NIP out of time?

[ScoobyChris]

rscott said:

Yep We've been checking incoming post very carefully for the last week or so as the other half has just changed her car and needed the updated v5 to transfer her plate over.

I think there is a distinction between serving and receiving. Given the date of the letter is 10th May, are you sure they didn't post it first class around that time (ie they met their obligation for serving)? The fact you received it outside the 14-days is not necessarily a get out.

Chris

[MDMA .]

ScoobyChris said:

rscott said:

Yep We've been checking incoming post very carefully for the last week or so as the other half has just changed her car and needed the updated v5 to transfer her plate over.

I think there is a distinction between serving and receiving. Given the date of the letter is 10th May, are you sure they didn't post it first class around that time (ie they met their obligation for serving)? The fact you received it outside the 14-days is not necessarily a get out.

Chris

Was thinking this. What’s to say you just saying I never received it?

[Pica-Pica]

SS2. said:

agtlaw said:

Also worth querying service of the Notice by 2nd class post. Reminders are sometimes sent by 2nd class post. However, section 1 of the RTOA 1988 refers to registered, recorded or first class post only.

This - 100%.

We’ve moved on from that. OP says that was actually a different letter.

[vonhosen]

MDMA . said:

ScoobyChris said:

rscott said:

Yep We've been checking incoming post very carefully for the last week or so as the other half has just changed her car and needed the updated v5 to transfer her plate over.

I think there is a distinction between serving and receiving. Given the date of the letter is 10th May, are you sure they didn't post it first class around that time (ie they met their obligation for serving)? The fact you received it outside the 14-days is not necessarily a get out.

Chris

Was thinking this. What’s to say you just saying I never received it?

If 1st class post is used then there is a rebuttable presumption, where sent in good time, that it was served. It is for the OP to prove it wasn't served, (essentially didn't arrive in time).
If they had sent it in good time by the other methods that presumption of service would be irrebuttable, even if it arrived out of time.

[LunarOne]

ScoobyChris said:

rscott said:

Yep We've been checking incoming post very carefully for the last week or so as the other half has just changed her car and needed the updated v5 to transfer her plate over.

I think there is a distinction between serving and receiving. Given the date of the letter is 10th May, are you sure they didn't post it first class around that time (ie they met their obligation for serving)? The fact you received it outside the 14-days is not necessarily a get out.

Chris

I also think there's a distinction, but if I recall correctly (and I'm sure AGT will correct me), the NIP must be posted in good time so that it could reasonably be received by you within 14 days - or perhaps the clock starts the day after the offence. So if they posted it on the Saturday knowing that a Sunday and a bank holiday Monday would mean that it would not be delivered until Tuesday, and Monday was the cut-off, then that would not be reasonable. But if they posted it in good time, but it was delayed due to an unforeseeable event (for example the postal delivery van was in an accident and as a result your NIP was delivered a day after the cut-off), then the NIP would still be valid.

[martinbiz]

LunarOne said:

I also think there's a distinction, but if I recall correctly (and I'm sure AGT will correct me), the NIP must be posted in good time so that it could reasonably be received by you within 14 days - or perhaps the clock starts the day after the offence. So if they posted it on the Saturday knowing that a Sunday and a bank holiday Monday would mean that it would not be delivered until Tuesday, and Monday was the cut-off, then that would not be reasonable. But if they posted it in good time, but it was delayed due to an unforeseeable event (for example the postal delivery van was in an accident and as a result your NIP was delivered a day after the cut-off), then the NIP would still be valid.

Unforeseen events such as postal strikes, post vans breaking down or a glut of other possibilities does not stop the clock rolling for the 14 day cut off

[LunarOne]

martinbiz said:

Unforeseen events such as postal strikes, post vans breaking down or a glut of other possibilities does not stop the clock rolling for the 14 day cut off

Exactly. But foreseen events do.

[martinbiz]

LunarOne said:

martinbiz said:

Unforeseen events such as postal strikes, post vans breaking down or a glut of other possibilities does not stop the clock rolling for the 14 day cut off

Exactly. But foreseen events do.

Not sure that’s what you said though, you said a broken down van was grounds for a Nip to be delivered out of time and still be valid, it isn’t

I can’t think of any foreseeable events that would make late service ok

Edited by martinbiz on Thursday 23 May 14:41

[martinbiz]

LunarOne said:

but it was delayed due to an unforeseeable event (for example the postal delivery van was in an accident and as a result your NIP was delivered a day after the cut-off), then the NIP would still be valid.

[OddCat]

rscott said:

After talking to the other half this morning, it seems the envelope with 2nd class postage was for something else. She's found the right envelope which unfortunately doesn't have a date on it..

FFS.

That's it then. The OP (or, more accurately, his wife) doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[LunarOne]

martinbiz said:

LunarOne said:

but it was delayed due to an unforeseeable event (for example the postal delivery van was in an accident and as a result your NIP was delivered a day after the cut-off), then the NIP would still be valid.

I have re-read what I wrote and it still makes sense to me.

If the NIP was sent out too late to reasonably arrive within the required time frame and it arrives late, then the driver is in luck.

If the NIP was posted so that it could reasonably be expected to arrive within the required time frame, but an unexpected event delays it, then the NIP would still be valid even if it is delivered after the cut-off time. In which case, the driver is out of luck.

[WrekinCrew]

See AGTLAW's blog and scroll down to the "late NIP" bit at 3rd March 2020.

[martinbiz]

LunarOne said:

martinbiz said:

LunarOne said:

but it was delayed due to an unforeseeable event (for example the postal delivery van was in an accident and as a result your NIP was delivered a day after the cut-off), then the NIP would still be valid.

If the NIP was posted so that it could reasonably be expected to arrive within the required time frame, but an unexpected event delays it, then the NIP would still be valid even if it is delivered after the cut-off time. In which case, the driver is out of luck.

And that’s the bit that’s wrong

[vonhosen]

LunarOne said:

If the NIP was posted so that it could reasonably be expected to arrive within the required time frame, but an unexpected event delays it, then the NIP would still be valid even if it is delivered after the cut-off time. In which case, the driver is out of luck.

Only if sent by registered or recorded post (most aren't).
If sent by 1st class post it can be challenged.

[Zeeky]

LunarOne said:

If the NIP was posted so that it could reasonably be expected to arrive within the required time frame, but an unexpected event delays it, then the NIP would still be valid even if it is delivered after the cut-off time. In which case, the driver is out of luck.

'Would still be presumed to be valid' would be more accurate and avoid further discussion.

The driver would still have the opportunity to rebut the presumption by showing that, in fact, it wasn't received in time.

[martinbiz]

vonhosen said:

LunarOne said:

If the NIP was posted so that it could reasonably be expected to arrive within the required time frame, but an unexpected event delays it, then the NIP would still be valid even if it is delivered after the cut-off time. In which case, the driver is out of luck.

Only if sent by registered or recorded post (most aren't).
If sent by 1st class post it can be challenged.

Correct, even if the Postman's van suffered a nuclear attack which resulted in Late or no delivery, it doen't remove their obligation to deliver NIP within 14 days. The hard task has always been for many and likely the OP is to satisfy a court that it was indeed delivered late, even with 2 people corroborating the story under oath. The pragmatic approach if it is an SAC on the cards maybe just to swallow it and move on, even if it was thrown out in court it is likely to cost far more in, time, money and effort than £100 for a course. There is nothing to lose in the OP still sending back the letter with the completed NIP together with a seperate signed note from the Mrs confirming the date it was delivered and they would be happy to swear this under oath. It may get dropped or she may get a FP or course offer

[OddCat]

The offence was committed on 3rd. The letter was generated dated 13th and (probably) posted same day.

What is to stop people sitting on the letter once received for a few days and then claiming 'out of time receipt' ?

[RSTurboPaul]

OddCat said:

The offence was committed on 3rd. The letter was generated dated 13th and (probably) posted same day.

What is to stop people sitting on the letter once received for a few days and then claiming 'out of time receipt' ?

With reference to agtlaw's earlier post:

agtlaw said:

Jamescrs said:

I think that this is a very sensible approach, I would probably also add a line in about the franking stamp date of the envelope and a photocopy of the envelope if you can, retain the original envelope just in case

Also worth querying service of the Notice by 2nd class post. Reminders are sometimes sent by 2nd class post. However, section 1 of the RTOA 1988 refers to registered, recorded or first class post only.

my understanding is that in the eyes of the court, a letter is deemed to be received [the next working day?] if sent by First Class or Recorded/Registered.

[snuffy]

Not including the day of the offence, it has to be posted, 1st class, within 13 days, so that, allowing for 1 day to arrive (which is what 1st class is supposed to be), you receive it in 14 days or less.

Offence on the 3rd of May, so the latest it can be posted to still be in time is the 16th of May. If it was posted on the 16th, and it takes more than a day however to arrive, that is still posted in time, as it's not their fault that the RM is ste.

So in your case, the 20th is well out of time.

I had one years ago, and they will just try it on. I wrote back and stated it was out of time. Their reply was that it was not. My next response was that I had taken legal advice (which I had), and I re-interated that it was issued out of time. I then received a letter saying the matter would not be taken further.

[MDMA .]

OddCat said:

The offence was committed on 3rd. The letter was generated dated 13th and (probably) posted same day.

What is to stop people sitting on the letter once received for a few days and then claiming 'out of time receipt' ?

OP says alleged offence on the 3rd, NIP dated on the 10th. So well within the time frame. First it was 2nd class, then first, wife opened it ( not sure why the OP didn’t? My wife would never open my mail, nor would I open hers).
So would this be deemed as served, even if it arrived late? What’s to stop everyone saying I didn’t get it in time so not valid? Does the date the NIP was dated overrule everything? I’ve never received one so I don’t know how it works.