NIP out of time?
Discussion
MDMA . said:
OP says alleged offence on the 3rd, NIP dated on the 10th. So well within the time frame..
It was franked on the 20th. So they could put any old date on it. If it's been franked on the 20th, that's when it was still in possession of the RM; therefore, it coud not have been possibly received before that date,snuffy said:
MDMA . said:
OP says alleged offence on the 3rd, NIP dated on the 10th. So well within the time frame..
It was franked on the 20th. So they could put any old date on it. If it's been franked on the 20th, that's when it was still in possession of the RM; therefore, it coud not have been possibly received before that date,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..
RSTurboPaul said:
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.
2 days in the normal course of first class post, So if posted on day 12 starting the day after the offence it would be deemed to have been served correctlyOddCat 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' ?
Nothing, you can claim what you like but satisfying a court thatit's the case is another matterWhat is to stop people sitting on the letter once received for a few days and then claiming 'out of time receipt' ?
vonhosen said:
snuffy said:
MDMA . said:
OP says alleged offence on the 3rd, NIP dated on the 10th. So well within the time frame..
It was franked on the 20th. So they could put any old date on it. If it's been franked on the 20th, that's when it was still in possession of the RM; therefore, it coud not have been possibly received before that date,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..
MDMA . said:
Does the date the NIP was dated overrule everything?
No it is just the date it was raised, unless of course it was dated on or after day 12 of the 14 day period, then it couldn't possibly be served on timeIn this case the dates that matter are the offence date and the date it was received
martinbiz said:
MDMA . said:
Does the date the NIP was dated overrule everything?
No it is just the date it was raised, unless of course it was dated on or after day 12 of the 14 day period, then it couldn't possibly be served on timeIn this case the dates that matter are the offence date and the date it was received
I know the OP says it has only just arrived, but what if it’s been sat on the worktop for a week under something and then only just seeing it?
Do they have to prove you received it? Genuinely interested in what the proof of receiving a NIP is.
MDMA . said:
martinbiz said:
MDMA . said:
Does the date the NIP was dated overrule everything?
No it is just the date it was raised, unless of course it was dated on or after day 12 of the 14 day period, then it couldn't possibly be served on timeIn this case the dates that matter are the offence date and the date it was received
I know the OP says it has only just arrived, but what if it’s been sat on the worktop for a week under something and then only just seeing it?
Do they have to prove you received it? Genuinely interested in what the proof of receiving a NIP is.
The onus to prove it didn't arrive in time is down to the OP. How he does it is a matter for him. Whether it satisfies the court or not is a matter for the court.
If he does challenge service then a course (should it qualify for a course) is likely to be out of the window.
It would also be daft to commit perjury/pervert the course of justice for it.
Not that I'm saying that's what the OP is doing, just saying.
MDMA . said:
martinbiz said:
MDMA . said:
Does the date the NIP was dated overrule everything?
No it is just the date it was raised, unless of course it was dated on or after day 12 of the 14 day period, then it couldn't possibly be served on timeIn this case the dates that matter are the offence date and the date it was received
I know the OP says it has only just arrived, but what if it’s been sat on the worktop for a week under something and then only just seeing it?
Do they have to prove you received it? Genuinely interested in what the proof of receiving a NIP is.
martinbiz said:
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
vonhosen said:
They will no doubt have evidence of the offence date, the date the NIP was raised & the date/method of posting. They will then be relying on the rebuttable presumption that it was served in time.
The onus to prove it didn't arrive in time is down to the OP. How he does it is a matter for him. Whether it satisfies the court or not is a matter for the court.
If he does challenge service then a course (should it qualify for a course) is likely to be out of the window.
It would also be daft to commit perjury/pervert the course of justice for it.
Not that I'm saying that's what the OP is doing, just saying.
Yes, burden of proof on D to the civil standard (i.e. the balance of probabilities). I've seen this incorrectly said to be an evidential burden only. I suppose some people don't know the difference, even though this is a very basic principle.The onus to prove it didn't arrive in time is down to the OP. How he does it is a matter for him. Whether it satisfies the court or not is a matter for the court.
If he does challenge service then a course (should it qualify for a course) is likely to be out of the window.
It would also be daft to commit perjury/pervert the course of justice for it.
Not that I'm saying that's what the OP is doing, just saying.
snuffy said:
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.
Service by 1st class post is presumed to be effected 2 business days after posting.snuffy said:
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 s
te.
Late service by 1st class post, even for a NIP posted 'in time', can be contested.te.The usual one is Gidden V Chief Constable of Humberside.
Sent by first class post but delayed by postal strike.
IIRC his postman provided the corroboration that the delivery was on the 16th day.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/criminal-procedur...
Sent by first class post but delayed by postal strike.
IIRC his postman provided the corroboration that the delivery was on the 16th day.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/criminal-procedur...
MDMA . said:
So what’s to stop everyone saying they didn’t receive it in time? How can you prove you didn’t get it on time? That’s what I meant.
I know the OP says it has only just arrived, but what if it’s been sat on the worktop for a week under something and then only just seeing it?
Do they have to prove you received it? Genuinely interested in what the proof of receiving a NIP is.
It helps if you're David Beckham and lease a Bentley.I know the OP says it has only just arrived, but what if it’s been sat on the worktop for a week under something and then only just seeing it?
Do they have to prove you received it? Genuinely interested in what the proof of receiving a NIP is.
paintman said:
The usual one is Gidden V Chief Constable of Humberside.
Sent by first class post but delayed by postal strike.
IIRC his postman provided the corroboration that the delivery was on the 16th day.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/criminal-procedur...
Quite and the fact that Gidden was convicted in the MC shows how high the bar was/is even on the balance of probabilities and with a corroborating witnessSent by first class post but delayed by postal strike.
IIRC his postman provided the corroboration that the delivery was on the 16th day.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/criminal-procedur...
Can everyone check your post?
How many of your letters been date-stamped by the PO?
If not date-stamped and a NIP posted in time does not arrive within 14 days, how is it possible to prove when/if it arrived?
To summarise:
NIP must be "served" within 14 days.
Definition of "served" is "received at the address of the RK" (not necessarily received by the RK in person, they may be on holiday).
Proof of posting 1st class 2 working days before 14 days is accepted by the courts as proof of "served".
If late, it is the RK that has to prove it was late.
Is that correct?
How many of your letters been date-stamped by the PO?
If not date-stamped and a NIP posted in time does not arrive within 14 days, how is it possible to prove when/if it arrived?
To summarise:
NIP must be "served" within 14 days.
Definition of "served" is "received at the address of the RK" (not necessarily received by the RK in person, they may be on holiday).
Proof of posting 1st class 2 working days before 14 days is accepted by the courts as proof of "served".
If late, it is the RK that has to prove it was late.
Is that correct?
Super Sonic said:
Have you found the envelope it was actually posted in?
Yep. Doesn't have a date on it unfortunately.I've got CCTV of the postman delivering it, but it obviously isn't clear enough to show what the white envelope was.
It's 5 years since her last driver awareness course, so she should qualify for another one.
Believe that was for same location - A137 at Tattingstone - so not sure the course worked
.It's an annoying location with a 30 limit, but not many properties and no history of accidents, where pretty much everyone goes above the limit..
snuffy said:
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.
That’s interesting. Is it legal for the police (or those employed by them and acting on their behalf) to lie in order to attempt to progress a legally invalid prosecution?Dave Finney said:
How many of your letters been date-stamped by the PO?
If not date-stamped and a NIP posted in time does not arrive within 14 days, how is it possible to prove when/if it arrived?
If late, it is the RK that has to prove it was late.
Why would the authorities provide all the necessary information in an accessible and clear way to show that they shouldn't have bothered posting a NIP in the first place?If not date-stamped and a NIP posted in time does not arrive within 14 days, how is it possible to prove when/if it arrived?
If late, it is the RK that has to prove it was late.
Their computer system should say "Don't bother posting this one" saving £1.35. But there will always be those unnecessarily paying £100 to make it worthwhile.
Message Board | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff