Period Camera Units have to inform of intended prosecution?

[boxer365]

Received a notice dated 6th January, 2007 for an alleged speeding offence dated 26.10.06. Someone once told me they have a 2 week limit. Are they wrong? (Would be nice if they weren't but something tells me they are.)

[steve.c]

they have to send you the N.I.P within 14 days,speak to any solicitor and they will tell you this and should be able to get the speeding cancelled

[RobDickinson]

They have to try within 14 days, unless you were in a hire car/company car etc which could delay them finding out who the driver was.

[motorwise]

steve.c said:

they have to send you the N.I.P within 14 days,speak to any solicitor and they will tell you this and should be able to get the speeding cancelled

not if it's a fixed penalty notice

[boxer365]

The notce has been sent to my friends company and it's in the company name in accordance with Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, 1988. Notice is given that they intend to take proceedings against the driver of the motor vehicle. Date of offence 24.10.06 contrary to Section 89 (1) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Notice dated 05.01.07. They are asking for driver details as far as I can make out. It says they have photographic evidence. Are they within time to intend to prosecute?

[Plotloss]

Tricky

The first serving of the nip has to be within 14 days plus the day of the offence so 15 should see you clear.

So if the offence was on the 26/10 they should have sent the nip to the registered keeper by 11/11

The reg keeper would then send back who the driver was at the time of the alledged incident and then all bets are off time limit wise for sending the nip to the driver.

If they didnt send the nip the first time by 11/11 I'd say you were in the clear to be honest.

[boxer365]

The car was purchased by the company at the beginning of October and I know the previous owner sent the form off to DVLA informing of change of ownership immediately. I'll have to get in touch with them to see if the notice originally went to the former keeper.