NIP :(

[italyciccia76]

I just woke up to a letter from the police relating to a speeding offence on the 04/10/2007. The date on their letter is the 8/11/2007. I beleive from reading this forum I can appeal. My only concern is that I sold the car the day after, so does this mean they have chased the new registered keeper within the 14 days and he has given my name making the NIP valid?

Thanks for your help

[andyuk911]

bottom line you have the nip ...get the pix to confirm it really is you and your car

[bryan35]

I'm assuming you mean the day after the offence.

well, there's 2 possibilities.
They contacted the new keeper first, in which case the NIP is valid,
they contacted you first, in which case the NIP is NOT valid.

What I would do is contact the new keeper and ask them if they recieved an NIP, and what the date was on it.

interesting though, which the legal chaps may comment on. If they did sent the first NIP to the new keeper, theoretically they should know who the registered keeper was on the date of the offence, so have effectively sent the original NIP to the wrong person, in which case the 14 day rule may still apply.

[Dwight VanDriver]

The date of the NOIP and date received together with the admission that the vehicle was sold the day following the offence to me indicates the following:

Following the 'flash' the SCP have contacted DVLA and were provided with the details they had on their register as Reg Keeper - the new owner. Reg Keeper at law is the one named on DVLA register.

So they have sent the new owner NOIP being the current name on their Register and F 172 to name driver which the new owner has obliged by stating old owner. NOIP then sent to old old owner with 172. Providing the new owner received NOIP within 15 days of offence (14 days plus date of offence) then service deemed to have been completed. Matters not any subsequent NOIP sent out is 'out of time'.

Listen to Bryan ^^^^^^^^^ re contacting new owner.

dvd

[Hooli]

I'd be surprised if the DVLA had updated their record that quickly to send it to the new keeper first.
best of luck.

[Globulator]

Dwight VanDriver said:

F 172 to name driver which the new owner has obliged by stating old owner. NOIP then sent to old old owner with 172.

There is no way the new owner could say who was driving - how would he know?!
I would get the photo so you yourself can find out who was driving.
If you find it was actually your french friend Pierre, then you'll have to name him I'm afraid.

[Hooli]

Globulator said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

F 172 to name driver which the new owner has obliged by stating old owner. NOIP then sent to old old owner with 172.

There is no way the new owner could say who was driving - how would he know?!
I would get the photo so you yourself can find out who was driving.
If you find it was actually your french friend Pierre, then you'll have to name him I'm afraid.

look closer it was duncan disorderly

[Dwight VanDriver]

Globulator said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

F 172 to name driver which the new owner has obliged by stating old owner. NOIP then sent to old old owner with 172.

There is no way the new owner could say who was driving - how would he know?!
I would get the photo so you yourself can find out who was driving.
If you find it was actually your french friend Pierre, then you'll have to name him I'm afraid.

S 172 (2) (a) RTA 88

any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

dvd

[italyciccia76]

Ok thanks for your advice. Can I include Saturdays and Sundays in the day count?

[herewego]

Dwight VanDriver said:

The date of the NOIP and date received together with the admission that the vehicle was sold the day following the offence to me indicates the following:

Following the 'flash' the SCP have contacted DVLA and were provided with the details they had on their register as Reg Keeper - the new owner. Reg Keeper at law is the one named on DVLA register.

So they have sent the new owner NOIP being the current name on their Register and F 172 to name driver which the new owner has obliged by stating old owner. NOIP then sent to old old owner with 172. Providing the new owner received NOIP within 15 days of offence (14 days plus date of offence) then service deemed to have been completed. Matters not any subsequent NOIP sent out is 'out of time'.

Listen to Bryan ^^^^^^^^^ re contacting new owner.

dvd

Would they really ask DVLA for the current owner rather than the owner on the date of offence? Seems a flawed system.

[BertBert]

Globulator said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

F 172 to name driver which the new owner has obliged by stating old owner. NOIP then sent to old old owner with 172.

There is no way the new owner could say who was driving - how would he know?!
I would get the photo so you yourself can find out who was driving.
If you find it was actually your french friend Pierre, then you'll have to name him I'm afraid.

of course if one were "making up" the whole Pierre espisode, one would be doing that in the knowledge that people get put in prison for PCJ, wouldn't one?

Bert

[Globulator]

BertBert said:

Globulator said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

F 172 to name driver which the new owner has obliged by stating old owner. NOIP then sent to old old owner with 172.

There is no way the new owner could say who was driving - how would he know?!
I would get the photo so you yourself can find out who was driving.
If you find it was actually your french friend Pierre, then you'll have to name him I'm afraid.

of course if one were "making up" the whole Pierre espisode, one would be doing that in the knowledge that people get put in prison for PCJ, wouldn't one?

Bert

It's the sort of thing that you'd have to deliberately confess to though, isn't it.
Which you wouldn't, 'cos if you wanted to be punished, you'd just confess to the speeding...

[BMWBen]

Globulator said:

BertBert said:

Globulator said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

F 172 to name driver which the new owner has obliged by stating old owner. NOIP then sent to old old owner with 172.

There is no way the new owner could say who was driving - how would he know?!
I would get the photo so you yourself can find out who was driving.
If you find it was actually your french friend Pierre, then you'll have to name him I'm afraid.

of course if one were "making up" the whole Pierre espisode, one would be doing that in the knowledge that people get put in prison for PCJ, wouldn't one?

Bert

It's the sort of thing that you'd have to deliberately confess to though, isn't it.
Which you wouldn't, 'cos if you wanted to be punished, you'd just confess to the speeding...

Or... just as you think you've got away with it, smiley prosecution counsel stand up and present you with a photo, and a link to this thread Mmmmm, bum rape time.

[Globulator]

BMWBen said:

Or... just as you think you've got away with it, smiley prosecution counsel stand up and present you with a photo, and a link to this thread

I think that's why I said (above) you need to get the photo first.
Plus, even if they have a wonderful photo, they need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were driving. Unless you confess, they can't.

If as usual they have no photo at all, or some grainy thing, then they're stuffed.

Next.

[vonhosen]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...

[Globulator]

vonhosen said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...

Being helpful and inventing people - tut tut!! Two definite no nos!!

[jm doc]

DVD said

S 172 (2) (a) RTA 88

any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

dvd



There is a significant difference in the requirement under S172 if you are not the registered keeper, ie you are not required to name the driver, only if it is in your power to do so. It is usually several weeks later if you are not the RK before you receive an NIP, and just because you have been named as the driver that day does not mean you may actually have been driving, especially if the car is able to be used by others. Given the time that has usually elapsed,it is not reasonable to expect you to be able to say if you were actually driving at the time, and the prosecution would have to demonstrate that it was in your power to name the driver.

jm

[italyciccia76]

ok - i think i'll ask them to provide a photo as it was over a month ago and i cant remember who was driving. Do i need to write a letter and return the form stating this?

Thanks again

[blueyes]

italyciccia76 said:

ok - i think i'll ask them to provide a photo as it was over a month ago and i cant remember who was driving. Do i need to write a letter and return the form stating this?

Thanks again

Fine, but remember that you requesting information doesn't "stop the clock". I.E. the 28 days you have to return the form. Go past that date and they'll summons you and you'll lose the offer the FPN: 3 points and 60 quid.

[SS2.]

blueyes said:

Fine, but remember that you requesting information doesn't "stop the clock". I.E. the 28 days you have to return the form. Go past that date and they'll summons you and you'll lose the offer the FPN: 3 points and 60 quid.

Whilst statute does not specifically permit extension to the response time of s.172 notices, the OP would not be guilty of an offence of failing to provide (assuming his response was 'late') if he could demonstrate that he provided the information as soon as was practicably possible after the end of the 28 day response window of the s.172 notice..

If photos are required to confirm the identity of the driver, then it follows that it might not be practicably possible to provide the information any sooner than the date upon which the photographs arrive. If this date is beyond the 28 day window because the scammers delayed in issuing the snaps, then so be it..