Received notice from unit ove 2 mths after alleged offence?
Discussion
Alleged speeding offence 43mph in a 30mph zone dated 26.10.06 Received notice from camera unit dated 4.1.07. Car in question was purchased at beginning of October, 06. Former keeper informed DVLA immediately of change of ownership. I called camera unit today and said to them that they were over the 14 days to inform of prosecution and they replied that when they initially enquired with DVLA there were no details for the car recorded so it took them longer to get details of the keeper of the car from DVLA so is still legal for them to prosecute. Is this correct???? Thanks in advance of your replies.
lunarscope said:
tigger1 said:
*IF* they have used the details availble at the time from DVLA, then yes.
And were you speeding?
And were you speeding?
Are you sure that is the case ?
I don't remember seeing anything in the RTA about an exemption (for DVLA or Police incompetence/laziness) from the 14-day rule.
Agreed.
If that was the case then they should have sent the NIP to the former keeper!?
I would ask the former keeper if they received an NIP, if they didnt then the case wont stand. If they have then it is 'served'.
Taking it to the 'n'th' degree when SCP made enquiry of DVLA for Reg Keeper (defined under law as the person on the Register) from what has been posted, because the old owner complied with the law to the letter and forthwith notified sale, then technically there was no Keeper recorded because the new one hadn't notified?. His details may have been notified by old owner not acceptable to DVLA until they get a signature of some from from new owner.
Case law of this comes down in favour of SCP in that they can show due diligence in trying to trace the owner on the day of the offence to serve NOIP and prevented from doing so due to records. NOIP served as first opportunity even if out of the usual 14 days. Good service.
Clarke v Mould [1945]
Carr v Harrison [1966]
dvd
Case law of this comes down in favour of SCP in that they can show due diligence in trying to trace the owner on the day of the offence to serve NOIP and prevented from doing so due to records. NOIP served as first opportunity even if out of the usual 14 days. Good service.
Clarke v Mould [1945]
Carr v Harrison [1966]
dvd
Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 2nd February 15:42
Dwight VanDriver said:
Taking it to the 'n'th' degree when SCP made enquiry of DVLA for Reg Keeper (defined under law as the person on the Register) from what has been posted, because the old owner complied with the law to the letter and forthwith notified sale, then technically there was no Keeper recorded because the new one hadn't notified?. His details may have been notified by old owner not acceptable to DVLA until they get a signature of some from from new owner.
Case law of this comes down in favour of SCP in that they can show due diligence in trying to trace the owner on the day of the offence to serve NOIP and prevented from doing so due to records. NOIP served as first opportunity even if out of the usual 14 days. Good service.
Clarke v Mould [1945]
Carr v Harrison [1966]
dvd
Case law of this comes down in favour of SCP in that they can show due diligence in trying to trace the owner on the day of the offence to serve NOIP and prevented from doing so due to records. NOIP served as first opportunity even if out of the usual 14 days. Good service.
Clarke v Mould [1945]
Carr v Harrison [1966]
dvd
Law requires that both the old keeper and the new have to notify sale and acquistion of a vehicle.
Viz: (3) If the new keeper -
(a) intends to use or keep the vehicle on public roads otherwise than under a trade licence; or
(b) does not intend to use or keep the vehicle on public roads,
he shall notify the Secretary of State of his name and address, on the appropriate part of the registration document (or otherwise in writing).
(RV (Reg & Lic) Regs 2002)
If you can confirm that your details and signature went on the V6 Special Section (new Owner)and that the old owner, in accordance with his obligations to forward this to DVLA, did so, then you are opening up an argument that NOIP was served out of time.
dvd
Viz: (3) If the new keeper -
(a) intends to use or keep the vehicle on public roads otherwise than under a trade licence; or
(b) does not intend to use or keep the vehicle on public roads,
he shall notify the Secretary of State of his name and address, on the appropriate part of the registration document (or otherwise in writing).
(RV (Reg & Lic) Regs 2002)
If you can confirm that your details and signature went on the V6 Special Section (new Owner)and that the old owner, in accordance with his obligations to forward this to DVLA, did so, then you are opening up an argument that NOIP was served out of time.
dvd
boxer365 said:
Alleged speeding offence 43mph in a 30mph zone dated 26.10.06 Received notice from camera unit dated 4.1.07. Car in question was purchased at beginning of October, 06. Former keeper informed DVLA immediately of change of ownership. I called camera unit today and said to them that they were over the 14 days to inform of prosecution and they replied that when they initially enquired with DVLA there were no details for the car recorded so it took them longer to get details of the keeper of the car from DVLA so is still legal for them to prosecute. Is this correct???? Thanks in advance of your replies.
No NOT correct, if the vehicle was not hired/owned by a company or rented to you and the details were given as you say some months before to the DVLA. You will not be done.
Contact these www.motoringlawyers.co.uk and they will take up your case and win it.
Edited by johna8tdi on Friday 2nd February 16:36
The 'sold to motor trader' part of the V5 was sent to DVLA. I am a motor trader and I signed the part of the form where it says for the motor trader to sign so the DVLA have my signature as being the owner. The form was sent to DVLA on 5.10.06 by the former keeper the morning afer the evening I bought the car. DVLA sent the former keeper a letter dated 16.10.06 informing them that they have updated their details with my company name. The alleged offence took place on 26.10.06 and they sent me their NOIP or whatever paperwork it is they send dated 4.1.07. I can't see that there is any reason for the delay and if there is such a thing as the 14 day rule then I think they are out of time????? Are they out of time??? Today my 28 days are up. When on the phone I asked for a pic of the person driving and the lady I spoke to is allowing me a further few days to reply. Do I send/fax them a letter just stating they are out of time to prosecute?
Edited by boxer365 on Friday 2nd February 19:17
I believe so. There is a section on an enclosed leaflet saying that normally they give a conditional offer of a fixed penalty and chose to accept a £60 fine and 3 points although the notice itself states that they intend to take proceedings against the driver in accordance with section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1968.
boxer365 said:
I believe so. There is a section on an enclosed leaflet saying that normally they give a conditional offer of a fixed penalty and chose to accept a £60 fine and 3 points although the notice itself states that they intend to take proceedings against the driver in accordance with section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1968.
the 14 days doesn't apply if you're offered a fixed penalty - it's all written on the paperwork they've sent you
good luck with it
I haven't actually been offered a fixed penalty. There is only a small section on a leaflet headed 'Help with your Notice of Intended Prosecution' which makes reference to the driver may being offered a fixed penalty. This leaflet/pamphlet is not addressed to anyone. The letter addressed to my company is a 'Notice of Intended Prosecution' and makes no reference to a fixed penalty. There is also a form to be filled in part 1 of which must be filled in and says 'If you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence; part 2 is if you were not the driver; part 3 is for a statement from vehicle hire company, part 4 is if you were not the keeper or owner. So it may not be a fixed penalty though may be wrong. The notice is in a company name and not a persons name.
Edited by boxer365 on Saturday 3rd February 00:12
boxer365 said:
When on the phone to the person at the camera unit I also requested the photographic evidence which came through this morning. In both pics it is not possible to identify the driver. Is this relevant or is it the owner's responsibility to know who was driving at that time?
The picture does not have to show the driver is recogniseable.
It's up to the registered keeper to name the driver, or know who was driving at the time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff