Late issue of a NIP
Discussion
Right
Nothing new but my wife was alleged to have been speeding (36 in 30) on the 18 Nov 06. The NIP was issued on the 15 Dec 06 and we got it on the 16 Dec 06. Am I right in thinking this is well outside the legal time frames?
Funny thing is it was so long ago we don't know who was driving!
Nothing new but my wife was alleged to have been speeding (36 in 30) on the 18 Nov 06. The NIP was issued on the 15 Dec 06 and we got it on the 16 Dec 06. Am I right in thinking this is well outside the legal time frames?
Funny thing is it was so long ago we don't know who was driving!
Dwight VanDriver said:
Who is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle involved. If other than yourselves did that person get a NOIP in the 14 days. If they did then this is good service and they can send out others in any time frame other than 6 months.
dvd
dvd
'Good service'
Ahh the irony....
As I understand it, the first NIP goes to the reg keeper, and that is the one that has to be posted with the fourteen days.
If your wife is the registered keeper, and the first NIP ( addressed to her ) is dated approx a month after the offence you SHOULD be OK. I am not sure how you answer this, or what you should do with the NIP.
I expect someone who knows more will be along in a minuts.
If your wife is the registered keeper, and the first NIP ( addressed to her ) is dated approx a month after the offence you SHOULD be OK. I am not sure how you answer this, or what you should do with the NIP.
I expect someone who knows more will be along in a minuts.
gorvid said:
where are the people that know
In Korea suffering from insomnia mate ! DvD is usually much better than me on this but here goes. Its covered by the RTA Offenders Act 1988 1, (1) c) and the scamera partnerships know it well yet still time and again issue NIPS out of time in the hope that people will roll over and pay up. Shameful but if veg's missus is the RK she should simply write back quoting this section.
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)
1.—(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—
(a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or
(b) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or
(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—
(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,
(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.
(3) The requirement of subsection (1) above shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.
gorvid said:
Where are the people who know?
I flatter myself that I know.
The position is that a NOIP has to be posted so that it is received, in the ordinary course of posting, within 14-days. What that doesn't mean (though you will read it on virtually every police website) is that the police have to post it within 14-days.
Where first class post is used to issue the NOIP then the presumption of service is rebuttable. In other words, evidence that the NOIP wasn't received invalidates any future prosecution. Sworn testimony in court is one way of achieving this.
DeMolay said:
gorvid said:
Where are the people who know?
I flatter myself that I know.
The position is that a NOIP has to be posted so that it is received, in the ordinary course of posting, within 14-days. What that doesn't mean (though you will read it on virtually every police website) is that the police have to post it within 14-days.
Where first class post is used to issue the NOIP then the presumption of service is rebuttable. In other words, evidence that the NOIP wasn't received invalidates any future prosecution. Sworn testimony in court is one way of achieving this.
Just interested,how can you prove you didn't recieve the NIP?Is there any other way except to testify in court?
esselte said:
Just interested,how can you prove you didn't recieve the NIP?Is there any other way except to testify in court?
It would obviously be desirable to have additional evidence that your address has a history of mail going missing, but it's very hard to prove a negative (actually, it's virtually impossible). Ultimately it depends on the credibility of the witness, but why shouldn't the court accept what is being said by the defendant? What would be the point of anyone swearing under oath if the court didn't accept the testimony. It would render the whole process meaningless.
The police have the option of ensuring service by sending all NIPs out by recorded delivery, but choose not to do so.
A little complication to the actual details.
My wife bought the car from a dealer on the 9th November.
Car tax issued against my wifes insurance and DVLA informed of change on that date
Speeding offence 18th November
NIP issued to previous owner of the car on the 28th November
Re directed NIP issued on the 15th December.
How does this constitute notification to registered owner because the DVLA hadn't processed the change quick enough?
Any ideas?
My wife bought the car from a dealer on the 9th November.
Car tax issued against my wifes insurance and DVLA informed of change on that date
Speeding offence 18th November
NIP issued to previous owner of the car on the 28th November
Re directed NIP issued on the 15th December.
How does this constitute notification to registered owner because the DVLA hadn't processed the change quick enough?
Any ideas?
veg said:
A little complication to the actual details.
My wife bought the car from a dealer on the 9th November.
Car tax issued against my wifes insurance and DVLA informed of change on that date
Speeding offence 18th November
NIP issued to previous owner of the car on the 28th November
Re directed NIP issued on the 15th December.
How does this constitute notification to registered owner because the DVLA hadn't processed the change quick enough?
Any ideas?
My wife bought the car from a dealer on the 9th November.
Car tax issued against my wifes insurance and DVLA informed of change on that date
Speeding offence 18th November
NIP issued to previous owner of the car on the 28th November
Re directed NIP issued on the 15th December.
How does this constitute notification to registered owner because the DVLA hadn't processed the change quick enough?
Any ideas?
That's not the fault of the Police, they are not accountable for DVLA errors. They have complied with the law in good faith & on the information available.
Personally I'd say it's been served in those circumstances.
vonhosen said:
veg said:
A little complication to the actual details.
My wife bought the car from a dealer on the 9th November.
Car tax issued against my wifes insurance and DVLA informed of change on that date
Speeding offence 18th November
NIP issued to previous owner of the car on the 28th November
Re directed NIP issued on the 15th December.
How does this constitute notification to registered owner because the DVLA hadn't processed the change quick enough?
