Second NIP to named driver
Discussion
As the registered owner of my car I received a NIP for 40 in a 30 within 3 days of the "offence".
I have named my wife as the driver on about day 10. Does the fixed penalty office now have just 14 days from my sending the form in which to send her a revised NIP or is the timescale now extended?
Comments gratefully received
I have named my wife as the driver on about day 10. Does the fixed penalty office now have just 14 days from my sending the form in which to send her a revised NIP or is the timescale now extended?
Comments gratefully received
No luck. The registered owner must have the NIP sent within 14 days (not necessarily arrived). If not, the whole thing is invalid.
If it is sent back to indicate another named driver, as in your case, or possibly a company car, I don't think there is any such limit, although it must be laid before a magistrate for prosecution within 6 months (or some such legal guff - madcop/bob-da-bench...?)
If it is sent back to indicate another named driver, as in your case, or possibly a company car, I don't think there is any such limit, although it must be laid before a magistrate for prosecution within 6 months (or some such legal guff - madcop/bob-da-bench...?)
Interesting. Recently I was sent an NIP mistakenly as it turned out. My brother had been mentioned on the reg document together with the company who were the registered keeper of a car which was later Lasered in my area. He declined the NIP as the car had been already transferred to a new keeper. My NIP was effectively a new NIP dated some 3 months later.
Why should not a wife be sent a new NIP ? Why should any offical body presume that husbands and wives talk to each other or live together; I know many who have not done so for years.
Why should not a wife be sent a new NIP ? Why should any offical body presume that husbands and wives talk to each other or live together; I know many who have not done so for years.
Sorry. I didn't explain that very well.
The original NIP must be sent to the registered owner within the permitted 14 days. In the case of the wife, there is no need to re-serve an NIP as being named by the husband would give the courts rise to accept that if she was driving the husbands car, then he must have told her that there was an NIP unless she took it without his consent in which case, he would be strongly advised to make an allegation of TWOC.
In the case that the NIP was issued to the wrong person not related in any way to the registered owner, the fact that the original one was issued in time to the correct registered owner of the correct index plate, means that the second notice has no time limit (save that of the statutory limit on proceedings).
A second modified notice would be sent out to the address of the second driver who was not originally served with the notice. Especially where the driver was not an immediate family member in relation to the registered owner.
The second notice would not have been issued within the 14 days but, as the original one was, then the second, served even months later would be valid (providing that the 6 months to have the summons activated by the court had not elapsed).
I hope that clears it up a little bit. It is difficult to explain.
The original NIP must be sent to the registered owner within the permitted 14 days. In the case of the wife, there is no need to re-serve an NIP as being named by the husband would give the courts rise to accept that if she was driving the husbands car, then he must have told her that there was an NIP unless she took it without his consent in which case, he would be strongly advised to make an allegation of TWOC.
In the case that the NIP was issued to the wrong person not related in any way to the registered owner, the fact that the original one was issued in time to the correct registered owner of the correct index plate, means that the second notice has no time limit (save that of the statutory limit on proceedings).
A second modified notice would be sent out to the address of the second driver who was not originally served with the notice. Especially where the driver was not an immediate family member in relation to the registered owner.
The second notice would not have been issued within the 14 days but, as the original one was, then the second, served even months later would be valid (providing that the 6 months to have the summons activated by the court had not elapsed).
I hope that clears it up a little bit. It is difficult to explain.
Thanks Madcop. The FP Office supplied a flow chart with the documentation clearly showing that a new NIP will be issued to the person named by the vehicle's owner. Hence my question.
So it appears that we have to sit on the edge of our seats for up to 6 months awaiting a new NIP.
>> Edited by regmolehusband on Friday 3rd January 12:56
So it appears that we have to sit on the edge of our seats for up to 6 months awaiting a new NIP.
>> Edited by regmolehusband on Friday 3rd January 12:56
Don't you just wish this degree of enthuisiasm was held for catching burglars? yeah we hear that operation "bumblebee" or whatever caught XX baddies, but compared to the vast numbers through the courts every day on trivial speeding matters.....
Ah, I can see the priorities. The motorist has money to run a car, therefore money to pay a fine (and is easy to catch). The theiving scrote has no money, therefore can't pay a fine. And might involve a bit of hard work, and/or a kicking from said scrote.
Yep. Justice for the people.
Ah, I can see the priorities. The motorist has money to run a car, therefore money to pay a fine (and is easy to catch). The theiving scrote has no money, therefore can't pay a fine. And might involve a bit of hard work, and/or a kicking from said scrote.
Yep. Justice for the people.
Well said Hertsbiker,
If the Plod put HALF as much effort into catching criminals who steal, assault, or vandalise as they do into catching speeders, the country would be a much nicer place... (Like it is in Japan, where criminals are prosecuted, and motorists are mostly left alone - unless they really abuse the limits. Subsequently there's not much crime.)
