Notice of prosecution
Discussion
No. The original notice has to be sent within 14 days after the event (15 days including the day of the offence). However, if you are not the registered keeper (ie company car, lease car, hire car) then you will not have received the original notice. You will have received a notice based on information given.
If you are the registered keeper and at the address the vehicle is registered at then I would try and do some research as to whether this is the first NIP and if it is and is dated later than 14 days after the offence (offence on the 9th - NIP dated after 23rd etc) then I would write back suggesting that it has been improperly served outside the timelimit and is therefore not valid.
I would not suggest that you just ignore it as if you are wrong it will land you in bigger trouble.
Maybe madcop, tonyrec et al can offer more advice on how to deal with it?
If you are the registered keeper and at the address the vehicle is registered at then I would try and do some research as to whether this is the first NIP and if it is and is dated later than 14 days after the offence (offence on the 9th - NIP dated after 23rd etc) then I would write back suggesting that it has been improperly served outside the timelimit and is therefore not valid.
I would not suggest that you just ignore it as if you are wrong it will land you in bigger trouble.
Maybe madcop, tonyrec et al can offer more advice on how to deal with it?
Very good Icamm 
spot on.
You must not ignore this letter.
If the car is not registered to you, then the Police will have sent the NIP to the registered keeper who in turn will have notified them of who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence and who the driver was if they knew or suspected it to be.
If the car was registered to you on the date of the offence and to your current and usual address, then you must still not ignore the letter but photo copy it and attach a letter to the copy explaining that you were the owner/driver at the time the alleged offence was committed but the fact the NIP is out of time means that if you are summonsed you will plead not guilty to the offence.
DO NOT IGNORE IT, IT IS UNLIKELY TO GO AWAY
spot on. You must not ignore this letter.
If the car is not registered to you, then the Police will have sent the NIP to the registered keeper who in turn will have notified them of who was in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence and who the driver was if they knew or suspected it to be.
If the car was registered to you on the date of the offence and to your current and usual address, then you must still not ignore the letter but photo copy it and attach a letter to the copy explaining that you were the owner/driver at the time the alleged offence was committed but the fact the NIP is out of time means that if you are summonsed you will plead not guilty to the offence.
DO NOT IGNORE IT, IT IS UNLIKELY TO GO AWAY
How can I find out when (if) the first one was served. My bought the car a couple of days b4 the offence took place. It's so long ago we can't work out if it was me or the wife driving. A lot of people have said just ignore the letter as it was not sent by recorded mail and it is almost 2 months after the offence took place.
Cheers
Si
Cheers
Si
simon23484 said:
How can I find out when (if) the first one was served. My bought the car a couple of days b4 the offence took place. It's so long ago we can't work out if it was me or the wife driving. A lot of people have said just ignore the letter as it was not sent by recorded mail and it is almost 2 months after the offence took place.
Cheers
Si
There is no requirement for it to be sent recorded delivery. 1st class post is sufficient. If the car was not registered to you at the time of the offence, then it is not surprising that the NIP has taken 2 months to reach you. The delay will have been from tracking you down through the system.
You have five choices,
1. Ignore it and hope that it goes away (as many people have told you). It is unliley to do so
2. Contact the person you bought the car from (previous registered owner) and ask if and when he received the NIP, does he/she still have it and if so would he forward it to you.
3. Deal with it by stating who was the driver and accepting the FPT, paying the fine and accepting the points.
4. Request to be dealt with by a court as you dispute the evidence of the offence in relation to the facts including the NIP being out of time.
5. Request to be dealt with by a court and use the statutory defence that you have no record of who the driver was at the time and hope you can manage to convince the court of those facts so they acquit you.
You will not avoid being summonsed by writing to the Police and telling them you cannot remember who the driver was. That is no exemption from prosecution. It is a defence to conviction that a court can consider when you explain it to them.
If you cannot remember who was driving then ask for a photograph - if however the photo does not show who was driving then I am fairly sure there is a law that states you cannot incriminate your spouse and vice versa (Unless they have evidence of who was driving you should be off the hook) was it a gatso or Truvelo / mobile setup?
simon23484 said:
How can I find out when (if) the first one was served. My bought the car a couple of days b4 the offence took place. It's so long ago we can't work out if it was me or the wife driving. A lot of people have said just ignore the letter as it was not sent by recorded mail and it is almost 2 months after the offence took place.
Cheers
Si
guysh said:
If you cannot remember who was driving then ask for a photograph - if however the photo does not show who was driving then I am fairly sure there is a law that states you cannot incriminate your spouse and vice versa (Unless they have evidence of who was driving you should be off the hook) was it a gatso or Truvelo / mobile setup?
You are right. There is a rule in law about giving evidence against a spouse, but it does not apply in this case. That relates purely to specific offences and speeding is not one of them.
They do not have to send you a photograph unless you have requested to be dealt with by a court and plead not guilty. You are then entitled to disclosure of all prosecution evidence. If the photo was a Gatso one from the rear, it is unlikley to help.
>> Edited by madcop on Friday 27th June 11:14
Well my father and mother reiceved a NIP for something like 37 in a 30 and they had both been driving the car that day on the same road and quite honestly could not remember who it was at the appropriate time. My father constructed a letter to the police saying this and requesting a photo of the driver so that they could resolve the issue - to which they replied they could not provide the said photo and said they where dropping it... end of story
guysh said:
Well my father and mother reiceved a NIP for something like 37 in a 30 and they had both been driving the car that day on the same road and quite honestly could not remember who it was at the appropriate time. My father constructed a letter to the police saying this and requesting a photo of the driver so that they could resolve the issue - to which they replied they could not provide the said photo and said they where dropping it... end of story
They were lucky that they were not prosecuted for failing to name the driver then. It is not an exemption from prosecution to state you cannot remember.
guysh said:
Sorry to bang on then but they honestly could not remember who was drving and do both drive the same car on that road regularly hence if the photo prooved who it was then they would hold up their hands but if it doesn't what can you do?
Normally, the procedure is to prosecute the registered keeper for failing to notify the driver at the time. They were lucky this did not happen to them. It usually does!
It is for the court to decide if the statutory defence they use (which this is) is acceptable in the circumstances. It is not a job for the prosecuting authority to decide that.
The statutory defence is just that and not an exemption from prosecution itself.
>> Edited by madcop on Friday 27th June 15:59
Correct me if I'm wrong madcop but to paraphrase you for my own clarification:
"If you claim not to know who was driving they should take you to court. The court then decides if you are telling the truth about not knowing."
However, maybe in some cases the CPS recognise that they have only a 50/50 or less chance and drop the case to save time and money?
"If you claim not to know who was driving they should take you to court. The court then decides if you are telling the truth about not knowing."
However, maybe in some cases the CPS recognise that they have only a 50/50 or less chance and drop the case to save time and money?
icamm said:
Correct me if I'm wrong madcop but to paraphrase you for my own clarification:
"If you claim not to know who was driving they should take you to court. The court then decides if you are telling the truth about not knowing."
However, maybe in some cases the CPS recognise that they have only a 50/50 or less chance and drop the case to save time and money?
Yes. You have hit the nail on the head.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff