30 DAYS since offence - NIP received

[Vesuvius 996]

Not me, thankfully, my boss.

Offence date 1st October 2007
Red light camera

NIP received this morning dated 30th October 2007
Postmark 30th October 2007


30 days is too long, non?


What do we say to kill it off?


Thanks in advance.

Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Thursday 1st November 09:49

[10 Pence Short]

Looks like a null and void. Letter to authorities stating timed out.

[mmm-five]

Is it his own car, in his name, or is it registered to the company?

If it's his own, then the 14-day rule applies - otherwise it doesn't.

[SS2.]

As already stated, a Notice of Intended Prosecution is required to be served on the Registered Keeper of the vehicle within 14 days of the alleged offence. Subsequent notices are not subject to similar limitations to time..

So who is the DVLA Registered Keeper ?

[Vesuvius 996]

Sorted.

Her car, registered to her, home address.


I'll write her a letter telling them to shove it. They can't even blame the postal strike as the NIP itself is dated 30 days after the offence.

Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Thursday 1st November 10:20

[SS2.]

Vesuvius 996 said:

Sorted.

Her car, registered to her, home address.

I'll write her a letter telling them to shove it. They can't even blame the postal strike as the NIP itself is dated 30 days after the offence.

Hmm. 30 days ? Its about the right sort of time for a reminder..

Regardless, the RAC letter deals with late service of NIPs - template here

But be mindful though that despite a NIP being deemed defective through late service, this does not necessarily absolve the recipient of providing the driver details. No point in facing a failing to furnish charge, particularly now the penalty has increased to 6 points..

[Vesuvius 996]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Snakes with tits. All of them.

[peterguk]

Vesuvius 996 said:

Sorted.

Her car, registered to her, home address.


I'll write her a letter telling them to shove it. They can't even blame the postal strike as the NIP itself is dated 30 days after the offence.

Edited by Vesuvius 996 on Thursday 1st November 10:20

The S172 still needs to be completed and returned.

Edited by peterguk on Thursday 1st November 11:55

[SS2.]

peterguk said:

The S172 still needs to be completed and returned.

No, it doesn't..

The driver details are required to be provided. These could easily be incorporated into a letter (ie RAC) which raises the issue of late service of the NIP.

[peterguk]

SS2. said:

peterguk said:

The S172 still needs to be completed and returned.

No, it doesn't..

The driver details are required to be provided. These could easily be incorporated into a letter (ie RAC) which raises the issue of late service of the NIP.

Since not returning S172 is an offence in itself, seems sensible to complete it rather than incorporate details into a letter.

I had exactly same situation re. service outside of 14 days, sent RAC letter and S172 as advised by pepipoo.

[SS2.]

peterguk said:

Since not returning S172 is an offence in itself,

No it isn't.. It is NOT a legal requirement to complete and return a s.172 notice - it is a legal requirement to provide the driver details. The two are quite different.

peterguk said:

I had exactly same situation re. service outside of 14 days, sent RAC letter and S172 as advised by pepipoo.

Sending a completed s.172 might serve to maintain a defendant's credibility if they were required to appear in court and state, under oath, that the initial NIP was not served in accordance with s.1 RTOA 1988.

That said, combining the late service issues and driver details into a single document means that the SCP would be less likely to 'lose' the letter. As such, the issues raised could be seen by a CPS decision maker prior to trial, thus enabling them to drop the matter at the earliest opportunity..

Edited by SS2. on Thursday 1st November 12:29

[Dwight VanDriver]

One hopes that this is not a recently aquired motor vehicle by my lady.

Change of ownership may have led to a discrepancy in DVLA records so that the old owner who was on DCLA record when interrogated as keeper got the original and has replied pointing out to whom sold.

Due diligence by SCP - a get out for them.

dvd