Would 14 day rule apply to a motor trader?
Discussion
I am a motor trader and purchased a car on 5.10.06. The 'sold to motor trader section' was filled in by the person I bought the car from and duly signed by the seller and myself where the V5 requests the motor trader to do so. This part of the V5 was sent to DVLA immediately and the seller received a letter/receipt from the DVLA dated 17.10.06 confirming that they had recorded my company as being the keeper.
On 06.01.07 I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution dated 05.01.07 from the Speed Camera Unit for allegedly doing 43 mph in a 30 mph zone on 26.10.06 addressed to my company. This is over 2 months after the alleged offence. I had heard previously that the camera units have 14 days from the date of an alleged offence to notify you of their intent to prosecute. Obviously I am not a lawyer so I do not know if this is the case or not. The previous owner had not received a NOIP either so it was not served before 06.01.07. I called the camera unit yesterday and asked why I wasn't sent the NOIP within 14 days and they replied that when they made their enquiries with DVLA there were no driver details recorded and in that case they have longer than the 14 days to send the NOIP. However, I have written proof that DVLA were in receipt of my company details in the form of the DVLA letter dated 17.10.06 addressed to the previous owner which is 9 days before the alleged offence.
As it can be proved that the DVLA were in receipt of our details at least 9 days before the alleged offence I see no reason that the Camera Unit could not have sent the NOIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. Or is it the case that when the car is owned by a motor trader no details come up when the Camera Units make their enquiries and then have longer to get the details even though DVLA do have the details? What does the forum think? Thanks in advance of your replies.
On 06.01.07 I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution dated 05.01.07 from the Speed Camera Unit for allegedly doing 43 mph in a 30 mph zone on 26.10.06 addressed to my company. This is over 2 months after the alleged offence. I had heard previously that the camera units have 14 days from the date of an alleged offence to notify you of their intent to prosecute. Obviously I am not a lawyer so I do not know if this is the case or not. The previous owner had not received a NOIP either so it was not served before 06.01.07. I called the camera unit yesterday and asked why I wasn't sent the NOIP within 14 days and they replied that when they made their enquiries with DVLA there were no driver details recorded and in that case they have longer than the 14 days to send the NOIP. However, I have written proof that DVLA were in receipt of my company details in the form of the DVLA letter dated 17.10.06 addressed to the previous owner which is 9 days before the alleged offence.
As it can be proved that the DVLA were in receipt of our details at least 9 days before the alleged offence I see no reason that the Camera Unit could not have sent the NOIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. Or is it the case that when the car is owned by a motor trader no details come up when the Camera Units make their enquiries and then have longer to get the details even though DVLA do have the details? What does the forum think? Thanks in advance of your replies.
Edited by boxer365 on Saturday 3rd February 22:53
boxer365 said:
I am a motor trader and purchased a car on 5.10.06. The 'sold to motor trader section' was filled in by the person I bought the car from and duly signed by the seller and myself where the V5 requests the motor trader to do so. This part of the V5 was sent to DVLA immediately and the seller received a letter/receipt from the DVLA dated 17.10.06 confirming that they had recorded my company as being the keeper.
On 06.01.07 I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution dated 05.01.07 from the Speed Camera Unit for allegedly doing 43 mph in a 30 mph zone on 26.10.06 addressed to my company. This is over 2 months after the alleged offence. I had heard previously that the camera units have 14 days from the date of an alleged offence to notify you of their intent to prosecute. The previous owner has not received a NOIP either so it was not served before 06.01.07. Obviously I am not a lawyer so I do not know if this is the case or not. I called the camera unit yesterday and asked why I wasn't sent the NOIP within 14 days and they replied that when they made their enquiries with DVLA there were no driver details recorded and in that case they have longer than the 14 days to send the NOIP. However, I have written proof that DVLA were in receipt of my company details in the form of the DVLA letter dated 17.10.06 addressed to the previous owner which is 9 days before the alleged offence.
As it can be proved that the DVLA were in receipt of our details at least 9 days before the alleged offence I see no reason that the Camera Unit could not have sent the NOIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. Or is it the case that when the car is owned by a motor trader no details come up when the Camera Units make their enquiries and then have longer to get the details even though DVLA do have the details? What does the forum think? Thanks in advance of your replies.
On 06.01.07 I received a Notice of Intended Prosecution dated 05.01.07 from the Speed Camera Unit for allegedly doing 43 mph in a 30 mph zone on 26.10.06 addressed to my company. This is over 2 months after the alleged offence. I had heard previously that the camera units have 14 days from the date of an alleged offence to notify you of their intent to prosecute. The previous owner has not received a NOIP either so it was not served before 06.01.07. Obviously I am not a lawyer so I do not know if this is the case or not. I called the camera unit yesterday and asked why I wasn't sent the NOIP within 14 days and they replied that when they made their enquiries with DVLA there were no driver details recorded and in that case they have longer than the 14 days to send the NOIP. However, I have written proof that DVLA were in receipt of my company details in the form of the DVLA letter dated 17.10.06 addressed to the previous owner which is 9 days before the alleged offence.
As it can be proved that the DVLA were in receipt of our details at least 9 days before the alleged offence I see no reason that the Camera Unit could not have sent the NOIP within 14 days of the alleged offence. Or is it the case that when the car is owned by a motor trader no details come up when the Camera Units make their enquiries and then have longer to get the details even though DVLA do have the details? What does the forum think? Thanks in advance of your replies.
The SCP or Police are not responsible for the DVLA database.
They are responsible under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for sending a NIP within 14 days to the registered keeper, that the DVLA register shows them is the registered keeper.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd February 15:41
A motor trader has that little bit more leeway in notification of change of ownership and that part can lie dormant for three months, unless the vehicle is used on a public road, at which time the need to notify kicks in. :
Road Vehicles (Reg and Lic) Regs 2002
24. - (1) This regulation applies where a vehicle trader becomes the keeper of a vehicle in respect of which a vehicle registration document has been issued in Great Britain on or after 24 March 1997.
(2) Where this regulation applies the vehicle trader shall, on or before the appropriate date and on that part of the registration document which relates to a change of keeper or otherwise in writing, notify the Secretary of State as to -
(a) the transfer of the vehicle to him; and
(b) the date on which he became the keeper of the vehicle.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) the appropriate date is whichever is the earliest of -
(a) the day on which the vehicle trader first uses, or permits the use of, the vehicle on a public road otherwise than under a trade licence;
(b) the day on which he first keeps the vehicle on such a road;
(c) the day immediately following the expiration of the period of three months ("the three months period of grace"
beginning with the day after the date on which the vehicle was last kept by a person who was not a vehicle trader.
(4) Where this regulation applies and the vehicle trader transfers the vehicle to another vehicle trader before the expiration of the three months period of grace, he shall give to the new keeper any part of the registration document in his possession.
(5) Where the vehicle trader transfers the vehicle to another person in a case not falling within paragraph (4), he shall -
(a) forthwith deliver to the Secretary of State, on that part of the registration document which relates to the change of keeper or otherwise in writing, the following -
(i) the name and address of the new keeper;
(ii) the date on which the vehicle was transferred to the new keeper;
(iii) a declaration signed by the registered keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraph (i) are correct to the best of his knowledge and that the details given in accordance with paragraph (ii) are correct; and
(iv) a declaration signed by the new keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraphs (i) and (ii) are correct; and
(b) if the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, deliver to the new keeper those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (a).
The requirement under Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for NOIP is that it be served on the Registerd Keeper. Registered Keeper is defined under Vehicles Excise and Reg Act 1994 as the person named on the Register held by DVLA.
In sending V5 part to DVLA on 5.10.06 then there is more than 20 days for DVLA to put your Keeper details on the Register and as such available to SCP as Reg keeper when they enquired so that they could send out NOIP as required by law. Why DVLA did not do this?????????????????
The upshot of all this, is, and bearing in mind I am no legal eagle just a silver topped old plod, is that your account together with the letter from DVLA to old owner (seize this letter as evidence), indicates a failure on DVLA to record owner and presumably fail to notify SCP until beginning of January this year. In this NOIP has not been served in accordance with law but double check that old keeper did not get NOIP within time. If he didn't then it appears you have an argument to contest the offence at Court. You may wish to consider writing back indicating your intention to fight on the grounds, which are outlined in your post and above. Adding that you do not wish to cause unneccessary waste of time of CPS, Court and yourself. That may bring a response your after.
The law moves in mysterious ways and the old case I mentioned Carr v Harrison [1966] held that the Police (SCP now)in approaching the Licensing Authority in good time had shown reasonable diligence, though the Authority had been slow in supplying the information
Road Vehicles (Reg and Lic) Regs 2002
24. - (1) This regulation applies where a vehicle trader becomes the keeper of a vehicle in respect of which a vehicle registration document has been issued in Great Britain on or after 24 March 1997.
(2) Where this regulation applies the vehicle trader shall, on or before the appropriate date and on that part of the registration document which relates to a change of keeper or otherwise in writing, notify the Secretary of State as to -
(a) the transfer of the vehicle to him; and
(b) the date on which he became the keeper of the vehicle.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) the appropriate date is whichever is the earliest of -
(a) the day on which the vehicle trader first uses, or permits the use of, the vehicle on a public road otherwise than under a trade licence;
(b) the day on which he first keeps the vehicle on such a road;
(c) the day immediately following the expiration of the period of three months ("the three months period of grace"
beginning with the day after the date on which the vehicle was last kept by a person who was not a vehicle trader. (4) Where this regulation applies and the vehicle trader transfers the vehicle to another vehicle trader before the expiration of the three months period of grace, he shall give to the new keeper any part of the registration document in his possession.
