caught speeding, HELP required
Discussion
If you were caught speeding on 3rd Dec 2006 on the A361 by a MANNED CAMERA. And received the NIP on the 5th Jan 2007, letter dated 04-01-2007. You need to be informed withing 14 days it says here:
www.direct.gov.uk/TravelAndTranspo
But I they say they sent out the NIP to the previous owner of the car (the DVLA were in the process of updated the details) within 14 days and that is all they need to do.
advice please am i still liable to be prosecuted?
thanks
www.direct.gov.uk/TravelAndTranspo
But I they say they sent out the NIP to the previous owner of the car (the DVLA were in the process of updated the details) within 14 days and that is all they need to do.
advice please am i still liable to be prosecuted?
thanks
Edited by madras on Wednesday 10th January 12:33
yup. sorry, but they sent the NiP to the address told to them by DVLA, requirement satisfied.
You could try www.pepipoo.com for further wriggle room, but dont hold out too much hope.
You could try www.pepipoo.com for further wriggle room, but dont hold out too much hope.
Hmm, doesn't look good
www.pepipoo.com/images/Staffs_14_day_rule.jpg
www.pepipoo.com/images/Staffs_14_day_rule.jpg
Edited by madras on Wednesday 10th January 12:33
After catching the speeding vehicle SCP within a couple of days would make an enquiry of DEVLA for the name of the Keeper on their Register. SCP would be supplied with that detail (i.e. old owner as CofO not complete) NOIP then sent out in the 14 days to that person and law complied with.
Matters not that a second NOIP sent out to the new owner is out of time.
Unless there is something else as that Scottish Private in Dad's Army says... yerr doomed men... DOOMED
dvd
Matters not that a second NOIP sent out to the new owner is out of time.
Unless there is something else as that Scottish Private in Dad's Army says... yerr doomed men... DOOMED
dvd
I will stick my head above the parapet and say that DVD is not correct when he says you are doomed.
Reasoning is a s follows:
The provisions of the 1988 Act were introduced, because it was considered unreasonable for a registered keeper to provide a defence to an unremarkable event that occured in the distant past. Therefore the police were required to notify the RK within 14 days of the alleged offence in order that the RK could put together his defence (if he had one).
Now if the police complied with the 14 day requirement, then prima facie the defendant could not claim that the events were so distant that he could not recall.
If the police fail to comply with the requirements of the Act because of out of date records or similar (as long as this is not due to the RK's failure or misconduct) then the defendant should still be able to claim that he cannot mount a proper defence because of the passage of time.
The simple question is 'what is the intention of the law makers?'.
Reasoning is a s follows:
The provisions of the 1988 Act were introduced, because it was considered unreasonable for a registered keeper to provide a defence to an unremarkable event that occured in the distant past. Therefore the police were required to notify the RK within 14 days of the alleged offence in order that the RK could put together his defence (if he had one).
Now if the police complied with the 14 day requirement, then prima facie the defendant could not claim that the events were so distant that he could not recall.
If the police fail to comply with the requirements of the Act because of out of date records or similar (as long as this is not due to the RK's failure or misconduct) then the defendant should still be able to claim that he cannot mount a proper defence because of the passage of time.
The simple question is 'what is the intention of the law makers?'.
kenp said:
If the police fail to comply with the requirements of the Act because of out of date records or similar (as long as this is not due to the RK's failure or misconduct) then the defendant should still be able to claim that he cannot mount a proper defence because of the passage of time.
The simple question is 'what is the intention of the law makers?'.
The simple question is 'what is the intention of the law makers?'.
Quite wrong.
www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_2.htm#mdiv1
(3) Failure to comply with the requirement of section 1(1) of this Act 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 summons or, as the case may be, a complaint to be served or for a notice to be served or sent in compliance with the requirement, or
The question is whether or not the police showed "reasonable diligence" in ascertaining the RK's details.
It's always hard to tell for sure, but you'd have a hell of a job proving they didn't.
kenp said:
The subsection says that failure to comply is NOT A BAR to conviction etc.
It means what it says, but it doesn't undermine the presumption that with the passage of time the ability to mount an informed defence diminishes.
It means what it says, but it doesn't undermine the presumption that with the passage of time the ability to mount an informed defence diminishes.
It matters not how long it takes to get to the RK, providing the police display reasonable diligence. The RK may cry "foul", but it is no bar to conviction.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff