An update to the NIP saga:- Having written back to the Police Camera Enforcement Office to 1. Clarify that the NIP sent to my Son was replaced by the second one 2. Actually respond to the second NIP and having signed it and stated that the driver was unknown, with an attached explanatory letter 3. To ask for video evidence 4. To ask for clarification whether the original NIP had been sent to the RK within 14 days (which we suspected had actually been effective) ...the responses were thus:- 1. No answer regarding my Son's NIP 2. They returned a copy of the blank NIP (the second one to which we had actually replied) and requested that it was completed !!!! 3. They state that the video evidence "will not assist you in that identification" 4. They confirmed the date of the original NIP. So, where next? We have returned the NIP addressed to the correct RK (i.e. my Wife), and it was signed and it stated that the driver was not known and that all due diligence had been exercised in those enquiries. Having replied to said NIP already, why do we have to complete and return a further one (also addressed to the Wife) ??

cheers Snowy, I will probably write in to the Police to clarify the position with the first NIP to my son, then we will go about responding to the most recent NIP. I have myself been to court in the past on a S172 summons and basically the Prosecutor wouldn't accept the fact that I couldn't recall who the driver was on one particular occasion because at the time there were three people driving over the period of the alleged speeding offence. I represented myself armed with a copy of Wilkinson's but that failed to impress. Basically the magistrates on that occasion also didn't believe me and I was fined £ 200 with £100 costs and 3 penalty points. You can see why we don't want it to go further !

Yes thats well known however, if VW Audi are the registered keeper and the NIP is only supposed to be served on the 'Registered Keeper' isn't that a kind of loophole, because if they send the NIP to any of my family then that is not served on the Registered Keeper and theoretically the VW Audi Group would have to offer some explanations as to who was driving. As there are at least three possibilities for driving this vehicle, do you think the next step for the Police would be to attempt to summons the Company name (even though we are a small family based firm and not a major player with many possible employees) ? Following on from that, should the NIP be so worded as to include 'users' as opposed to 'keepers' ?

Another N.I.P conundrum ! We have a lease vehicle from the VW /Audi Group, and we believe that they are the registered keeper as we do not hold a V5 for the vehicle. A NIP was received on 20 January 2010 relating to a speeding offence caught on Lastec camera on 2 January 2010. The NIP was dated 19 January 2010 (outside the 14 days). The NIP was addressed to our Son, c/o our Company name. We wrote to the Police stating that the Reg Keeper was incorrect and the NIP was 'time-barred'. Upon speaking to the Police about this they said they had '6 months to prosecute' and would re-issue the NIP. Another NIP duly arrived dated 10 February 2010 (same reference number however addressed to my wife and not c/o the Company name. Upon speaking to the Police again a helpful gent in the camera enforcement Department said that the original NIP was served on the Reg Keeper on 7 January 2010 (within the 14 days). There has been no written evidence of this received by us to date. The registered keeper we believe is still the VW Audi group so technically the NIP has not been served correctly (notwithstanding the 'slip-rule'). Any ideas anyone. For general info the speed recorded by the Lastec was 71 on a 60 dual carriageway.