(5) Where the vehicle trader transfers the vehicle to another person in a case not falling within paragraph (4), he shall -
(a) forthwith deliver to the Secretary of State, on that part of the registration document which relates to the change of keeper or otherwise in writing, the following -
(i) the name and address of the new keeper;
(ii) the date on which the vehicle was transferred to the new keeper;
(iii) a declaration signed by the registered keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraph (i) are correct to the best of his knowledge and that the details given in accordance with paragraph (ii) are correct; and
(iv) a declaration signed by the new keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraphs (i) and (ii) are correct; and
(b) if the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, deliver to the new keeper those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (a).
The requirement under Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 for NOIP is that it be served on the Registerd Keeper. Registered Keeper is defined under Vehicles Excise and Reg Act 1994 as the person named on the Register held by DVLA.
In sending V5 part to DVLA on 5.10.06 then there is more than 20 days for DVLA to put your Keeper details on the Register and as such available to SCP as Reg keeper when they enquired so that they could send out NOIP as required by law. Why DVLA did not do this?????????????????
The upshot of all this, is, and bearing in mind I am no legal eagle just a silver topped old plod, is that your account together with the letter from DVLA to old owner (seize this letter as evidence), indicates a failure on DVLA to record owner and presumably fail to notify SCP until beginning of January this year. In this NOIP has not been served in accordance with law but double check that old keeper did not get NOIP within time. If he didn't then it appears you have an argument to contest the offence at Court. You may wish to consider writing back indicating your intention to fight on the grounds, which are outlined in your post and above. Adding that you do not wish to cause unneccessary waste of time of CPS, Court and yourself. That may bring a response your after.
The law moves in mysterious ways and the old case I mentioned Carr v Harrison [1966] held that the Police (SCP now)in approaching the Licensing Authority in good time had shown reasonable diligence, though the Authority had been slow in supplying the information
Thank you for your helpful replies and especially dvd for your very informative one. You must have spent some time writing that so thanks again.
In addition to the above, due to it being 9 weeks between the time of the alleged offence and receiving the NOIP I am not 100% certain that it was me driving. I received the pics this morning after requesting them yesterday and they are not clear enough to identify the driver. Could this be used as a defence? As a motor trader would I have to make notes of every journey I made or notes of every person driving the car with dates and times? I have written to the SCU and informed them that they were outside the 14 days and have asked for them to withdraw their intention to prosecute as we can prove the DVLA had our details at least 9 days (and probably 20 days) before the alleged offence and there was no reason for them not to have sent us the NOIP within 14 days.
Although I have written to them I have not said who was driving the car at the time of the alleged offence. Is it 28 days from the date of the NOIP (05.01.07) or is it 28 days from the day you receive it that you get? Must it be received by the SCU within 28 days or is there a few days leeway if the 28th day falls on a weekend?
In addition to the above, due to it being 9 weeks between the time of the alleged offence and receiving the NOIP I am not 100% certain that it was me driving. I received the pics this morning after requesting them yesterday and they are not clear enough to identify the driver. Could this be used as a defence? As a motor trader would I have to make notes of every journey I made or notes of every person driving the car with dates and times? I have written to the SCU and informed them that they were outside the 14 days and have asked for them to withdraw their intention to prosecute as we can prove the DVLA had our details at least 9 days (and probably 20 days) before the alleged offence and there was no reason for them not to have sent us the NOIP within 14 days.
Although I have written to them I have not said who was driving the car at the time of the alleged offence. Is it 28 days from the date of the NOIP (05.01.07) or is it 28 days from the day you receive it that you get? Must it be received by the SCU within 28 days or is there a few days leeway if the 28th day falls on a weekend?
Edited by boxer365 on Saturday 3rd February 17:42
Duty to give information (S172 RTA 88 as amended RTA 1991)
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies (speeding)—
(2a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence. (Max £1000 fine, 3 points)
A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made—
(a) it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and
(b) the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.
The Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7:
Where an Act requires any document to be served by post, service is deemed to be effected by properley addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of the post..
If you are going for the defence under S172 (3) there would be no need to respond and thus SCP will summons for failing to declare driver. It is before the The Bench thnat you will have to argue your case. Bear in mind the number of times that his been tried, some successful, you will need some good evidence i.e. photo, enquiries to trace amongst those that had access to the vehicle.
dvd
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies (speeding)—
(2a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence. (Max £1000 fine, 3 points)
A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made—
(a) it shall have effect as a requirement to give the information within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served, and
(b) the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.
The Interpretation Act 1978 Section 7:
Where an Act requires any document to be served by post, service is deemed to be effected by properley addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of the post..
If you are going for the defence under S172 (3) there would be no need to respond and thus SCP will summons for failing to declare driver. It is before the The Bench thnat you will have to argue your case. Bear in mind the number of times that his been tried, some successful, you will need some good evidence i.e. photo, enquiries to trace amongst those that had access to the vehicle.
dvd
Thank you very much again DVD. I am not sure that the magistrates will accept my argument that I wasn't sure who was driving at the time of the offence. There is only a small chance it was my partner, but a genuine doubt nevertheless.
So can I assume from the above that you get 28 days from service of the NOIP to send the driver information back to the SCU. If it was sent by the SCU on the 5th of January, which was a Friday, by first class post, is 2 working or postal days allowed then for service which means that it would have been received on Monday the 8th or Tuesday the 9th of January. When does the 28 days start from? Am I out of time already?
So can I assume from the above that you get 28 days from service of the NOIP to send the driver information back to the SCU. If it was sent by the SCU on the 5th of January, which was a Friday, by first class post, is 2 working or postal days allowed then for service which means that it would have been received on Monday the 8th or Tuesday the 9th of January. When does the 28 days start from? Am I out of time already?
Never having worked in a SCP Office I would surmise that they send the 172 out and then add a couple of days from posting and start the clock. Nothing back 28 days after the clock has started then they will be considering action. I would surmise also that to be ultra safe they may well add another couple of days making it 33/34 from posting.
They can extend the time so may be worth having a natter with them explaining your new difficulties. Don't be surprised if they don't wear a sudden realisation after three weeks driver not known.........
dvd
They can extend the time so may be worth having a natter with them explaining your new difficulties. Don't be surprised if they don't wear a sudden realisation after three weeks driver not known.........
dvd
What's your view on the PACE witness statement used to reply in place of Driver information requested under S.172 RTA which states that as you haven't been cautioned the statement is given on the understanding that it is not used as evidence to incriminate you? Given that I already have 3 points (MS90) for failing to give driver info on a previous offence do you think it wise to go down this road?
Some alledgedly have tried it and claim it works, others have not been successful.
If it was the holy grail it is made out to be then why isn't everybody using it and why haven't the authorities plugged the leak.(Reg owner to be responsible for all infringements like parking)
We are waiting with baited breath the result of a ruling on this very subject by ECHR. The Judges heard the submissions nearly two months ago and we are awaiting their judgement.
I personally cannot see them granting the appeal for the ramifications it would cause.
Ask yourself.
Was it me driving?
Was my speed above the limit?
If so - big deal pay up.
If not enter a NG plea and take your chances at Court.
Word of warning dont expect kid gloves if convicted with a previous on your sheet. See your Bank Manager before the case just in case.
dvd
If it was the holy grail it is made out to be then why isn't everybody using it and why haven't the authorities plugged the leak.(Reg owner to be responsible for all infringements like parking)
We are waiting with baited breath the result of a ruling on this very subject by ECHR. The Judges heard the submissions nearly two months ago and we are awaiting their judgement.
I personally cannot see them granting the appeal for the ramifications it would cause.
Ask yourself.
Was it me driving?
Was my speed above the limit?
If so - big deal pay up.
If not enter a NG plea and take your chances at Court.
Word of warning dont expect kid gloves if convicted with a previous on your sheet. See your Bank Manager before the case just in case.
dvd
I would not plead 'Not Guilty.' My only argument would be the validity of my statement given without caution which is the very essence of the issue being brought up. If I go to court and my only argument is this do I have to enter a plea first? Am I likely to get a higher fine and more points than I normally would in court if my argument that my witness statement is inadmissable is thrown out? The NIP was dated 5.01.07 so I will have to make a decision on whether I go the PACE route today or just send in the S.172 standard paperwork. They will have received my letter today as well requesting they withdraw their intention to prosecute on the grounds there was no reason I shouldn't have received the NOIP within 14 days as detailed previously. Oh, I could bring this issue up in court as well.
Edited by boxer365 on Monday 5th February 12:42
By indicating a Not Guilty plea you can ask for disclosure of all their evidence which they are obliged to provide.
It is only a very slim chance that they will withdraw before the case and as the defence under the Act is down to you it will be up to you to prove in Court to the satisfaction of the Bench.
Bit late but ever considered running this through a Solicitor with all you papers etc? CAB, I understand do it for free.
dvd
It is only a very slim chance that they will withdraw before the case and as the defence under the Act is down to you it will be up to you to prove in Court to the satisfaction of the Bench.
Bit late but ever considered running this through a Solicitor with all you papers etc? CAB, I understand do it for free.
dvd
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff