to the identification of the driver. In this case he needs to reply explaining that he sold the vehicle to the trader and provide any details he has of the trader.

Cat

[Sheepshanks]

Cat said:

It's not a NIP it's a section 172 request.

The very first words on the form are "Notice of Intended Prosecution."

[NFT]

Sheepshanks said:

The very first words on the form are "Notice of Intended Prosecution."

Followed by "&/Or" so written to depend on recipients circumstances, quite clever.

Though GMP had a login pin to see evidence at the top left anyway, and it seems to suggest the car was at 0MPH with no evidence otherwise....

[Cat]

Sheepshanks said:

The very first words on the form are "Notice of Intended Prosecution."

Followed by "&/OR"

It's not a NIP.

Cat

[Cat]

NFT said:

Though GMP had a login pin to see evidence at the top left anyway, and it seems to suggest the car was at 0MPH with no evidence otherwise....

It relates to a mobile phone offence not a speeding offence.

Cat

[NFT]

Cat said:

It relates to a mobile phone offence not a speeding offence.

Cat

I know, funny to read it that way, could have removed that line/had a mobile phone offence template letter.

[Purosangue]

Cat said:

Sheepshanks said:

The very first words on the form are "Notice of Intended Prosecution."

Followed by "&/OR"

It's not a NIP.

Cat

Thanks , I had a look at an old NIP my wife received they are indeed different . What I don't get is , I've sold many cars and always filled in the V5 section and sent of to DVLA , always had receipts but never kept purchasers details certainly not for a year , I was only interested in ensuring the money was correct and i \'d notified the DVLA of driver change .

Now looking at the request from the police , on this NIP / INFO



Fortunately in this particular case
I think the police will be happy with the amount of info from the seller on the purchaser two forms of ID
mobile phone number ,proof of receipt and a photo of the purchaser in the car


presumably they will have CCTV image of the person on the phone that will tie in with the photo of the purchaser,...

Edited by Purosangue on Friday 20th October 21:18

[Sheepshanks]

Cat said:

Sheepshanks said:

The very first words on the form are "Notice of Intended Prosecution."

Followed by "&/OR"

It's not a NIP.

Cat

I don't know whether I'm being daft or you are. If it says it's a NIP. There's a paragraph explaining what a NIP is.

It's cunningly and/or an S.172 as well. But how does that stop it being a NIP?

Edited by Sheepshanks on Friday 20th October 23:35