Any ideas?
My wife bought the car from a dealer on the 9th November.
Car tax issued against my wifes insurance and DVLA informed of change on that date
Speeding offence 18th November
NIP issued to previous owner of the car on the 28th November
Re directed NIP issued on the 15th December.
How does this constitute notification to registered owner because the DVLA hadn't processed the change quick enough?
Any ideas?
That's not the fault of the Police, they are not accountable for DVLA errors. They have complied with the law in good faith & on the information available.
Personally I'd say it's been served in those circumstances.
Might be worth consulting a solicitor, though?
rs1952 said:
vonhosen said:
veg said:
A little complication to the actual details.
My wife bought the car from a dealer on the 9th November.
Car tax issued against my wifes insurance and DVLA informed of change on that date
Speeding offence 18th November
NIP issued to previous owner of the car on the 28th November
Re directed NIP issued on the 15th December.
How does this constitute notification to registered owner because the DVLA hadn't processed the change quick enough?
Any ideas?
My wife bought the car from a dealer on the 9th November.
Car tax issued against my wifes insurance and DVLA informed of change on that date
Speeding offence 18th November
NIP issued to previous owner of the car on the 28th November
Re directed NIP issued on the 15th December.
How does this constitute notification to registered owner because the DVLA hadn't processed the change quick enough?
Any ideas?
That's not the fault of the Police, they are not accountable for DVLA errors. They have complied with the law in good faith & on the information available.
Personally I'd say it's been served in those circumstances.
Might be worth consulting a solicitor, though?
By all means do if you consider it worth it, I was only expressing my personal opinion.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 30th December 11:47
DeMolay said:
gorvid said:
Where are the people who know?
I flatter myself that I know.
The position is that a NOIP has to be posted so that it is received, in the ordinary course of posting, within 14-days. What that doesn't mean (though you will read it on virtually every police website) is that the police have to post it within 14-days.
Where first class post is used to issue the NOIP then the presumption of service is rebuttable. In other words, evidence that the NOIP wasn't received invalidates any future prosecution. Sworn testimony in court is one way of achieving this.
DeMolay,
I have had this problem even in Scotland where delivery is recorded, and the post office send back the undelivered, and hence non-serviced NIP, and the idiots in the prosecution service STILL infer that service has been met.
Don't they actually learn about the law and the statutes before they take on these jobs?
We are supposed to be able to trust these people and their behaviour is deplorable!
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 said:
Sec 1(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.
If it's sent by recorded delivery in good time to arrive within the time frame stipulated that is service.
For you to claim it wasn't served you must show that the above didn't happen (i.e. it wasn't sent by that method in sufficient time). With recorded delivery & registered post it doesn't matter if you don't receive it.
Where you have the chance to rebutt by not receiving, is with first class post only. As it is not deemed service to simply send to arrive within the time frame by this method, unlike the others.
That is the effect of Sec 1(3) in relation to Sec 1(1) & 1(2)
For you to claim it wasn't served you must show that the above didn't happen (i.e. it wasn't sent by that method in sufficient time). With recorded delivery & registered post it doesn't matter if you don't receive it.
Where you have the chance to rebutt by not receiving, is with first class post only. As it is not deemed service to simply send to arrive within the time frame by this method, unlike the others.
That is the effect of Sec 1(3) in relation to Sec 1(1) & 1(2)
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 30th December 13:05
vonhosen said:
If it's sent by recorded delivery in good time to arrive within the time frame stipulated that is service.
For you to claim it wasn't served you must show that the above didn't happen (i.e. it wasn't sent by that method in sufficient time). With recorded delivery & registered post it doesn't matter if you don't receive it.
Where you have the chance to rebutt by not receiving, is with first class post only. As it is not deemed service to simply send to arrive within the time frame by this method, unlike the others.
That is the effect of Sec 1(3) in relation to Sec 1(1) & 1(2)
For you to claim it wasn't served you must show that the above didn't happen (i.e. it wasn't sent by that method in sufficient time). With recorded delivery & registered post it doesn't matter if you don't receive it.
Where you have the chance to rebutt by not receiving, is with first class post only. As it is not deemed service to simply send to arrive within the time frame by this method, unlike the others.
That is the effect of Sec 1(3) in relation to Sec 1(1) & 1(2)
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 30th December 13:05
Completely inaccurate; but regularly tried on!
Proof of SERVICE is the standard required in all criminal trials, because the issue and service of a NIP in relation to S172 will almost always result in a criminal trial or prosecution if it is opposed.
You cannot simply stand up on behalf of the crown and say that old Mrs. Smith down the road mistakenly got the NIP so it was served!!!
If this is proven, and it is proven that the true registered keeper, and this MUST include keepers that are not on the DVLA computer database due to the DVLA making an error, then you cannot go after the registered keeper outwith the given time frame.
It is crystal clear that this section is placed within the statutes to protect keepers from prosecution after an unreasonable time has elapsed.
I was involved in a case just six months ago where the DVLA had made a procedural error in a change of keeper and it was four months before the camera partnership caught up with the RK.
They wanted to proceed with a prosecution, but I told the Fiscal this was totally unacceptable and the case was dropped.
Every other RK in the same position MUST do the same.
Your inference that it is not the fault of the police that the DVLA make an error is quite frankly ridiculous; you would appear to imply that it therefore follows that it is the fault of the RK or they at least should be penalised.
That mentality stinks!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff