Notice of Prosecution
Discussion
Not sure on how they work so thought I would ask. I received a NIP through the post a couple of weeks ago, but it was for my Wife's car, although addressed to me as the registered keeper of which I am not. It was for 35 in a 30 and certainly wasn't me, but more than likely my Wife (she can't remember being there). So I completed it and returned it nominating my Wife as the driver, even though the car is registered in her name. Now roll on to today and another NIP has arrived in the post for the same offence, but this time addressed to my Wife. Is that because I originally nominated her, or could it be because they had the registered keeper wrong the first time? If they cocked up the first time and have now only corrected it, will that make a difference when it comes to receiving the NIP within two weeks? I ask as this NIP clearly shows the offence was committed on the 8th Jan and has only arrived today. Excuse me for my ignorance if I've got it completely wrongs, just thought it worth ago as you never know
tony wright said:
If they cocked up the first time and have now only corrected it, will that make a difference when it comes to receiving the NIP within two weeks? I ask as this NIP clearly shows the offence was committed on the 8th Jan and has only arrived today. Excuse me for my ignorance if I've got it completely wrongs, just thought it worth ago as you never know
No. If the first NIP is served to the Registered Keeper within 14 days; then the requirement is satisfied; otherwise it would be easy to escape any prosecution by the registered keeper waiting 12 days then replying "X was driving.... oh look you've run out of time to serve NIP on X, sorry about that"
tony wright said:
I received a NIP through the post a couple of weeks ago, but it was for my Wife's car, although addressed to me as the registered keeper of which I am not.
The name and address is obtained from the DVLA record (which should be what is on the V5C for that vehicle). So if you're not the RK how come it was addressed to you?In your position I would want to find out. Failing that you could have to deal with more unwanted correspondnce for anything resulting from the use of her car.
OldGermanHeaps said:
You would have been better just repling that you are not the registered keeper and you were not driving at the time and as you are not the rk it is not your responsibility to keep track of who was driving.
You seem to be forgetting RTA 1988 Section 172(2)(b). The information was definitely within the OP's power to give.
Red Devil said:
tony wright said:
I received a NIP through the post a couple of weeks ago, but it was for my Wife's car, although addressed to me as the registered keeper of which I am not.
The name and address is obtained from the DVLA record (which should be what is on the V5C for that vehicle). So if you're not the RK how come it was addressed to you?In your position I would want to find out. Failing that you could have to deal with more unwanted correspondnce for anything resulting from the use of her car.
OldGermanHeaps said:
You would have been better just repling that you are not the registered keeper and you were not driving at the time and as you are not the rk it is not your responsibility to keep track of who was driving.
You seem to be forgetting RTA 1988 Section 172(2)(b). The information was definitely within the OP's power to give.jm doc said:
The letter was to the registered keeper. He's not the registered keeper therefore should not reply other than to say he's not RK. That's perjury otherwise isn't it??
I despair of this forum at times, I really do. Have you even bothered to read the specific wording in the legislaton I linked to? 
Red Devil said:
jm doc said:
The letter was to the registered keeper. He's not the registered keeper therefore should not reply other than to say he's not RK. That's perjury otherwise isn't it??
I despair of this forum at times, I really do. Have you even bothered to read the specific wording in the legislaton I linked to? jm doc said:
Red Devil said:
jm doc said:
The letter was to the registered keeper. He's not the registered keeper therefore should not reply other than to say he's not RK. That's perjury otherwise isn't it??
I despair of this forum at times, I really do. Have you even bothered to read the specific wording in the legislaton I linked to? jm doc said:
Red Devil said:
jm doc said:
The letter was to the registered keeper. He's not the registered keeper therefore should not reply other than to say he's not RK. That's perjury otherwise isn't it??
I despair of this forum at times, I really do. Have you even bothered to read the specific wording in the legislaton I linked to? The grounds you have stated for refusing to name are not sufficent. If the OP is not the RK but is married to her that clearly brings him within the scope of 'any other person' who has 'information which it is within his power to give'. He knows full well whose car it is and, if not him, who the driver will have been.
I'm still curious as to how TPTB managed to decide he is the RK, but that error doesn't mean he can escape the requirement in the aforementioned sub-section.
MrJingles705 said:
Doesn't matter....
What doesn't? Which side of this fence are you on? 
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff