Notice of Intended Prosecution - 2 months after the offence

[The Red Baron]

Please can you experts give me some advice.

I received a Notice of Prosecution on 2nd Dec, for an alleged speeding offence, which occurred on 14 Sep. This is as printed on the NIP.

The NIP is requesting I provide details of the driver (it wasn't me).

Should I challenge the fact it was issued over 2 months after the alleged offense, or reply with the suspected driver's details and let them fight it?

Any advice welcome.

[agtlaw]

Complete the form. If possible then online. Otherwise, use Signed For post or special delivery.

The driver may wish to look into the process. There are exceptions to the 14-day rule and, in any event, there is no time limit to issue a section 172 driver details request - which is what you have received.

[chunkyjh]

As above, you do your bit by completing the form, they can challenge it if necessary

[2020vision]

Apart from some exceptions in section 2 and parts of section 1 of the road traffic offenders act 1988, an NIP needs to be served on the registered keeper of the vehicle involved by 14 days after the offence occurs.

Once that is done nobody else needs to have an NIP served on them.

Unfortunately the police insist on sending NIPs unnecessarily to people who are nominated by the registered keeper. Then those nominated enter into correspondence claiming the NIP is out of time.

What should really happen is that the police desists sending NIPs when they don’t need to. If corresponding with nominated persons they could send only a S172 requirement that specifically says “This is not an NIP” or “An NIP was served on the keeper within 14 days of this offence on dd/mm/yyyy, so don’t bother us with claiming this is out of time, now provide what is required of you”

They also send NIPs for mobile phone offences when none is required

[Fastdruid]

As 2020vision says. the only requirement is that the NIP is sent to the registered keeper within 14 days. If it's a lease/hire car etc or you've recently changed then it can end up taking some time to get to the actual "user" but that doesn't mean the first one wasn't sent in time.

If you are however the registered keeper (ie your name and address on the V5) then two months after the event would make it out of time however you still would need to respond to the request for driver details (and depending on who the driver was you may or may not want to let them know the NIP was out of time).

[agtlaw]

Fastdruid said:

As 2020vision says. the only requirement is that the NIP is sent to the registered keeper within 14 days. If it's a lease/hire car etc or you've recently changed then it can end up taking some time to get to the actual "user" but that doesn't mean the first one wasn't sent in time.

If you are however the registered keeper (ie your name and address on the V5) then two months after the event would make it out of time however you still would need to respond to the request for driver details (and depending on who the driver was you may or may not want to let them know the NIP was out of time).

Wrong. Served.

[Fastdruid]

agtlaw said:

Fastdruid said:

As 2020vision says. the only requirement is that the NIP is sent to the registered keeper within 14 days. If it's a lease/hire car etc or you've recently changed then it can end up taking some time to get to the actual "user" but that doesn't mean the first one wasn't sent in time.

If you are however the registered keeper (ie your name and address on the V5) then two months after the event would make it out of time however you still would need to respond to the request for driver details (and depending on who the driver was you may or may not want to let them know the NIP was out of time).

Wrong. Served.

Yes, I know. Arguable a poor choice of words but then again that involves having to explain what that means and the whole presumption of service etc.

Edited by Fastdruid on Friday 6th December 17:07

[The Red Baron]

Thank you to all for your advice and council.

I emailed the constabulary concerned and enquired as to whether it was a scam, seeing as it was over 2 months since the alleged offense. They came back promptly with the photographic evidence, clearly showing the car, rego and driver.

I shall pass back the details and leave it to the driver to sort.

Cheers to all.

[e-honda]

agtlaw said:

Fastdruid said:

As 2020vision says. the only requirement is that the NIP is sent to the registered keeper within 14 days. If it's a lease/hire car etc or you've recently changed then it can end up taking some time to get to the actual "user" but that doesn't mean the first one wasn't sent in time.

If you are however the registered keeper (ie your name and address on the V5) then two months after the event would make it out of time however you still would need to respond to the request for driver details (and depending on who the driver was you may or may not want to let them know the NIP was out of time).

Wrong. Served.

If we are going to be pedantic isn't it both ?
which of these couldn't be described as sending ?

(a)by delivering it to him;

(b)by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or

(c)by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.

[agtlaw]

e-honda said:

If we are going to be pedantic isn't it both ?
which of these couldn't be described as sending ?

The requirement is service within 14 days. Not sending within 14 days. See Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside [2019] EWHC 2924 (Admin).

[e-honda]

agtlaw said:

The requirement is service within 14 days. Not sending within 14 days. See Gidden v Chief Constable of Humberside [2019] EWHC 2924 (Admin).

Ok so in the case of sending by post the notice isn't served until it's been delivered rather than when it was sent, is that the point here ?

[SS2.]

e-honda said:

Ok so in the case of sending by post the notice isn't served until it's been delivered rather than when it was sent, is that the point here ?

A NIP issued by first class post is deemed to have been served two business days after posting, unless the contrary is proved.

Thus 'posted' 1st class is not the same as 'served'.

[e-honda]

SS2. said:

A NIP issued by first class post is deemed to have been served two business days after posting, unless the contrary is proved.

Thus 'posted' 1st class is not the same as 'served'.

That is Interesting actually, there are some places around the country where the post is is an absolute mess and people aren't getting post for weeks. If royal mail is keeping honest records could that make some people effectively immune to 14 day NIPs ?

[SS2.]

e-honda said:

SS2. said:

A NIP issued by first class post is deemed to have been served two business days after posting, unless the contrary is proved.

Thus 'posted' 1st class is not the same as 'served'.

That is Interesting actually, there are some places around the country where the post is is an absolute mess and people aren't getting post for weeks. If royal mail is keeping honest records could that make some people effectively immune to 14 day NIPs ?

To prove a notice was not served in accordance with s.1 RTOA 1988, sufficient evidence would require to be presented to (and accepted by) the court.

In Gidden's case, his postman confirmed the notice was actually delivered on Day 16. Similarly, David Beckham obtained confirmation from Bentley Motors (the RK of the vehicle he was driving) that a NIP referring to an alleged speeding offence was delivered outside of the required 14 days.

A court is not likely to accept a general confirmation of poor postal performance in a particular area as sufficient proof of late service.

[Monkeylegend]

SS2. said:

Similarly, David Beckham obtained confirmation from Bentley Motors (the RK of the vehicle he was driving) that a NIP referring to an alleged speeding offence was delivered outside of the required 14 days.

.

Well he paid Nick Freeman a lot of money to establish this.

[e-honda]

SS2. said:

To prove a notice was not served in accordance with s.1 RTOA 1988, sufficient evidence would require to be presented to (and accepted by) the court.

In Gidden's case, his postman confirmed the notice was actually delivered on Day 16. Similarly, David Beckham obtained confirmation from Bentley Motors (the RK of the vehicle he was driving) that a NIP referring to an alleged speeding offence was delivered outside of the required 14 days.

A court is not likely to accept a general confirmation of poor postal performance in a particular area as sufficient proof of late service.

I was more thinking a long the lines of if it happened on the 1st October, and there was an honest record that no post was delivered on your street between the 1st and the 14th then that would prove it wasn't served in time.