NIP sent in time but received late - what's to do?

[cheeky]

Leaving aside the particulars of the NIP I received yesterday (62mph in 50mph zone on A3, etc.), I note that it is for an alleged offence on 11th July.

It is dated 18th July, which is well within the 14 day limit.

However, I received it yesterday, 1st August, which is 21 days after the alleged offence.

Do I send it back saying it was too late?

[bond-007]

Any postmark on the envelope? 1st class post?

[shuvitupya]

cheeky said:

It is dated 18th July, which is well within the 14 day limit.

However, I received it yesterday, 1st August, which is 21 days after the alleged offence.

Do I send it back saying it was too late?

It does not matter when you received it, as it's the date sent of original NIP that has to be within 14 days of offence.

If you are not the registered keeper, the 14 day limit does not apply.

Edited by shuvitupya on Wednesday 2nd August 18:55

[jasandjules]

shuvitupya said:

It does not matter when you received it, as it's the date sent of original NIP that has to be within 14 days of offence.

I assume the OP is indicating that the post date/date sent must logically be only recently to arrive a week after .. Royal Mail are cr*p, but a week late?!?

Is there anything on the Royal Mail website which states 1st class mail = next day delivery or similar?

I would guess the Taxman has taken a punt in hoping you will pay up due to the date on the NIP... Being an honest sorta guy etc.. rather than them being rather shifty in attempting to rob you it seems.

[cheeky]

bond-007 said:

Any postmark on the envelope? 1st class post?

There is a franking on the envelope confirming 18th July, although it's one of those self-franking machines you get in offices, i.e. not a stamp with a postmark.

Not sure what to do, given that I received it late.

[Stubby Pete]

bond-007 said:

Any postmark on the envelope? 1st class post?

Here here, surely if you can demonstrate that it was not posted until a week after it was dated you can demonstrate that it was out of time?

[cheeky]

Stubby Pete said:

bond-007 said:

Any postmark on the envelope? 1st class post?

Here here, surely if you can demonstrate that it was not posted until a week after it was dated you can demonstrate that it was out of time?

Well I can't. All I can say for sure is that it was received a week late.

[jith]

cheeky said:

Stubby Pete said:

bond-007 said:

Any postmark on the envelope? 1st class post?

Here here, surely if you can demonstrate that it was not posted until a week after it was dated you can demonstrate that it was out of time?

Well I can't. All I can say for sure is that it was received a week late.

No, you're wrong. You CAN demonstrate it was posted late from the frank on the envelope.
It is the sender that franks the envelope themselves, not the post office, so it did not leave their office until the date of the frank.
I would say you are home and dry.

[cheeky]

How so? The franked date is 7 days after the alleged offence, which is not late.

It then took two weeks to reach me!

[Dwight Vandriver]

They will argue in any contestation that the NOIP was sent out on 18th by first class post which is the date of the franking machine and as such in time for it to be delivered in the ordinary course of the post in 14 days (+1 day of offence) which has given them 7 days for GPO to deliver.

They may well also claim that they have shown due diligence in the service i.e. GPO at fault at not them.

Question of fact for Mags to decide?

dvd

[SS2.]

shuvitupya said:

It does not matter when you received it, as it's the date sent of original NIP that has to be within 14 days of offence.

Not so. Service is deemed effected upon delivery, not upon postage.

Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 2nd August 21:27

[Dwight Vandriver]

There are those that would beg to differ SS2.

Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978 and Nicholson v Tapp 1972 of which much has been posted on this Forum in the past?.

dvd

Edited by Dwight Vandriver on Thursday 3rd August 08:36

[cheeky]

Dwight Vandriver said:

There are those that would beg to differ SS2.

Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978 and Nicholson v Tapp 1972 of which much has been popsted on this Forum in the past?.

dvd

So is the best course of action to try the "received late" line and see what happens, but be prepared to cave if pursued?

Other interesting aspect is that the alleged speed is higher than the one imposed as a limitation during running in, and the car was in its first 100 miles at that time!

No idea, as yet, by what means they claim to have recorded such speed.

[SS2.]

Dwight Vandriver said:

There are those that would beg to differ SS2.

Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978 and Nicholson v Tapp 1972 of which much has been posted on this Forum in the past?.

dvd

But in Nicholson, it was argued by the prosecution that posting a notice at 1 minute before midnight on day 14 satisfied 'service', as required by s.1 RTOA 1988. This would have meant that, in the ordinary course of post, the notice would not have been received until day 15 or 16. This, according to the judge, was not 'service', as required by the Act.

[Dwight Vandriver]

I personally would consider writing back pointing out the 14 day law as contained in Section 1 Road traffic Offenders Act 1988; the late receipt and see what their response is and invite a reply from them so that you know where you stand (no signed 172 they may go into prosecution mode unbeknown to you until summons drops on the mat)

You never know they just might drop but if they are on the ball they should know the law.

The fact that it is advised not to exceed such and such a speed whilst running in doesn't mean uncareful owner could not do more. Nought out of ten for that one.

dvd

[cheeky]

Dwight Vandriver said:

I personally would consider writing back pointing out the 14 day law as contained in Section 1 Road traffic Offenders Act 1988; the late receipt and see what their response is and invite a reply from them so that you know where you stand (no signed 172 they may go into prosecution mode unbeknown to you until summons drops on the mat)

You never know they just might drop but if they are on the ball they should know the law.

The fact that it is advised not to exceed such and such a speed whilst running in doesn't mean uncareful owner could not do more. Nought out of ten for that one.

dvd

Wasn't planning on using that as a defence; it just so happens to be the truth but would still have allowed me to have been 6mph above the limit.

When you say "no signed 172 they may go into prosecution mode unbeknown to you until summons drops on the mat" do you mean they may wrongly (or rightly?) start prosecuting without driver having been identified?

Should I mention that I am aware of the purported posting date when I say it was received late? I am not trying it on - it was received late - but could quite understand if they thought that I was.

[7db]

Interesting and tricky.

They franked it in time. Question is:- did it sit in an out-tray for 7 days after that before someone noticed and put it in the post, or did it go in the post and then spend 10 days getting to you?

You could ask the RM for percentage of 1st class letters delivered 10 days late. That should show that there is a high probability that it was posted late...

It's twisted statistics, as really it shows no such thing, but it might work on the mags.

[pdV6]

Trouble is, the OP will have no proof at all (other than his word) that the NIP was delivered late.

[jith]

jith said:

cheeky said:

Stubby Pete said:

bond-007 said:

Any postmark on the envelope? 1st class post?

Here here, surely if you can demonstrate that it was not posted until a week after it was dated you can demonstrate that it was out of time?

Well I can't. All I can say for sure is that it was received a week late.

No, you're wrong. You CAN demonstrate it was posted late from the frank on the envelope.
It is the sender that franks the envelope themselves, not the post office, so it did not leave their office until the date of the frank.
I would say you are home and dry.

Sorry cheeky, I misread your post and thought the franking date was the same as the received date. Dooooooh!!!
This to me is an utterly unbelieve abuse of assumption.
It assumes that because the FP office sent the document to the recipient on time that same recipient actually received it.
This assumption therefore is that the integrity of all the office staff involved after the document is dated, the post office service with all the individuals between the sender and you, the humble postie himself, and any other individuals like flatmates or neighbours in buildings with communal mailboxes, is flawless.
Reality indeed!!!
Every one of these documents should be sent recorded delivery and when the CPS stand up in court to pursue you they should have a return slip from the post office with your signature on it: THAT is correct and proper service, exceeded only by a police officer or court official personally handing you the document.
They send them out ordinary post because it saves them money, and gives them a convenient excuse if the document IS late or goes astray; they can just blunder on regardless with your prosecution on a deeply flawed assumption.
Fight it all the way!

[pdV6]

jith said:

Every one of these documents should be sent recorded delivery and when the CPS stand up in court to pursue you they should have a return slip from the post office with your signature on it: THAT is correct and proper service, exceeded only by a police officer or court official personally handing you the document.

My thoughts exactly - I've long said the same. Its not like it would cost them anything either, as they're allowed to keep enough cash from the fines to cover costs.