But who'd want that?
Or more correctly, Where's the money in that?
If the Plod put HALF as much effort into catching criminals who steal, assault, or vandalise as they do into catching speeders, the country would be a much nicer place... (Like it is in Japan, where criminals are prosecuted, and motorists are mostly left alone - unless they really abuse the limits. Subsequently there's not much crime.)
But who'd want that?
Or more correctly, Where's the money in that?
Fraid Japan has caught up with the rest of the world a bit - they have forward facing radars in many places on main roads but v easy to detect. And some police with hand helds. 40 km over in a 60 limit last year got an associate a 4 week ban but he was able to pay 90,000 yen ( £50 ) and attend a lecture on speeding and get the ban lifted. And they don't have totting up.
My main suprise is how anyone is able to speed at all with their traffic congestion.
My main suprise is how anyone is able to speed at all with their traffic congestion.
hertsbiker said: Don't you just wish this degree of enthuisiasm was held for catching burglars? yeah we hear that operation "bumblebee" or whatever caught XX baddies, but compared to the vast numbers through the courts every day on trivial speeding matters.....
You only percieve what is actually publicised the most. I can tell you that there is a huge effort made by many police officers to put proper villains before a court. Often this can be at a personal cost to the officer through either injury or intimidation to him/her or their family.
It is hard work and prolonged procedure to get a case of a criminal nature firstly, through the beaurocracy within the Police Service procedures themselves and secondly that CPS decide to actually deal with the case at court. Often it is done with agency lawyers prosecuting such cases who do not get the papers until the day before the court and do not have time to research each case fully to allow a reasonable chance of prosecuting successfully.
Then if you are actually lucky enough to get the case through to the magistrates and a proper hearing with a reasonable lawyer prosecuting, when the defendant is found guilty, due to them being of the favoured section of society, they are given lenient or unconstructive sentences which have no deterrent to their future conduct.
Lord Wolfe and the idiot Derry Irvine do not help matters when they announce to burglars that they will not be jailed unless they are serious burglars.
Who is the moderator on what serious is. A Burglary on my premises would be serious to me!(possibly to the burglar if I caught him!)
It is not for the want of trying to get serious offenders weighed off. Our beloved leaders at whitehall just make it more and more difficult to do so. This takes more time to deal with an individual case and therefore less police on the street to deal with the relentless and increasing amount of crime that is being reported.
For instance I was supposed to finnish today at 1600 hours. I had been contacted by an aggrieved about some information regarding his recent burglary where two expensive trials bikes had been stolen.
This information with a bit more work led me to locate one of the missing bikes at a house in the next town.
I could not go around to this address and retrieve the bike without a warrant. I stayed at the Police Station until 2100 trying to get a warrant to do the house where the bike is. It may not be there for long so speed was the essence.
Procedure is
1. Phone the custody unit to ask them to contact the clerk to the court out of hours who will 'try' and find a magistrate to authorise the warrant.
2. Find an inspector to authorise the warrants application. (not one avaialble until 20.00)
3. Type out the forms and the information for the Magistrate in triplicate.
4. Run a risk assessment on the premises to be searched. Have this authorised by the not as yet available Inspector
5. Find enough people to help execute the warrant properly who are not committed with other stuff.
6. Go and execute the warrant.
The net result of this was that by 2100 we had all of the procedural stuff done and the warrant prepared for signing by a Magistrate. It was finally signed by him some 4 hours after the information was given to me that the bike was at the place it suspected.
By this time there was no one available to execute the warrant as there was a shift change due and the night turn were under strength.
The neighbouring station only had two officers to cover the night shift so were reluctant to commit them to this as there would inevitably be prisoners to deal with which would take the rest of the night.
The warrant has now been postponed to early tomorrow morning, when hopefully there will be enough staff to do the job early.
By that time, I fear that the bike will no longer be at the address on the warrant.
Can you see now why, from just this incident how much effort is required. If we do not get things right by way of procedure, then a lawyer (either prosecution or defence) will point this out and the case will not get even to the magistrates.
It is far easier and much quicker to issue a summons through a computer data base in relation to a motor vehicle registration than to deal even with the simplest of criminal charges.
I got home at 2130 having started at 0900 this morning. There is no overtime to pay me for the extra work that I put in as the budget is well overspent until April when the new budget will be approved.
I spent over 4 hours of my own time for which I will recieve no compensation, save the knowledge that the bike may be retrieved for the aggrieved if they execute the warrant in the early hours.
I would like to point out that this is not uncommon practice for other officers who stay on duty to get things organised without payment for their efforts.
So to state that there is not effort involved in prosecuting criminal offences is actually wrong and an opinion which I can rebut time and time again.
Perception is often not the basis of reality
Ah, I can see the priorities. The motorist has money to run a car, therefore money to pay a fine (and is easy to catch). The theiving scrote has no money, therefore can't pay a fine. And might involve a bit of hard work, and/or a kicking from said scrote.
Yep. Justice for the people.
There is a two tier justice system in this country.
1. For the scumbag population who do nothing but steal and rob and live off the rest of us. The law bends over backwards to keep them out of prison and to help them.
2. For those that work and aspire to be decent citizens and lead uncomplicated moral existences. The law treats them with contempt and the most harsh of sentences as a deterrent to the rest of this group.
(unless you happen to be an ex or current Government minister
) As long as you understand this then you will not be surprised by what is currently happening within the justice system.
Most of my colleagues are aware that a kicking will be recieved (and have recieved it) at some time in their career. This does not however prevent them from dealing with the situations that may cause this to occur. Some occur whilst in the traffic offence area too.
JackaL_200sx said: Well said Hertsbiker,
If the Plod put HALF as much effort into catching criminals who steal, assault, or vandalise as they do into catching speeders, the country would be a much nicer place... (Like it is in Japan, where criminals are prosecuted, and motorists are mostly left alone - unless they really abuse the limits. Subsequently there's not much crime.)
Maybe you would fair better if you fcuked off over there then
Try getting in to Japan in the back of a goods vehicle and see if they offer you the same courtesy that UK offers such migrants
Madcop - your replies are interesting! sorry to hear you had to give up so much of your evening.
Well, I only speak as I see. When I've been up in court (5 visits in total) for the 2 motoring "offenses" that I successfully defended, I noticed that there is a CONSTANT throughput of motorists.
The court system is a production line, a big conveyor belt of misery for the driver. A total farce where "justice" it meted out weeks or months after the so called offense. This has no relevance, and what's the point? Justice should be instant, and at the roadside. Eg, a lecture & maybe on-the-spot fine from an officer.
Points are just a sneaky way of letting the insurance companies take higher premiums - which in turn feeds directly through IP Tax.
Anyway, back to perceptions. Do a mere 5mph over a limit, get a 60 quid fine. Kick someones front door in and nick the video, get a 40 quid fine....
Ok Madcop, you've shown that a lot of work goes on behind the scenes, and for that we are all eternally grateful. But there is STILL too much emphasis on criminalising the driver, AND too many coppers saying "you're an easy catch" doesn't help.
best regards, Carl.
Well, I only speak as I see. When I've been up in court (5 visits in total) for the 2 motoring "offenses" that I successfully defended, I noticed that there is a CONSTANT throughput of motorists.
The court system is a production line, a big conveyor belt of misery for the driver. A total farce where "justice" it meted out weeks or months after the so called offense. This has no relevance, and what's the point? Justice should be instant, and at the roadside. Eg, a lecture & maybe on-the-spot fine from an officer.
Points are just a sneaky way of letting the insurance companies take higher premiums - which in turn feeds directly through IP Tax.
Anyway, back to perceptions. Do a mere 5mph over a limit, get a 60 quid fine. Kick someones front door in and nick the video, get a 40 quid fine....
Ok Madcop, you've shown that a lot of work goes on behind the scenes, and for that we are all eternally grateful. But there is STILL too much emphasis on criminalising the driver, AND too many coppers saying "you're an easy catch" doesn't help.
best regards, Carl.
I read this entire thread this morning and laughed.
I had to laugh considering I just drove past a cop setting up a speed trap from the back of a people carrier, one of the same people carriers which sped past my house this morning (30mph limit) - (I live near Lancashire Headquarters), and to top it all off the setup area is less than 10 yards past a Gatso camera.
Many thanks for your valuable input Madcop, it's officers like yourself that deserve all the rewards.
I had to laugh considering I just drove past a cop setting up a speed trap from the back of a people carrier, one of the same people carriers which sped past my house this morning (30mph limit) - (I live near Lancashire Headquarters), and to top it all off the setup area is less than 10 yards past a Gatso camera.
Many thanks for your valuable input Madcop, it's officers like yourself that deserve all the rewards.
hertsbiker said:
Well, I only speak as I see. When I've been up in court (5 visits in total) for the 2 motoring "offenses" that I successfully defended, I noticed that there is a CONSTANT throughput of motorists.
Carl
There is a simple reason for the high number of motoring cases being pushed through the courts. It is not because it is easy money and I think you will actually find that the money that is taken in fines does not actually even come close to financing the running of the courts.
There are some 30 million motorists across the country. The percentage of Road Traffic offenders taken from the 30 million drivers is actually quite small. When you look at a small percentage of 30 million, it is a large number of drivers who end up in front of magistrates.
Thankfully there are many less people involved in criminal activity in comparison to those that drive cars. That is why there seems to be a disparity with motoring and criminal court cases.
A huge number of fines are unpaid and not collected.
If you are convicted of a motoring offence, the Insurance companys have the reasoning that you have become a greater risk. A greater risk then attracts a larger premium to cover that risk, exactly the same as if a driver keeps having minor shunts.
This only benefits one organistaion which is the treasury as you have already identified as the percentage of insurance tax will increase.
The motorist (generally) has a choice to avoid conflict with the law by sticking to, and if unknown, finding out about the relevant law that may affect them before indulging in that activity.
Therefore to a large extent the appearence in front of a court is within your own destiny.
Why should ignorance of a particular law or fact be an excuse for a reprimand?
" I was unaware that the wearing away of a grove in the original tread pattern of my tyre was an offence officer, The rest of the tyre is in perfectly legal order across the 75% of the tyre width."
" No body told me that I could'nt pull my trailer in lane 3 of the motorway officer"
These are facts that are easily accessible to everyone who wants to use a vehicle or a vehicle in that manner and have in the past been excuses given to me.
If you are conciensious about your vehicle and the way in which you use it, then you should not end up having to suffer the inconvenience and stress relating to an appearence at court. Those that cannot be bothered, take a chance or deliberately break the rules should therefore accept that by taking this action they may well have to pay the penalty one way or another!
Madcop - why then, rather than continually punishing the offending speeders do we not see a drive towards a higher levels of education, e.g. Advanced Driving?
If it really is all about Road Safety, which I bloody well hope it is, then shouldn't we all need to resit our tests once in a while and perhaps undertake an Advanced course of some type.
To be honest I could say, hand of heart, that I really did not know how to drive properly and my Hazard awareness was nothing compared to after passing my Advanced Driving.
And all for £75! Very close to the £60 standard fine isn't it.
I totally agree with your comments/thoughts on the subject but it does seem crazy that the Government intends to continue to punish rather than educate - making more money in the process.
The classic has got to be the "built-up area" argument. Rule 103 of the highway code regarding 30mph.
With sooo many different roads, speed limits, built-up not so built up areas it's not surprising that people are speeding - I found it difficult to read the speed limits for the roads during my Advanced Driving Lessons and don't expect this to be different for most drivers.
NOT ALL OF US ARE DELIBERATELY GOING OUT THERE TO SPEED AND I FOR ONE WOULD NEVER DRIVE AGAIN IF I KILLED SOMEONE BY MY OWN STUPIDITY.
Phew!
If it really is all about Road Safety, which I bloody well hope it is, then shouldn't we all need to resit our tests once in a while and perhaps undertake an Advanced course of some type.
To be honest I could say, hand of heart, that I really did not know how to drive properly and my Hazard awareness was nothing compared to after passing my Advanced Driving.
And all for £75! Very close to the £60 standard fine isn't it.
I totally agree with your comments/thoughts on the subject but it does seem crazy that the Government intends to continue to punish rather than educate - making more money in the process.
The classic has got to be the "built-up area" argument. Rule 103 of the highway code regarding 30mph.
With sooo many different roads, speed limits, built-up not so built up areas it's not surprising that people are speeding - I found it difficult to read the speed limits for the roads during my Advanced Driving Lessons and don't expect this to be different for most drivers.
NOT ALL OF US ARE DELIBERATELY GOING OUT THERE TO SPEED AND I FOR ONE WOULD NEVER DRIVE AGAIN IF I KILLED SOMEONE BY MY OWN STUPIDITY.
Phew!
I deliberately speed where safe, as the motorway & dual carriageway limit is absurdly low for my vehicles.
As 90% of the other motorway users speed, the speed limit should be raised, and Plod should ignore anyone doing less than about 120 - unless it is foggy, or other hazardous condition.
The other speed limits are also absurd, with exception of the ones in very built up areas, or where there are schools / parks / hospitals.
Still, the law must be obeyed, no matter how annoying? why isn't someone changing it to suit the majority of us?
I would guess that out of 30 million drivers, 25 million speed atleast once a day. About time the rules changed..... it's obvious that the rules are out of date.
C
As 90% of the other motorway users speed, the speed limit should be raised, and Plod should ignore anyone doing less than about 120 - unless it is foggy, or other hazardous condition.
The other speed limits are also absurd, with exception of the ones in very built up areas, or where there are schools / parks / hospitals.
Still, the law must be obeyed, no matter how annoying? why isn't someone changing it to suit the majority of us?
I would guess that out of 30 million drivers, 25 million speed atleast once a day. About time the rules changed..... it's obvious that the rules are out of date.
C
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff