Discussion
This has probably been done before, so I apologize in advance. But any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Received a NIP in the post dated 15/10/04, for an offence that allegedly took place at 19:31 on 30/09/2004.
What should the correct course of action be ?
Sorry for being dim but all this sort of stuff I find a bit baffling.
Thanks guys
Received a NIP in the post dated 15/10/04, for an offence that allegedly took place at 19:31 on 30/09/2004.
What should the correct course of action be ?
Sorry for being dim but all this sort of stuff I find a bit baffling.
Thanks guys
drew450 said:
Received a NIP in the post dated 15/10/04, for an offence that allegedly took place at 19:31 on 30/09/2004.
What should the correct course of action be ?
Sorry for being dim but all this sort of stuff I find a bit baffling.
Thanks guys
Firstly, are you the registered keeper of the vehicle? The police have 14 days to serve the NIP on the registered keeper. If this is not complied with, the NIP could be invalid.
drew450 said:
Thanks for your advice on this, there is so much confusion surrounding this subject.
My company is the registered keeper of the vehicle, does this make a difference ?
Thanks again
There isn't really any confusion at all.
What happens (or should happen) is that the registered keeper of a vehicle (in your case, the company you work for) will receive the NIP. They will then in turn nominate you as the 'keeper' or 'usual driver' of the vehicle. Even though the NIP that you receive arrived outwith the 14 day barrier, it is irrelevant if your company received their's within 14 days of the alleged offence.
You need to get onto your 'fleet people' and find out if this is indeed the case. I have to say that it sounds likely.
In your shoes, I would try www.pepipoo.com for comprehensive advice.
>> Edited by DeMolay on Wednesday 20th October 16:08
drew450 said:
My company received the NIP (as the registered keeper) outside the 14 days, does this therefore make it invalid ?
Your post doesn't make any sense. Are you now saying that the NIP received which was dated 15/10/04 for the offence on the 30/9/04 was in fact received by your company?
Let me make this as simple as possible by asking you these questions :
i) Was the alleged offence on the 30/9/04?
ii) Was the first NIP received by the registered keeper (your company) after the 15/10/04 (date on NIP)?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then you will need to find out if your company does indeed own the vehicle or whether they lease it from another company. A simple phone call should be enough to establish whether or not your company definately IS the registered keeper.
In that case you have nothing to worry about. An NIP must be served within 14 days to the registered keeper or it is invalid. In this case, the postage delay isn't even an issue as the NIP is actually dated 15 days after the offence, so the police are screwed.
Get your company to fill the NIP in and send it back with the details of who was driving. This is to fend off a s172 (failure to provide) charge, which is different to speeding and has no time limits. Don't worry about doing this as it is just so you are belt and braces.
Along with the NIP, send a letter pointing out that the 14 day deadline has not been met, therefore any subsequent action they take to prosecute you is bound to fail. Come back if you want a hand with the wording.
Get your company to fill the NIP in and send it back with the details of who was driving. This is to fend off a s172 (failure to provide) charge, which is different to speeding and has no time limits. Don't worry about doing this as it is just so you are belt and braces.
Along with the NIP, send a letter pointing out that the 14 day deadline has not been met, therefore any subsequent action they take to prosecute you is bound to fail. Come back if you want a hand with the wording.
Thanks for your advice Jacques and the link to the pepipoo website. Hugely informative on all of these issues.
Incidentally, I believe I know who the driver of the vehicle is,( historically hugely responsible behind the wheel )and the road that the alleged offence took place, it is quite clear that the positioning of the mobile camera was placed for maximum revenue generating effect, so I feel justified in contesting the point on a technicality.
Thanks again.
Incidentally, I believe I know who the driver of the vehicle is,( historically hugely responsible behind the wheel )and the road that the alleged offence took place, it is quite clear that the positioning of the mobile camera was placed for maximum revenue generating effect, so I feel justified in contesting the point on a technicality.
Thanks again.
Exactly Sandman.
If NOIP was sent out to Reg keeper by Regpost, RecDel, or First class post (second class not permitted)on Flashday plus 7 but delivered outside the 14 days through a glitch in Postal Services then service is held to be good (Groome v Driscoll [1969]). But if posted on say Flashdate plus 13/14 so that in the normal course of the post it could not be delivered in the time limit then that is bad service (Nicholson v Tapp [1972])
Nevertheless, as suggested above worth having a go at the SCP on late delivery (statement from Co Sec)but if push comes to shove then SCP may well be within the law.
Incidentally Officer Dibble, SC etc, what is the modern approach by Police/SCP's in proof of posting?. My day, we sent NOIPs by Recordeded Delivery so that we had a post date certificate which was attached to the copy NOIP duly endorsed with a Certificate of Service. No argument then.
DVD
If NOIP was sent out to Reg keeper by Regpost, RecDel, or First class post (second class not permitted)on Flashday plus 7 but delivered outside the 14 days through a glitch in Postal Services then service is held to be good (Groome v Driscoll [1969]). But if posted on say Flashdate plus 13/14 so that in the normal course of the post it could not be delivered in the time limit then that is bad service (Nicholson v Tapp [1972])
Nevertheless, as suggested above worth having a go at the SCP on late delivery (statement from Co Sec)but if push comes to shove then SCP may well be within the law.
Incidentally Officer Dibble, SC etc, what is the modern approach by Police/SCP's in proof of posting?. My day, we sent NOIPs by Recordeded Delivery so that we had a post date certificate which was attached to the copy NOIP duly endorsed with a Certificate of Service. No argument then.
DVD
Drew
Looks like your on a winner. Providing that there has been no change to that of the Reg Keeper at or around the time of offence or earlier so that when SCP made enquiry of DVLA they were fed wrong details. In such cases tis said that SCP have showed due dilgence and misled by DVLA.
DVD
Looks like your on a winner. Providing that there has been no change to that of the Reg Keeper at or around the time of offence or earlier so that when SCP made enquiry of DVLA they were fed wrong details. In such cases tis said that SCP have showed due dilgence and misled by DVLA.
DVD
seems only fair if we have to stick to the letter of the law, so should the parternships.
BTW my local 'flashers' have been using a black tripod gatso (I think) about 3 feet high which they place two hundred yards in front of the van so that traffic approaching the trap gets no warning. Is this legit if they are keeping the cash?
Interesting to see that local residents have planted warning signs! Bless
Thanks
Ken
BTW my local 'flashers' have been using a black tripod gatso (I think) about 3 feet high which they place two hundred yards in front of the van so that traffic approaching the trap gets no warning. Is this legit if they are keeping the cash?
Interesting to see that local residents have planted warning signs! Bless
Thanks
Ken
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff