Notice of Intended Prosecution

[Mudster]

One of these arrived at work this morning.

It's for one of our company cars and is actually nothing to do with me, however if we have any police on here I'd like to clarify something before I pass on details for the driver.

This is for an offence that occurred on 30th December.

The Notice of Intended Prosecution is dated 25th January and has arrived this morning addressed to my business as the register keeper of the vehicle.

I thought this has to be issued within 14 days? On which point there is actually an FAQ sheet attached to the NIP.

I Quote:-

Why did I not receive the Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days?

The law requires that a notice of intended prosecution be served on the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days from the date of the alleged offence. Subsequent notices may be sent to other individuals outside the 14-day period.

Well, my company is the registered keeper and it's taken them 26 days (their NIP is dated 25ths Jan) to get the NIP to us.

As I read that, they haven't complied with the 14 day requirement.

Am I missing something here?

 

[imadoofus]

Is the car elased, and did the notice come via the lease company? If so, you'd be hard pushed to prove the 14 day thing.

Even if the car's owned; if the notice is in-date, then you'd have a problem proving it arrived late.

PJ

 

[Mudster]

Yes the car is leased, no it didn't come via the leasing company, My company is the registered Keeper and we hold the V5 stating the same as is normal in this situation.

And the notice is out of date, offence dated 30/12/07 their NIP dated 25/01/08, it didn't arrive late, it was issued late.

 

[carnut]

You could ignore it and see what the next letter says. Technicalities like this often compound themselves to the point that the Police have no case.But I wouldnt suggest this of course (see below)

What is the NIP for? Death by Dangerous driving ( not that likely) may give cause to play on your concious a bit if you sheilded the guilty party. Also be aware this is an open forum and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a nasty!

 

[DieselE]

On the basis of what you've posted, I agree with you that the NIP seems to be out of date and therefore invalid. Having said that, if you intend ignoring it or challenging it then, if I were you, I would seek proper advice and not just act on what any of us on this forum tell you.

 

[Mercedes cozy]

If you decide to defend yourself, I recomend all comunication is sent recorded delivery as they will deny recicpt of responce.

 

[Mudster]

It's just a regular camera offence, nothing of a serious nature.

I've written the following and will send it recorded delivery:-

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am in receipt of the above numbered Notice of Intended Prosecution dated 25th January 2008 for an alledged offence dated 30th Decemeber 2008. Copy attached.

******** Ltd is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question **57***.

However it appears you have failed to issue the NIP within the required timescale according to law, I quote from the accompanying sheet:-

“The law requires that a notice of intended prosecution be served on the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days from the date of alleged offence. Subsequent notices may be sent to other individuals outside of the 14 day period.”

I look forward to receiving your comments on the above and confirmation the NIP will be withdrawn due to the required time period not being observed.


Yours faithfully

 

[Mudster]

I'll add to this, as it's not actually me who was driving the car I'm not overly bothered and the guy in question has a clean licence so it doesn't really make a whole world of difference.

I'm not constructively avoiding admitting or paying anything, however if the police have failed to comply with the law I will treat them as they would treat me if the the situations were reversed.

Will post any further communications...

 

[Stuart1]

Yes the car is leased, no it didn't come via the leasing company, My company is the registered Keeper and we hold the V5 stating the same as is normal in this situation.

And the notice is out of date, offence dated 30/12/08 their NIP dated 25/01/08, it didn't arrive late, it was issued late.

I would add to the letter that the driver hasn't actually committed the offence yet if the date of 30/12/08 is correct!

 

[Carrotchomper]

I'll add to this, as it's not actually me who was driving the car I'm not overly bothered and the guy in question has a clean licence so it doesn't really make a whole world of difference.

I'm not constructively avoiding admitting or paying anything, however if the police have failed to comply with the law I will treat them as they would treat me if the the situations were reversed.

Will post any further communications...

No, I fully agree! It's not like Pistonheads on here where people come on looking for "loopholes" and asking "How do I get out of this?"

As far as I see it, speed cameras are an automated system with no discretion. Therefore on your part there should be no leeway either.

In cases like this, due process must be followed and I am disappointed to see that there are Safety Camera Partnerships trying to "Get away with it" sending NIPs out clearly well outside the 14-day rule.

Look forward to hearing how you get on.

 

[robert.saunders]

Roadside camera I take it, GATSO-type?

 

[Mudster]

I would add to the letter that the driver hasn't actually committed the offence yet if the date of 30/12/08 is correct!

Ahh, spell check doesn't correct my errors

Now corrected so it doesn't appear the Police have clairvoyant skills.

 

[Mudster]

Roadside camera I take it, GATSO-type?

Correct , in the Lime House Tunnel.

 

[Carrotchomper]

No-one can decide whether those are Gatso, or average speed ones. Luckily don't tend to stray that far!

 

[st13phil]

It's just a regular camera offence, nothing of a serious nature.

I've written the following and will send it recorded delivery:-

Take a look on the PePiPoo site and search the forums for the "RAC letter". This is a template letter which quotes the relevant acts and is for use in exactly this situation. To save you several hours of reading on the matter, there are two other things to consider:

1) Has the vehicle recently been registered or changed keeper? Check the date on the V5 document for the vehicle and see how much prior to 30th December it was issued (not the registration date of the vehicle, the issue date of the document). There is an exemption from the 14-day rule if, for example, the DVLA database isn't up to date and it takes the authorities longer to find the registered keeper details.

2) There is a school of thought that you still have to name the driver at the time of the alledged offence to comply with the requirements of S172, even if the NIP is out of time. By naming the driver you have nothing to lose if the NIP is out of time as a prosecution for the speeding offence is bound to fail; by not naming the driver you could find yourself as registered keeper charged with failing to comply with the S172 request. Again, there are plenty of details about this on the Pepipoo forums.

BTW, send it Special Delivery, as this is the only guaranteed signed-for postal service.

Good luck!

 

[glojo]

I look forward to receiving your comments on the above and confirmation the NIP will be withdrawn due to the required time period not being observed.


Yours faithfully

Just an observation here Mudster as I have very strong views on this type of offence.

Is it wise to dictate what they should do?

The way I understand this event is the fact that the NIP was not even wrote out within the required time span? I wonder if it would be more tactful to just omit the last part of your reply? They appear to be wrong, you appear to have the law on your side? Just my personal observation.

Regards
John

 

[Mudster]

Interesting, I've not posted my letter yet, I will double check the V5 and confirm the legalities of the company car situation before I put my foot in my mouth.

Will update as things transpire.

 

[Mudster]

The letter to which st13phil refers is as follows:-

Hi,

You should read the NIP page very carefully and what the law has to say on this subject.

The law was amended in 1994 to allow the police to send the NIP by normal first class post and they have six months to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), because they are exempt from the 14 day rule.

As this case demonstrates, it is possible to win your case in court, if the NIP has “time expired”.

The RAC Legal Team gave one of our visitors the following suggested letter, and they recommend that it be posted via Special Delivery and that a copy of the NIP is attached to such a letter.

Dear Officer ******,

CVVVVVVVV - Notice of Intended Prosecution

I received your letter dated *********, the references for which are detailed above. I have enclosed a copy of the Notice sent to me recently, for ease of cross-reference.

You have written to me because I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle mentioned in your Notice. My address is correct as per the details at DVLC, and the vehicle was not a Company car, and was neither hired nor borrowed.

No Officer spoke to me at the time of the alleged offence, and no accident took place. Also, no Police person has spoken with me at or near the time and place detailed in your Notice. The written Notice is the first indication from you of any intention to prosecute.

Your Notice details the alleged offence as VV:VVhrs on *********. The Notice is dated ********, and it came to me by post, received on ********. At the time of opening the mail item from you, I signed and dated the Notice in a space at the top of the page.

Including the day of the alleged offence, this was **th day from the date detailed in your Notice.

Following discussions with the RAC Legal Helpline, please note that the Notice cannot be acted upon as it is time-expired. For this Notice to have been valid, it ought to have been with me within 14 days of the alleged offence.

It was suggested I write back to you immediately with these comments.

Yours sincerely

VVVVVVVVV
Registered Keeper
++++

The letter was sent to the Officer in Charge of the Safety Camera Unit, and not the CC. They felt that the Officer would likely bury the matter, whereas a letter to the CC could start a Steward's Enquiry, an avalanche of justification posturing and I might lose in the end through foul means. The letter will be sent to you as a copy when the outcome is known - that way we'll not be passing on unhelpful letters to people needing helpful advice.

Also, it was on the A449 at Llantrissent, Usk, and the RACm (in response to the question about why they send them out after 14 days), stated that most people pay them and don't get advice. There is no repayment mechanism for people who have paid, who really should not have paid owing to the NIP being 'time-expired', (RAC's description for late NIPs).

Also, they were firm on the 14 days. They said that the 70+ mph was an absolute offence, but there were some absolutes on the Police as well. The 14 days is an absolute, mentioned in the Act etc and not a guideline, so it IS THE LAW.

They were careful to go over the exceptions and allowable circumstances, hire car, company vehicle, borrowed car etc, and changed address from that lodged at DVLC etc.; basically, every conceivable pretext for getting it to me late that was arguably not the Police's fault. Also, they said that being 26 days after the alleged offence was not arguable in terms of postal lag.

We'll see. But I now remain hopeful. The worst that can happen now is a malicious Fixed Penalty that can be served after the 14 day period, but the RAC have asked me to get back to them should this happen.
+++++
Nicholson v Tapp
(DC) Divisional Court
c.1972

Summary

Abstract: A notice of intended prosecution posted on the fourteenth day after the alleged offence does not comply with the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 241(2) (as amended). A notice of intended prosecution for an alleged offence of dangerous driving was posted to T by recorded delivery service on the fourteenth day after the incident in question.
Summary: Held, the notice did not comply with s. 241(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 (as amended). (R. v London County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee Ex p. Rossi [1956] C.L.Y. considered).

Cases Cited

R. v London County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee Ex p. Rossi, [1956] 1 Q.B. 682; [1956] 2 W.L.R. 800; [1956] 1 All E.R. 670; (1956) 120 J.P. 239; (1956) 100 S.J. 225 (CA)

Legislation Cited

As amended by Road Traffic Act 1962 s. 51
Road Traffic Act 1962
Road Traffic Act 1960 s. 241
END OF DOCUMENT

 

[st13phil]

Interesting, I've not posted my letter yet, I will double check the V5 and confirm the legalities of the company car situation before I put my foot in my mouth.

A wise strategy, indeed. Especially as we all know the golden rule: don't believe what a bloke on t'internet says

You need to check for yourself regarding the Company ownership of the vehicle but as far as I know reference to this was only included in the RAC letter to cover the circumstances where a driver of a Company vehicle gets their NIP late because the first NIP went to the Company and he/she is therefore in a chain of NIP's. The driver then thinks (incorrectly) that they have received a late NIP when in fact the first one was sent in time to the Company who named them as the driver and they get the second NIP. In your case I suspect that this does not apply and that you are actually in receipt of the first NIP in the chain.

From what I've read, there are other differences regarding the requirement to identify the driver depending upon whether you are the Keeper of the vehicle or the Registered Keeper of the vehicle (two different things in law) which you may like to read up on for interest, but assuming you have a time expired NIP and there is no good reason for it to have been produced late then that's all pretty academic.

 

[Mudster]

I believe if I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with the DVLA ("I" being my company) and this is the first NIP that has been sent then I have a case.

I'll just double check that is the case before I go steaming in, after all it's not even my licence, but the rules are there for both parties so lets make sure they've been complied with.