non receipt of speeding ticket

[roverdog27]

In April I received notification to attend court for a speeding incident committed back in August last year. However, this was the first I knew of the offence, and wrote back to inform them of this.

I got no reply until 2 weeks ago when again I had a letter, with copies of the original ticket, a reminder letter and photos of my car. These were originally sent between Sept and Nov last year, and do have my correct address on the top of the letter. There was also another letter with another court date.

I phoned the CPS and explained that I had received none of the originals, and could it be arranged for the ticket to be reissued, and then I would deal with it. They told me to put that in writing, which I did.

Today, I have recieved another letter from the CPS saying that they had received my letter, but were continuing to prosecute me for not "identifying the driver of the vehicle".

As i genuinely did not receive any of the originals, and I have offered to have the ticket resent to deal with, What is my position?, I don't particularly want to go to court, and I cannot understand them wasting the time and money to prosecute. Any Advice?

Regards

Rover

[tigger1]

IANAL - but if you can stand up in court and show that you have not received the letters, you're in a good position.

However, they can show they've sent them...

Have you lost any other mail?

[Bing o]

I really wish the CPS would spend this time and effort on proper criminal cases where someone has been assaulted, rather than dropping the case due to "lack of evidence".

Another tenner in the emmigration pot....

[esselte]

tigger1 said:

IANAL - but if you can stand up in court and show that you have not received the letters, you're in a good position.

However, they can show they've sent them...

Have you lost any other mail?

How would you know......(well you may do for some items but obviously not all)

[Jasandjules]

Do they have proof of posting the letters with the copies of the letters?
You may want to look at pepipoo for help there.

[supermono]

I believe the tax offices send out "final reminder" letters as their first contact. I know of several people who out of the blue received a so called final demand for money stating that previous correspondence has been ignored.

It's almost as if they have a strategy to frighten people into paying immediately by doing this.

Perhaps the camera businesses have found this technique is a way of increasing their profits from each case?

SM

[Dwight VanDriver]

Looks like CPS are digging their heels in.

S 172 requires you to reply in 28 days of receiving the notice to name a driver. Failure to do so offence.

Consider a Not Guilty plea if you get a summons (demand all evidence under disclosure rules). Your defence that you never received the 172 so could not reply to which you would have done had you received.

dvd

[jwo]

proof of sending is proof of delivery in legal terms, but does the CPS have actual proof of sending? - this will only help you if they don't obviously.

[TangoAlpha]

Isn't there a 6 month limit after the alleged offence in which the CPS have to lay papers before a court otherwise the whole thing "times out"? Surely August last year to April this year is already outside that timespan?

A visit to www.pepipoo.com might help.

[The Griffalo]

The original letter could well have been one of the 14.4 million letters lost each year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3681547.stm

[esselte]

jwo said:

proof of sending is proof of delivery in legal terms, but does the CPS have actual proof of sending? - this will only help you if they don't obviously.

Surely in this day and age the mere fact that they will say "Yes,your Honour,we sent it, honest" will all the proof they need?

[hutchingsp]

jwo said:

proof of sending is proof of delivery in legal terms, but does the CPS have actual proof of sending? - this will only help you if they don't obviously.

What constitutes "proof of sending though"? The fact their book/log says it was sent surely isn't actually "proof" that it was sent whereas, say, a Royal Mail tracking number is (well, proof that something was sent)?

[JustinP1]

hutchingsp said:

jwo said:

proof of sending is proof of delivery in legal terms, but does the CPS have actual proof of sending? - this will only help you if they don't obviously.

What constitutes "proof of sending though"? The fact their book/log says it was sent surely isn't actually "proof" that it was sent whereas, say, a Royal Mail tracking number is (well, proof that something was sent)?

Agreed.

The case law is that to defend yourself you will have to give testimony that you did not receive the NIP within the time limit. If the court believe you then the case legally must fail.

However, in this scenario you are claiming that not one letter from the polcie but another letter from the court was not received.

Common sense would dictate in this situation that (whether you are truthful or not!) that it would be chances of thousands to one that both letters were lost. The magistrates may choose to belive that over your testimony.

In that situation if you can proove for example that you reported other mail being lost or there was other similar reported case, then this will be a big plus point in your favour.

My guesstimate is a 50/50 change of winning/losing this one.

[KenP]

JustinP1 said:

However, in this scenario you are claiming that not one letter from the polcie but another letter from the court was not received.

Common sense would dictate in this situation that (whether you are truthful or not!) that it would be chances of thousands to one that both letters were lost. The magistrates may choose to belive that over your testimony.

As many magistrates will know, lost mail is often due to rogue postmen who stuff mail in dustbins. Therefore it follows that more than one item of mail addressed to you would have gone 'astray'.

Edited by KenP on Saturday 28th July 13:00

[roverdog27]

Thank you for all your responses

I am no legal expert, but if a letter is posted, does this constitute in law that I have received it?? 14 million pieces of mail going missing per year, there will surely be an element of doubt.

I have also realised that the ticket and reminder was sent from the safety camera partnership, where as the mail that has got to me has come from the cps/police. I wonder whether they proof that these were posted.

There must be a case for sending final reminders by recorded delivery.

It still puzzles me why they would pursue prosecution, when I have offered to deal with issue. I would have thought a magistrate with any common sense will just order the ticket to be reissued, although I am no court expert.

Thanks Again

Rover

[Dwight VanDriver]

Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve" or the expression “give" or “send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

dvd

[hutchingsp]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve" or the expression “give" or “send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

dvd

Does the reverse count? In this case the OP appears to be honest enough to say "never got the letter", but if he were to say "I posted the information you required" are they obliged to accept that as proof?

[Dwight VanDriver]

The problem in all this is that Recorded Delivery/Registered Post is not used but First Class that does not have to be signed for.

As I understand it SCP will post out NOIP/172 under the terms of RTOAct - correctly addressed to last known address and post other than second class and to their copy attach a Certificate of Service to the effect that Joe Bloggs at such and such time and date posted the document out and signs to that effect. NOIP endorsed 'A' and declaration to the effect that this is the document marked 'A' referred to in the COS.

It is up to the defendant to make the claim before the Magistrates that the paperwork was never sent/received with what proof he can muster. SCP will counter with their COS evidence and it will them be up to the Magistrates to declare which side they believe.

dvd

[JustinP1]

KenP said:

JustinP1 said:

However, in this scenario you are claiming that not one letter from the polcie but another letter from the court was not received.

Common sense would dictate in this situation that (whether you are truthful or not!) that it would be chances of thousands to one that both letters were lost. The magistrates may choose to belive that over your testimony.

As many magistrates will know, lost mail is often due to rogue postmen who stuff mail in dustbins. Therefore it follows that more than one item of mail addressed to you would have gone 'astray'.

Edited by KenP on Saturday 28th July 13:00

Agreed...

...which is why I went onto mention in my post that things like reporting other lost mail at the time will help explain the OP's case. Binning mail is a serious matter, which I believe results in a jail term, so it is not taken likely. If the OP can show there was a time where mail was often lost/misdelivered then this certainly supports his case. However, without this the magistrates must otherwise have to believe that the only two letters missing were the ones from the SCP.

That is a situation which is down to the magistrates to decide. Common sense would dictate that once is unlucky but twice something foul is more likely to be afoot than mere co-incidence. I would say this is why that when the specialist solicitors advise (I choose my words carefully...) that 'hypothetically' it would more likely be believed and supported by case law that if the first NIP was not received and by the reminder arrived after 14 days the keeper could not remember the driver at that time, rather than both letters not arriving.

This is of course hypothetical, and a situation that the OP is not in. If the magistrates go by the book though, the OP has a sound defence if he is willing to testify that both letters were not received - unless the OP is called a liar by the magistrates then it should be the end of the case.