Hi All,

Not strictly parking but wondered if anyone knows the answer to my question.

I was flashed by a camera back in March. Hands up, I did it, 35 in a 30. Things is I'm still waiting for brown evelope through the letterbox. Do you think it'd arrived by now if I was gonna get one? Wondering if I've been lucky & the film had run out or something.

Thanks,

TC

Usually the letter should arrive within two weeks, if it is going to arrive.

Not all cameras that flash are real ones. Also, it may have run out of film.

I was flashed once at the bottom of the A1 at Apex Corner, doing 85 in a 70. Nothing ever came of it.

Jeremy

And even if it had, they've run out of time, they have to do it within 6 months of offence, so put your mind at rest.

Only 14 days for the NIP - six months to take it to court! that'll be good news then.

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

Yup, I think you're in the clear. I didn't know they only had six months to take it to court though - thanks Bookworm.

Jeremy

Excellent!! Thanks guys! 1 less thing to worry about

(a very happy) TC

Thats OK TC, now about the bill for the legal advice..........

One flash could have been a warning flash. usually 2 flashes and your out !!

One flash could have been a warning flash. usually 2 flashes and your out !!

There is no mechanism within a Gatso camera for a single 'warning' flash. A dummy camera can flash once.

The truvelo camera only has a single flash but that is magenta in colour and faces the driver

I'm pretty sure Truvelo cameras use infra-red, so there is no flash. That's why they can be positioned facing the driver without the danger of blinding...

Just thought I'd bump this so that people are aware of the law around speed cameras and the delivery of a Notice of Intention to Prosecute (NIP). Basically, the Road Traffic Act 1991 states that, Where a verbal NIP is not delivered (i.e. in the case of speed cameras), in order to ensure that a driver is able to recall details of the offence for which the NIP is issued, the NIP must be sent so that, subject to normal postage, it arrives within fourteen days of the offence, excluding the day the actual offence took place.

Unfortunately, if the car is not registered in your name, in the case of a company car for example, the fourteen day rule does not apply and the police are effectively given an unlimited amount of time to track you down. Crazy, huh?

Anyway, getting back to it, the phrase 'Subject to normal postage' is particulalry relevant. I managed to have a speeding prosecution stopped because they police had sent the NIP out on the 13th day following the offence, but had sent it by 2nd class post, so it arrived on the 15th day following the offence. I wrote a letter to the camera enforcement team pointing out the Road Traffic Act and stating that the NIP had not been issued in accordance. I received a letter back from them within a few days confirming that the matter would be dropped

So, in short, if you've been flashed by a speed camera, your car is registered privately and the registered keeper has not recevied the NIP after 14 days, you can consider yourself safe...

Right, now the true facts.

If you are flashed by a camera, the police must serve a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) to the RK (Registered Keeper) within 14 days of the alleged offence; unless there are valid reasons -acceptable by a Court - that this was not possible (out of date V5, etc.). Such a NIP, if posted, may only be validly served by registered, recorded or first class post. If posted, it must be posted so as to arrive within the 14 days. As first class post is not signed-for, there is a presumption of delivery - this is a rebuttable presumption. If, on oath, you can convince the Magistrates that the NIP did not arrive within the 14 days, then you are free and clear.

Subsequent NIPs ,after the first, have no time limits and second class post may be used. However, for a prosecution to succeed, information (for the issue of a summons) must be laid before the Court within 6 months of the alleged offence.

Truvelo cameras are front facing and use a magenta flash - not infra-red. If the flash was white in front facing mode, then the camera was being operated outside its type-approval and any picture/reading is invalid. They can also operate as pseudo-Gatso in rear facing mode.

Sorry if this has already been answered.

I spoke to a copper mate of mine about this a while ago and he said they have 14 days to issue the ticket to you before it becomes invalid.

Right, now the true facts.

 

If you are flashed by a camera, the police must serve a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) to the RK (Registered Keeper) within 14 days of the alleged offence; unless there are valid reasons -acceptable by a Court - that this was not possible (out of date V5, etc.). Such a NIP, if posted, may only be validly served by registered, recorded or first class post. If posted, it must be posted so as to arrive within the 14 days. As first class post is not signed-for, there is a presumption of delivery - this is a rebuttable presumption. If, on oath, you can convince the Magistrates that the NIP did not arrive within the 14 days, then you are free and clear.

Eh, is that not what I said!?

As for delivery of the NIP, the true facts are that the RTA states that a NIP must be sent so that it arrives within 14 days, subject to normal postage. So, whether you can convince the magistrate that it was delivered outside the fourteen day period is irrelevant. As long as the police can demonstrate that it was sent according to the law as set down in the RTA, the NIP will stand. For example, if a NIP is sent by recorded delivery 11 days after the offence, but delayed due to a postal strike and therefore does not arrive until 18 days after the offence, it is still deemed valid, as the police have complied with the RTA.

For some background on this, it was decided in Groome v Driscoll (1969) 113 SJ 905, that a Notice of Intended Prosecution posted the day after the offence which failed to arrive within 14 days was deemed to have been served. Conversely in Nicholson v Tapp [1972] 1 WLR 1044, it was held that a Notice of Intended Prosecution sent by recorded delivery on the fourteenth day after the offence was deemed NOT to have been served.

Eh, is that not what I said!?

 

As for delivery of the NIP, the true facts are that the RTA states that a NIP must be sent so that it arrives within 14 days, subject to normal postage. So, whether you can convince the magistrate that it was delivered outside the fourteen day period is irrelevant. As long as the police can demonstrate that it was sent according to the law as set down in the RTA, the NIP will stand. For example, if a NIP is sent by recorded delivery 11 days after the offence, but delayed due to a postal strike and therefore does not arrive until 18 days after the offence, it is still deemed valid, as the police have complied with the RTA.

 

For some background on this, it was decided in Groome v Driscoll (1969) 113 SJ 905, that a Notice of Intended Prosecution posted the day after the offence which failed to arrive within 14 days was deemed to have been served. Conversely in Nicholson v Tapp [1972] 1 WLR 1044, it was held that a Notice of Intended Prosecution sent by recorded delivery on the fourteenth day after the offence was deemed NOT to have been served.

The cases that you quote are irrelevant to the use of first class post, as they pre-date the RTA 1994, which first allowed its use. Prior to this, normal practice was to use recorded delivery. Once a NIP is sent recorded, it is deemed served whether it is delivered or not.

However the 1994 Act first allowed the use of Fist class and also specifically makes the delivery of the NIP by this method presumed. The presumption is rebuttable in court.

So why, I hear you ask, do the police not send all NIPs by recorded delivery? The answer is cost. There was relatively low demand for the use of postal NIPs prior to the deployment of speed cameras. The costs were such that the specific use of first class post was written in to law in the 1994 Act. Since the commencement of conveyor-belt 'justice', the costs need to be kept in check to maximise the 'take'.

So the fact remains, that delivery by first class post can be rebutted in court and if the Magistrates believe the testimony of the rebutter, he/she is free and clear due to non-delivery of the first NIP with 14 days of the alleged offence.

...however, full records are kept by all camera enforcement teams showing when the NIP is issued. When presented in court any magistrate will take this as evidence that the RTA has been complied with. It is clear from the RTA that the significant factor is the date that the NIP is issued. As long as it is issued such that, subject to normal postage, it will arrive within the 14 day limit, it complies with the terms of the act, even if it does not arrive within the 14 day period. As you mentioned previously, delivery is presumed. Try going to court and arguing this one. As long as the police can show from their records that the NIP was issued in accordance with the RTA you won't have a leg to stand on...

The quoted cases are particularly relevant as they clearly demonstrate how this will be dealt with in a court of law. The fact that they took place prior to the introduction of First Class post within the RTA makes no difference as the method of delivery does not change the significance of the date of issue.

The RTOA 1998 1(1)(b) requires that a NIP be served (in legal terms, served means delivered - not 'sent') within 14 days of offence. It further states in 1(2) that this will be deemed to be served if delivered by registered or recorded post whether or not it is actually delivered.

RTOA 1988 Section 1 (3) states that Section is deemed to have been complied with unless and until proven to the contrary. This provides the means for rebuttal; testimony on oath, if accepted by the Magistrates, is proof.

On first sight however, there is no 'wriggle-room' on delivery; service is deemed proven even if not delivered. However, the CJPOA 1994 Section 6 (3) adds section 1A to the RTOA 1998. This allows the use of first class post. First Class is public acknowledged not to be next day delivery and, in fact, there is no record of delivery at all. This leaves the delivery (ie service) as rebuttable.

Believe me, if you visit PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice , you will find that this defence has been used time and time again - resulting in aquittal

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Section 1

1.—(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—

• (a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or

• (b) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or

• © within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—
  • (i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,
  • (ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)© above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.

(3) The requirement of subsection (1) above shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.

(4) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which this section applies.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Section 6

(3) In section 1 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (which requires warning of prosecution for certain offences to be given), after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person—

• (a) by delivering it to him;

• (b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or

• © by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.