Speeding ticket - unknown driver

[neilrr]

Why aren't you fighting this? Your NIP arrived after the 14 day limit & is timed out.

 

[Doodle]

Because is it really worth the hassle and risk of going to court if you're just facing an SAC?

 

[markjay]

[

....The notice of intending prosecution arrived 19 days after the event (although it was dated only 9 days after)....

Why aren't you fighting this? Your NIP arrived after the 14 day limit & is timed out.

If the police have roof of posting within 14 days, then the notice is considered served, regardless of when it was actually received.

From the Road Traffic Offenders Act (1998), Section 1:

"A notice of intended prosecution can be given:

• either orally or in writing at the time the offence was committed. Such a warning need not be specific but must refer to one or more of the offences to which s.1 RTOA 1988 applies. Whether such a warning was given "at the time" is a question of degree and the High Court will not interfere in a Magistrates' Court finding on the point if there is evidence to support that finding.

• by serving the defendant with a summons within 14 days of the offence; or

• by sending a notice within 14 days of the possibility of prosecution and specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed to the driver, registered keeper of the vehicle or rider of the cycle."

The confusion arises from the fact that most websites quote only the second paragraph, but not the third.

 

[neilrr]

PePiPoo: Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) - UK Motoring Law

 

[st13phil]

If the police have roof of posting within 14 days, then the notice is considered served, regardless of when it was actually received.

Not quite true (although it's what the Camera Partnerships want you to believe).

There is case law (Gidden v The Chief Constable of Humberside Police) that the requirement is that the notice is served (not posted) on the recipient within 14 days. There is a presumption in law that a notice will be considered to have been delivered (served) on the second business day after posting 1st-Class. So, for example, something posted on a Friday would not be deemed to have been delivered until the following Tuesday.

In addition, it is a rebuttable assumption. This means that if the recipient can provide evidence that the notice was not received by them within 14 days, regardless of the assumption that it should have been received within the timescale, it is taken that the notice was not properly served and is therefore not actionable.

 

[neilrr]

The OP has made the mistake of asking for motoring law info on the wrong forum. While undoubtedly all well intentioned the advice given here, from the crazy (name your imaginary mate in Antarctica as the driver) to the nearly relevant is about the same 'as my mate down the pub said'...

Go to PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice & speak to the experts.

 

[Trickythemerc]

Going for more popcorn//////////////////////////

 

[markjay]

This is interesting, I wasn't aware of that.

One thing to note, is that the recipient must be able to prove that the notice wasn't received within the 14 day period. In the case of Mr Giddens, it arrived late due to a postal strike, so he was able to demonstrate that the letter could not have reached him in time. However, if the latter was posted by first class by the 13th day but arrived later than the 14th day (and assuming that the 14th day wasn't a Sunday or Bank Holiday), then it may be impossible for the recipient to prove 'out of time' delivery, in which case the driver might not be able to relay on Gidden v The Chief Constable of Humberside Police for their defence.


Some more interesting analysis here (long read, but worth it):

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/speeding-defences-2/

 

[Skd884]

Imaginary mate is the only one who paid no fine or received 0 points.

A life without risk is a life not lived.

 

[Stratman]

As always, legal advice from the internet is worth every penny you paid for it.

 

[markjay]

As always, legal advice from the internet is worth every penny you paid for it.

Nothing wrong with Googling stuff, as long as you possess the skill of knowing what information is worth reading and what is unreliable crap. Sadly, few people do.......... hence why the Internet is the ultimate Petri dish for outlandish conspiracy theories.

 

[ToeKnee]

hence why the Internet is the ultimate Petri dish for outlandish conspiracy theories.

Or so you say.......

 

[SpikyMikey]

Nothing wrong with Googling stuff, as long as you possess the skill of knowing what information is worth reading and what is unreliable crap. Sadly, few people do.......... hence why the Internet is the ultimate Petri dish for outlandish conspiracy theories.

^^ This.
As my sig says:
"The problem with stealing quotes off the internet is you never know if they are genuine"
-Abraham Lincoln