Whats the longest anyones waited for a NIP

[mycroft]

Sorry this may have come up before but I can`t find anything on a search.
I think I got filmed on the A14 buy a van parked on the side of the road. The thing is I didn`t see him cos there was a line of HGV`s on the inside lane but I think there is a good chance they got a shot of me at a distance. ( no idea how far away these things operate at )
This happened about two weeks before Christmas, how long is it before I can be sure they didn`t see me.
p.s. Clear day , strait road , light traffic.

[BliarOut]

They have 14 days to get the NIP to you.

[mycroft]

You just made my day

[zetec]

Even though we have gone 4 days with no post, then another 3 days with no post (Xmas and New Year)??

[jeremyadamson]

And also provided that the car is registered to you at your home address. Otherwise, the rules don't seem to apply!

[BliarOut]

IIRC, post is their problem, not yours

[MilnerR]

They have to serve the NIP to the registered keeper within 14 days of the offence. If its a company car or a hire car then the NIP will go to your company or the hire company. If its your car then you should be in the clear. It might have been a BiB in the van who exercised discretion (clear day light traffic etc) and didn't decide to report you.

Make sure you know the date that you think the offence took place and if you do get an NIP make sure their dates match, not that i'm saying they'd falsify documents but there is always a chance of a "mistake" in their favour

[zcacogp]

BliarOut said:

IIRC, post is their problem, not yours

I thought that it was your problem actually. There was some case quoted by Dwight Van Driver (where is he these days, BTW?) where an NIP was deemed to have been served even when it never turned up. Noting the posting of it in the list of items done at the office was deemed to be sufficient evidence of it being "Served".

14 day rule is correct. However, theoretically they can still take you to court 6 months after the incident. However, this is very unlikely - no NIP in 14 days (nearer 16 allowing for the post) means you are probably clear.


Oli.

ETA: I was flashed the day before Christmas Eve, and am keeping my fingers crossed in a similar way about the 14-days business ... Thanks to others who have replied to my thread (BliarOut, for one.)


Oli.

>> Edited by zcacogp on Thursday 30th December 14:36

[mycroft]

My indulgence was on the way to a raffle draw that we had on the TVR S forum ,twas Dec 4th ( I checked)
26 days , I think that puts me in the clear
Anybody recomend a good detector, road angel etc.

[DeMolay]

The problem lies with the scuffers actually.

An NIP simply HAS to be issued so that in the normal course of posting (i.e. first class mail) it arrives with the registered keeper within 14 days. The police should take into account Christmas etc. when they post it.

The case you refer to (I think) is Groome v Driscoll, where the NIP didn't turn up for well in excess of the 14 day limit. However, the NIP was issued registered post within the alloted time. It must have gotten lost somewhere along the line. So if it is posted (and there is proof of it) within the time limit, then there is apparently no defence.

[zetec]

So are NIPs sent by registered/recorded delivery?? If not, what stops someone saying they didn't receive it??

[DeMolay]

zetec said:

So are NIPs sent by registered/recorded delivery?? If not, what stops someone saying they didn't receive it??

As a rule, no. Legislation changed in 1995 when the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act inserted subsection 1(A) into section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act. This made it permissable for the police to issue NIPs by first class mail, thus saving them a lot of money and time.

As to what stops people from saying they didn't receive them, there is nothing to stop someone standing up in court and stating as much. This is realistically the only way in which someone could challenge the fact that the police sent it out at all. Legislation states, "unless the contrary is proved" (i.e. the defendant not getting it). How would you prove it otherwise, short of testifying as much?