what to do now?
Discussion
having ignored my first nip,i received another one today.todays nip is an exact copy (no mention of a reminder)of my first one except that the date of issue is now one month later.thus the date on the new nip is some 40 days or so after the alleged offence.could i now send it back as "time expired"?im assuming thats the best thing to do,but am i overlooking anything?id appreciate any help with how to word a letter about this also.cheers-mongoose.
Bit of a sh1tty wicket I'm afraid.
The only proof required to prove you had the first one is the fact they sent it, so the fact that the 2nd one arrived after the 14 days is probably mute, as would be, if it was, sent 2nd class (not sure of that tho')
I think from reading previous posts you may be best pleading not guilty and asking for evidence.
Do you know if this was from a fixed or mobile camera?
If it was fixed and you can not remember who was driving then the photo maybe inconclusive in your efforts to identify the driver at the time.
If mobile ask for full disclosure of the tape - this seems to cause them problems as it shows up a weakness in the equipment used. In this case you may also want to insist on the camera operators presence in court (again not sure just stuff I've picked up from these pages), again that makes them uncomfortable, sometimes enough to drop the case.
If after this it is completely obvious who the driver was or is and you know it was you then say oh yes it was me very sorry and take it on the chin.
The very best of luck to you.
Paul
The only proof required to prove you had the first one is the fact they sent it, so the fact that the 2nd one arrived after the 14 days is probably mute, as would be, if it was, sent 2nd class (not sure of that tho')
I think from reading previous posts you may be best pleading not guilty and asking for evidence.
Do you know if this was from a fixed or mobile camera?
If it was fixed and you can not remember who was driving then the photo maybe inconclusive in your efforts to identify the driver at the time.
If mobile ask for full disclosure of the tape - this seems to cause them problems as it shows up a weakness in the equipment used. In this case you may also want to insist on the camera operators presence in court (again not sure just stuff I've picked up from these pages), again that makes them uncomfortable, sometimes enough to drop the case.
If after this it is completely obvious who the driver was or is and you know it was you then say oh yes it was me very sorry and take it on the chin.
The very best of luck to you.
Paul
thanks for the reply paul.i was going to go down the 'cant remember who was driving'route until this identical nip arrived today.i just thought they should have sent a reminder or something instead of just a straight copy of the original.if you'd genuinely received your first nip which was as far out of date as my second one,then whats to stop them saying 'weve allready sent one before,within 14 days'.if you see what i mean.perhaps ill revert to my original plan if their word of posting the first one is good enough in a court of law.
You could say you never recieved an NIP and that the second one was the first you heard of it. If they don't contact you within 14 days they have no case.
Look it up on this site.
www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/frames.htm
Look it up on this site.
www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/frames.htm
Your on a sticky wicket with the service of NOIP.
Don't forget that Section 1(3) RT Offenders Act 1988, which deals with service of NOIP and manner, states
" the requirements shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved". So the onus is shifted back to you to prove they got in wrong.
Some case law on this very point:
R v Edmonton Justices ex P Brooks (1960). Defendant can raise the point at any time during proceedings.
Sanders v Scott 1961 You will have to prove non compliance i.e. not sent by Registered Post, Recorded delivery. First Class Post addressed to the person at his last known address.
Offen v Ranson 1980 You will have to prove on a balance of probability that an effective warning was not given; merely to raise a doubt in the minds of the Magistrates is not enough.
DVD
Don't forget that Section 1(3) RT Offenders Act 1988, which deals with service of NOIP and manner, states
" the requirements shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved". So the onus is shifted back to you to prove they got in wrong.
Some case law on this very point:
R v Edmonton Justices ex P Brooks (1960). Defendant can raise the point at any time during proceedings.
Sanders v Scott 1961 You will have to prove non compliance i.e. not sent by Registered Post, Recorded delivery. First Class Post addressed to the person at his last known address.
Offen v Ranson 1980 You will have to prove on a balance of probability that an effective warning was not given; merely to raise a doubt in the minds of the Magistrates is not enough.
DVD
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff