NIPs received weeks/months after offence

[mischmaster]

Friend of mine has received 2 NIPs through the post today, both letters are dated 20th January.

However one offence was late October 2023 and the other mid December 2023.

What am I missing regarding the 14 day rule? Can he ignore the letters? Does he need to make contact and cite the 14 day rule?

Both are listed as an automatic camera device, if that makes any difference.

Thanks

[E-bmw]

mischmaster said:

Friend of mine has received 2 NIPs through the post today, both letters are dated 20th January.

However one offence was late October 2023 and the other mid December 2023.

What am I missing regarding the 14 day rule? Can he ignore the letters? Does he need to make contact and cite the 14 day rule?

Both are listed as an automatic camera device, if that makes any difference.

Thanks

No he can't ignore if they are NIPs, they can come anything up to 6 months IIRC after the offence.

14 days is when they are asking who the driver was.

[Cat]

E-bmw said:

No he can't ignore if they are NIPs, they can come anything up to 6 months IIRC after the offence.

14 days is when they are asking who the driver was.

A NIP needs to be served on the RK within 14 days. There is no time limit on a s172 requirement.

Cat

[mischmaster]

E-bmw said:

No he can't ignore if they are NIPs, they can come anything up to 6 months IIRC after the offence.

14 days is when they are asking who the driver was.

Really? When having a bit of a look online it seems to state that they have to arrive within 14 days of the offence.

On page 2 of the NIP he's told me it states: "A NIP must be served on the vehicle's DVLA registered owner/keeper within 14 days of the alleged offence."

[2Btoo]

Is your friend the registered keeper of the car or is it (perhaps) a company car with the company as the registered keeper? Or a hire car, or someone else's car?

[mischmaster]

2Btoo said:

Is your friend the registered keeper of the car or is it (perhaps) a company car with the company as the registered keeper? Or a hire car, or someone else's car?

His parent is the registered keeper, letters have arrived at the parents house today. Only thing he can think of is that the registered keeper address hadn't been updated and there is a possibility that these NIPs were going to an old address for a time. But wouldn't today's letters state or reference that if it was the case?

e.g. we've been trying to reach you / this is a chase / final reminder / etc? It's just 2 x standard NIP letters referencing October and December offences.

[martinbiz]

mischmaster said:

His parent is the registered keeper, letters have arrived at the parents house today. Only thing he can think of is that the registered keeper address hadn't been updated and there is a possibility that these NIPs were going to an old address for a time. But wouldn't today's letters state or reference that if it was the case?

e.g. we've been trying to reach you / this is a chase / final reminder / etc? It's just 2 x standard NIP letters referencing October and December offences.

Have they moved recently?

Is the address on the V5C correct for where they live now? If so what is the doc ref date on it?

[WrekinCrew]

mischmaster said:

Friend of mine has received 2 NIPs ...Can he ignore the letters?

He can (indeed should) ignore the NIPs if the parent is indeed the RK. However the parent must respond naming him as the driver, or face 12 points and a hefty fine for failing to respond to two S.172 requests. He will then get NIP(s) addressed to him.

Not updating the V5 address is a separate offence.

Edited by WrekinCrew on Tuesday 23 January 17:24

[GasEngineer]

If your friend is not the RK then the parent must have given the police his details earlier.

[mischmaster]

So update ... appears the V5C hadn't been updated following their recent move.

I assume the NIPs had been going to the old address and have only today arrived at the new address.

I'm surprised that the updated letters today didn't say anything regarding this e.g. we have been trying to contact you etc etc.

Either way, they are updating the V5C at present and will be responding to the NIPs advising that my friend was indeed driving at the time of the offence.

On a side note, I'm still not clear on the 14 day rule after reading some of the conflicting statements on here. Assuming in another case the address on the V5C is accurate and up to date, does the NIP need to arrive within 14 days, otherwise can be ignored?

GasEngineer said:

If your friend is not the RK then the parent must have given the police his details earlier.

Sorry I wasn't clear. NIPs have gone to parents address as they are the registered keeper. Friend was informed of this today so collected them, only to find out alleged offences were in October and December. Has since found out that V5C address is outdated (parent had forgot to update following recent move), and assumes therefore this is why there has been a delay to the NIPs arriving and is responding to the NIPs as appropriate.

[XCP]

GasEngineer said:

If your friend is not the RK then the parent must have given the police his details earlier.

Sounds like they are addressed to the RK, not the 'friend'.

[martinbiz]

GasEngineer said:

If your friend is not the RK then the parent must have given the police his details earlier.

No one has given his details, the friend has not received a NIP, just the parents so far

[The Gauge]

You can't post a letter if you don't know who you're sending it to. They may not send out an NIP until they know who they have to send it to, so they can be sent out a long time after an incident.

NIP's and demands to name the driver are separate forms.

[No ideas for a name]

mischmaster said:

Sorry I wasn't clear. NIPs have gone to parents address as they are the registered keeper. Friend was informed of this today so collected them.

The RK has to fill them in, and return them naming the driver.
They shouldn'd be passed to the driver to be filled in.

[martinbiz]

mischmaster said:

So update ... appears the V5C hadn't been updated following their recent move.

I assume the NIPs had been going to the old address and have only today arrived at the new address.

I'm surprised that the updated letters today didn't say anything regarding this e.g. we have been trying to contact you etc etc.

Either way, they are updating the V5C at present and will be responding to the NIPs advising that my friend was indeed driving at the time of the offence.

On a side note, I'm still not clear on the 14 day rule after reading some of the conflicting statements on here. Assuming in another case the address on the V5C is accurate and up to date, does the NIP need to arrive within 14 days, otherwise can be ignored?

GasEngineer said:

If your friend is not the RK then the parent must have given the police his details earlier.

Sorry I wasn't clear. NIPs have gone to parents address as they are the registered keeper. Friend was informed of this today so collected them, only to find out alleged offences were in October and December. Has since found out that V5C address is outdated (parent had forgot to update following recent move), and assumes therefore this is why there has been a delay to the NIPs arriving and is responding to the NIPs as appropriate.

No it still must not be ignored, that is likely to get the RK 6 points and a big fine. Even if it was delivered late the driver info must still be given, arguing the toss later about the late service is a whole different ball game

[mischmaster]

XCP said:

Sounds like they are addressed to the RK, not the 'friend'.

I did think when I was writing this that it will sound very much like I'm the guilty party and I'm trying to use the term friend to cover myself, but no a mate of mine said "ask on one of your car forums for me will you mate!"

No ideas for a name said:

The RK has to fill them in, and return them naming the driver.
They shouldn'd be passed to the driver to be filled in.

Thanks will let him know. I'm getting fed broken information through so could well be that the parent has done/is doing this.

martinbiz said:

No it still must not be ignored, that is likely to get the RK 6 points and a big fine. Even if it was delivered late the driver info must still be given, arguing the toss later about the late service is a whole different ball game

Ah ok. I assume majority arrive on time though (albeit not in this case likely due to the out of date address). Otherwise surely it's an ongoing admin headache arguing the 14 day rule?

[martinbiz]

mischmaster said:

XCP said:

Sounds like they are addressed to the RK, not the 'friend'.

I did think when I was writing this that it will sound very much like I'm the guilty party and I'm trying to use the term friend to cover myself, but no a mate of mine said "ask on one of your car forums for me will you mate!"

No ideas for a name said:

The RK has to fill them in, and return them naming the driver.
They shouldn'd be passed to the driver to be filled in.

Thanks will let him know. I'm getting fed broken information through so could well be that the parent has done/is doing this.

martinbiz said:

No it still must not be ignored, that is likely to get the RK 6 points and a big fine. Even if it was delivered late the driver info must still be given, arguing the toss later about the late service is a whole different ball game

Ah ok. I assume majority arrive on time though (albeit not in this case likely due to the out of date address). Otherwise surely it's an ongoing admin headache arguing the 14 day rule?

Only the first NIP to the RK is required to be delivered within 14 days, anything after that is not subject to the same rule

[agtlaw]

The “14-day rule” is not an absolute; see s. 2(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Failure to comply with … “the 14-day rule” … is not a bar to the conviction of the accused in a case where the court is satisfied—

(a) that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time … for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement, or

(b) that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.

[mischmaster]

martinbiz said:

Only the first NIP to the RK is required to be delivered within 14 days, anything after that is not subject to the same rule

I see. So the first NIP could have been delivered to an out of date address within 14 days, but since re-delivered to an updated address months later and still be active. Seems like this is what has happened in this case.

agtlaw said:

The “14-day rule” is not an absolute; see s. 2(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

Failure to comply with … “the 14-day rule” … is not a bar to the conviction of the accused in a case where the court is satisfied—

(a) that neither the name and address of the accused nor the name and address of the registered keeper, if any, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time … for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement, or

(b) that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.

Makes sense - looks like it was option (a) in this case.

Thanks all for you help.

[E-bmw]

martinbiz said:

Only the first NIP to the RK is required to be delivered within 14 days, anything after that is not subject to the same rule

That is the bit I was mixing up above, oops.