Received a NIP - Advice please
Discussion
First is to check the date of the postmark on the envelope, also to check if it was posted 1st or 2nd class, 2nd class is not good enough. Remember that franked 1st class may cost 1p less then a 1st class stamp (IIRC).
If you are the registered keeper and have been for at least 3 months then the NIP may well have been sent 'out of time'. The 14 days starts from the day after the offence. If the postmark is not within 13 days then it is indeed 'out of time' and you may send it back with a covering letter explaining why this is so. Keep copies of everything and do not throw away the envelope.
Good luck.
If you are the registered keeper and have been for at least 3 months then the NIP may well have been sent 'out of time'. The 14 days starts from the day after the offence. If the postmark is not within 13 days then it is indeed 'out of time' and you may send it back with a covering letter explaining why this is so. Keep copies of everything and do not throw away the envelope.
Good luck.
Cheers, couple of problems. I dont have the envelope but the actual nip is dated 12/09/2005 - Offence is 08/08/2005. I have been the owner for four months, bought from new at dealer only me as registred keeper.
You mention writing back to them? The letter is signed Ms Smith on behalf of the cheif constable. I have had a quick look on Pepioo, and cant seem to find an exapmple of what to write back..
Thanks
You mention writing back to them? The letter is signed Ms Smith on behalf of the cheif constable. I have had a quick look on Pepioo, and cant seem to find an exapmple of what to write back..
Thanks
First of all along with the NOIP there will be a request to name the driver under Sect 172 Road Traffic Act 88. This has no time scale on service and if not returned within 28 days then offence committed,
Now the NOIP aspect. Obligation on the authorities under Section 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, if they have not given verbal NOIP at time, served summons for offence within 14 clear days of the offence, THEN within 14 clear days serve NOIP on driver or Reg Keeper (where driver is not known). Service is affected, in your case, by sending it by Reg Post, or Rec Delivery or First Class post addressed to the last known address. (Moved house lateley?)
If they don't do this then a person shall not be convicted of the offence to which NOIP was required, except certain circumstances which do apply in this case.
If you have difficulty in framing a letter reminding them of their obligation then consider a.s.a.p. popping along to Citizens Advice Bureau and having a session with their Solicitor (free).
If the facts are as you have stated then it looks as if you are fireproof (this time?)
dvd
Now the NOIP aspect. Obligation on the authorities under Section 1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, if they have not given verbal NOIP at time, served summons for offence within 14 clear days of the offence, THEN within 14 clear days serve NOIP on driver or Reg Keeper (where driver is not known). Service is affected, in your case, by sending it by Reg Post, or Rec Delivery or First Class post addressed to the last known address. (Moved house lateley?)
If they don't do this then a person shall not be convicted of the offence to which NOIP was required, except certain circumstances which do apply in this case.
If you have difficulty in framing a letter reminding them of their obligation then consider a.s.a.p. popping along to Citizens Advice Bureau and having a session with their Solicitor (free).
If the facts are as you have stated then it looks as if you are fireproof (this time?)
dvd
Sorry Dwight another couple of questions!
Just rang CAB and they weren't very helpful. I will probably write back to Chief Constable myself..
Do I still sign NIP and name myself as driver? Do I also include my letter at that time explaining that they have sent this outide the timescales?
Any other places you could reccomend for leagl advice?
Cheers really appreciate it..
Just rang CAB and they weren't very helpful. I will probably write back to Chief Constable myself..
Do I still sign NIP and name myself as driver? Do I also include my letter at that time explaining that they have sent this outide the timescales?
Any other places you could reccomend for leagl advice?
Cheers really appreciate it..
sja said:
Sorry Dwight another couple of questions!
Just rang CAB and they weren't very helpful. I will probably write back to Chief Constable myself..
Do I still sign NIP and name myself as driver? Do I also include my letter at that time explaining that they have sent this outide the timescales?
Any other places you could reccomend for leagl advice?
Cheers really appreciate it..
Just to be safe I would use the PACE letter that can be found on Pepipoo for the driver naming bit, thus if the NIP is without fault they cannot use the driver naming as evidence.....
Each and every man has his own opinion and in relation to the PACE get out I am not yet convinced this will work until such time as its validity has been tested at High Court. I do understand that there are a number of cases of the like to be heard at the European High Courts on the grounds that self incrimination is against Human Rights legislation.
To much extent the case Maudsley/Yorke (2003)quoted by Pepipoo has been overtaken by DPP v Francis IDRIS (2004) where the judgement was that 172 form, despite no mention in the Act/Section, HAD TO BE SIGNED and also at the ECJ in Weh v Austria 2004 where under similar circumstances in relation to naming a driver, self incrimination/rights were not infringed.
Further within the Maudsey case the following was stated
"But in any event I am satisfied that the requirement to provide information under section 172 falls within the exceptions to the need for a caution contained in the second part of C.10.1, which provides that a person need not be cautioned if questions are put "…to obtain information in accordance with any statutory requirement…". The section 172 forms were sent to the Appellants for that purpose. It follows that in my judgment C.10.1 of the Code does not impose an obligation to caution in such circumstances. The same applies to the current edition of the Code which came into effect on 1 April 2003.
Accordingly an objection to the admission of such evidence on the basis of failure to comply with the code of Practice, could not have succeeded."
This PACE argument has been doing the rounds for nearly three years. If it was so successful why hasn't it been made common knowledge by the motoring media and do not tell me if it was the success claimed, HMG would have remained docile and not taken steps to plug the gap in thier revenue raising.
Nevertheless nothing ventured nothing gained but don't be surprised if they bounce the letter and go for a full Court hearing where very expensive people in the legal field will argue the case.
My thoughts entirely as an old plod.
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 15th September 15:43
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 15th September 15:45
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 15th September 15:47
To much extent the case Maudsley/Yorke (2003)quoted by Pepipoo has been overtaken by DPP v Francis IDRIS (2004) where the judgement was that 172 form, despite no mention in the Act/Section, HAD TO BE SIGNED and also at the ECJ in Weh v Austria 2004 where under similar circumstances in relation to naming a driver, self incrimination/rights were not infringed.
Further within the Maudsey case the following was stated
"But in any event I am satisfied that the requirement to provide information under section 172 falls within the exceptions to the need for a caution contained in the second part of C.10.1, which provides that a person need not be cautioned if questions are put "…to obtain information in accordance with any statutory requirement…". The section 172 forms were sent to the Appellants for that purpose. It follows that in my judgment C.10.1 of the Code does not impose an obligation to caution in such circumstances. The same applies to the current edition of the Code which came into effect on 1 April 2003.
Accordingly an objection to the admission of such evidence on the basis of failure to comply with the code of Practice, could not have succeeded."
This PACE argument has been doing the rounds for nearly three years. If it was so successful why hasn't it been made common knowledge by the motoring media and do not tell me if it was the success claimed, HMG would have remained docile and not taken steps to plug the gap in thier revenue raising.
Nevertheless nothing ventured nothing gained but don't be surprised if they bounce the letter and go for a full Court hearing where very expensive people in the legal field will argue the case.
My thoughts entirely as an old plod.
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 15th September 15:43
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 15th September 15:45
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 15th September 15:47
Dwight VanDriver said:
Further within the Maudsey case the following was stated
"But in any event I am satisfied that the requirement to provide information under section 172 falls within the exceptions to the need for a caution contained in the second part of C.10.1, which provides that a person need not be cautioned if questions are put "…to obtain information in accordance with any statutory requirement…". The section 172 forms were sent to the Appellants for that purpose. It follows that in my judgment C.10.1 of the Code does not impose an obligation to caution in such circumstances. The same applies to the current edition of the Code which came into effect on 1 April 2003.
Its not so much Section 172 where the 'issue' lies but with S12 RTOA 1988 for allowing submission of the S172 information against the defendant. Bear in mind that S12 RTOA came into effect long before the first remote speed camera. I'm sure the intended use of Section 12 was not the indiscriminate blanket prosecuting of millions of motorists it is responsible for today.
DVD said:
Accordingly an objection to the admission of such evidence on the basis of failure to comply with the code of Practice, could not have succeeded."
That's all well and good for the first NIP in the chain. They argue that's simply a statutory request for information
But what if you are the 2nd NIP in the chain ie. company car driver ? When nominated as the driver by the RK, you are now a suspect in a criminal investigaton. In Funke vs France in the ECHR (where Funke was a suspect), the court found in favour of Funke who was being 'compelled' under threat of financial penalty to give answers which would have been self-incriminating. A good reason to drive a car (where you are the RK) as little as possible...
DVD said:
This PACE argument has been doing the rounds for nearly three years. If it was so successful why hasn't it been made common knowledge by the motoring media and do not tell me if it was the success claimed, HMG would have remained docile and not taken steps to plug the gap in thier revenue raising.
How would they do that, exactly ? By changing the laws offering us even fewer human rights ? The European Court very recently warned member states that they will be severely punished if they are seen to contravene the Convention / HRA.
DVD said:
Nevertheless nothing ventured nothing gained but don't be surprised if they bounce the letter and go for a full Court hearing where very expensive people in the legal field will argue the case.
The wheels are already in motion....
DVD said:
My thoughts entirely as an old plod.
And long may you continue to share them with us, DVD...
>> Edited by SS2. on Thursday 15th September 16:15
>> Edited by SS2. on Thursday 15th September 16:16
Dwight VanDriver said:
Pay or not to pay, that is the question?
Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the fine and points of a misfortune than to .........
dvd
Outrageous (misfortune)!
DVD, not had to use your assistance (yet) but thanks for all your time and effort sharing knowledge with us beleaguered motorists.
Just out of interest - I started another thread for just receiving a NIP recently and am yet to respond.
I have just moved (since receiving the NIP) but have not updated my V5 document OR responded to the NIP.
Is there any point responding to the NIP (from my old address) then changing the V5 address to my new address?
What would happen if police responses were sent to the old address (which is now NOT the address of the registered keeper)???
I have just moved (since receiving the NIP) but have not updated my V5 document OR responded to the NIP.
Is there any point responding to the NIP (from my old address) then changing the V5 address to my new address?
What would happen if police responses were sent to the old address (which is now NOT the address of the registered keeper)???
sja said:
Well PACE letter did / didn't go down well depending on views.. Just received another letter from Police. Conditional offer of Fixed Penalty...
Any advice gratefuly received..
Hang on a minute.
Your initial post indicated that the NIP was served outside of the statutory 14 day period, therefore making it invalid.
What happened to sending it back and telling them so?
What next ? Who knows ? Consistency is not a word normally associated with the scammers...
Ignoring the CoFP could have a number of outcomes:
You may hear nothing (best outcome)
You may be summonsed for failing to furnish (easy to defeat as you have complied with S172 with your PACE letter).
You may be summonsed for speeding.
You may be summonsed for speeding and S172.
Its pointless at this stage trying to predict what will happen. Just sit tight and let the scammers make the next move...
>> Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 26th October 10:29
Ignoring the CoFP could have a number of outcomes:
You may hear nothing (best outcome)
You may be summonsed for failing to furnish (easy to defeat as you have complied with S172 with your PACE letter).
You may be summonsed for speeding.
You may be summonsed for speeding and S172.
Its pointless at this stage trying to predict what will happen. Just sit tight and let the scammers make the next move...
>> Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 26th October 10:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff