Advice needed re;prosecution

[oldman]

On the 13/04/2007 I received a letter from Humberside Police central ticket office regarding a notice of intended prosecution for a speeding offence allegedly committed on 25/02/2007 44 days after the alleged offence This letter was basically a reminder but I had never received the notice.

 

After searching the Internet I have found that this notice must be sent within 14 days of the alleged offence. So I have questioned them regarding this.

 

Today I have received a letter confirming that the notice of intended prosecution must be sent within 14 days but it also claims a notice was issued 01/03/2007. It also claims that the notice was sent out correctly in accordance with legislation. I have also received today notice of intended prosecution for the same alleged offence dated 20/04/2007. Surely if a notice had been issued correctly they would have sent a copy with the original date on it and not generated a new one with a latter date.

 

I have sent a letter today asking for a copy of the proof of postage as I do not trust that they have acted correctly.

 

Can anybody tell me if they need to prove the notice has been sent as the one that arrived today is dated 20/4/2007 54 days after the alleged offence.

 

Any help would be great as I have seen so many things lately from big companies and government organisations that makes me distrust them all.

[Guest tlusnoc]

were you speeding?

[demon_x_slash]

That is not relevant to the question that the OP was asking. The OP was asking about procedure. Oldman, you may do better posting this in Parking/Traffic Wardens, where people experienced in NIP procedure will be more likely to see it.

[MARTIN3030]

Agreed thread moved to here.

[demon_x_slash]

Thanks, Martin.

[Guest tlusnoc]

can a moderator please tell me why my last posting was removed?

 

 

 

you have been informed by PM , and you are aware as you have replied

[demon_x_slash]

The 'were you speeding?' comment? It's up there ^ post 2.

[Guest tlusnoc]

No I posted another one, stating that it may be best if they were guilty of the alleged offence, to accept it rather than risk it going to court as the consequences could be a higher fine and the addition of court costs.

[demon_x_slash]

B****y hell, some advice I agree with, for once! *pats tlusnoc on the back companionably*

[Guest tlusnoc]

LOL demon~

 

We may share differing views demon~, however that is life and I do say it as it is, some people take offence to that others who know me actually appreciate it.

[demon_x_slash]

Life's a debate I do think that if the NIP wasn't served correctly, then it should be overturned (based on: if they wish us to observe 'the rules', then they should also be bound by them, and there are specific rules for these procedures for a reason), but if it was served correctly, and the OP is guilty (don't want to know one way or the other, we're always talking in if's here), then your advice is very sound.

[dw190]

On the 13/04/2007 I received a letter from Humberside Police central ticket office regarding a notice of intended prosecution for a speeding offence allegedly committed on 25/02/2007 44 days after the alleged offence This letter was basically a reminder but I had never received the notice.

 

After searching the Internet I have found that this notice must be sent within 14 days of the alleged offence. So I have questioned them regarding this.

 

Today I have received a letter confirming that the notice of intended prosecution must be sent within 14 days but it also claims a notice was issued 01/03/2007. It also claims that the notice was sent out correctly in accordance with legislation. I have also received today notice of intended prosecution for the same alleged offence dated 20/04/2007. Surely if a notice had been issued correctly they would have sent a copy with the original date on it and not generated a new one with a latter date.

 

I have sent a letter today asking for a copy of the proof of postage as I do not trust that they have acted correctly.

 

Can anybody tell me if they need to prove the notice has been sent as the one that arrived today is dated 20/4/2007 54 days after the alleged offence.

 

Any help would be great as I have seen so many things lately from big companies and government organisations that makes me distrust them all.

 

The 14 day rule relates to the first NIP only. ie. the NIP to the registered keeper of the vehicle.

 

Are you the registered keeper. If so they have no reason to send you a second NIP date 20/4/2007, they should have sent you a copy of the record of the original.

 

If you have a look at PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice search for NIP you will find the ruling and a draft letter to send.

[Rob S]

The NIP has to be served within 14 days. Some scamera partnerships try it on and say that they only have to send it out within the 14 days, but this is nonsense. There is case law which upholds the serving of the NIP (Nicholson v Tapp) within this time scale. The exceptions to this are if the vehicle is registered to a company.

 

This link will give you more info:-

 

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

[Sidewinder]

I believe that the NIP is deemed as correctly served once it has been posted, even if it is never received by you - there is no burden of proof on them to prove that it was posted, nor do they have to use a trackable means of delivery.

 

You should though be able to make a statutory declaration to the Court to the effect that the documents were never received.

[Rob S]

Sidewinder, your belief is incorrect. The NIP has to reach the person within the 14 days. If your belief was correct, all it would take is for the scamerati to post the NIP on day 14 and that would be sufficient, but that is not the case. They have to post it in sufficient time for it to reach a person within the 14 day deadline. This is non-negotiable.

[patdavies]

Also in a Magistrates' Court, you don't do a stat. dec; you give evidence on oath

[Sidewinder]

Sidewinder, your belief is incorrect. The NIP has to reach the person within the 14 days. If your belief was correct, all it would take is for the scamerati to post the NIP on day 14 and that would be sufficient, but that is not the case. They have to post it in sufficient time for it to reach a person within the 14 day deadline. This is non-negotiable.

 

Apologies - I seem to have missed the point on the timing issue - I know that the NIP has to be posted to arrive within the 14 days, and wasn't disagreeing with that.....however a work colleague recently was summonsed for non payment of a fine, where she never received the NIP and the first communication was the summons for non-payment several months later (she moved house in between). She was advised that providing the NIP was declared to have been posted within the correct timeframe then she could not argue that she had not received it, without attending Court to state this fact (sorry Pat I understood it to be a Statutory Declaration, but it was indeed evidence under oath), ie that she had to argue non-receipt rather than they to provide proof of postage - postage on it's own sufficient to be deemed as served in the absence of evidence to the contrary in other words.

 

Her case was actually dismissed as a result or her evidence stating non-receipt of the NIP and subsequent documents despite having informed DVLA of a change of address.

[blacksheep1979]

The NIP has to reach the person within the 14 days.

 

not true - it has to be issued within 14 days of the offense

[patdavies]

not true - it has to be issued within 14 days of the offense

 

Sorry Blacksheep, RobS is correct.

 

The 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

© 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—

(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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 6.-(3)

inserted the following sub-section into the RTOA 1988 (as above).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(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.

unless—

 

The RTOA 1988 states categorically that the notice must be served (in legal terms, this means delivered) within 14 days. The CJPOA1994 allows service by first class post. However, it must be posted such that it will be delivered within 14 days in the normal course of the post. In effect, this means that if the NIP is posted on day 13 or 14 it cannot be held to have been served in time.

 

If it is sent by first class post, there is a rebuttable presumption of service. That is an individual may state on oath that the NIP was not received within 14 days and produce any supporting evidence. If the Mags believe this evidence then the NIP is void. If it is sent recorded or registered, it is deemed delivered whether signed for or not. This is to prevent someone not answering the door and not collecting from the PO until the 14 days are up.

[blacksheep1979]

I'm sorry but I fail to see anywhere in either of those two acts where it states that time has to be allowed for postage

 

A notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person

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

 

 

and

 

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,

 

both of which imply that the notice is 'served' once posted.

 

Infact contrary to what robs said that it had to be received within 14 days

 

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.

[crankboy]

The NIP has to be posted to the registered keeper within the 14 days so that in the ordinary course of post it would arrive within 14 days , if it is delayed in the post it's still valid, if it had no chance of arriving in 14 days it is not.

Statutory Declarations are made in the Magistrates court to set asside convictions obtained in the absence of a defendant who did not know of the case when it was orriginally decided . Trials are delt with by evidence on oath or section 9 statements.

[Rob S]

Blacksheep, the key word is served. This is backed up by the case of Nicholson v Tapp. With regards to the point about the use of registered post, only 1 or 2 Scottish forces actually use recorded delivery for the service of NIP's. Everyone else uses the ordinary first class post. And their obligations are clear in that they have to post the NIP in enough time to allow the NIP to reach the registered keeper within the statory 14 day period.

[dw190]

Extract from the Interpretation Act

 

Service of documents

(1) Where an enactment authorises or requires a document to be served by post, whether

the word 'serve' or any of the words 'give', 'deliver' or 'send' or any other word is used, the

service of the document may be effected by prepaying and posting an envelope addressed to

the person on whom the document is to be served at his usual or last known place of abode

or business and containing that document; and, unless the contrary is proved, the document

shall be deemed to have been served at the time at which that envelope would have been

delivered in the ordinary course of post.

(2) Where an enactment authorises or requires a document to be served on any person

without directing it to be served in a particular manner, the service of that document may, if

effected after the commencement of this Act, be effected-

 

(a)

by personal service; or

 

(b)

 

 

 

by post in accordance with subsection (1); or

 

©

 

 

 

by leaving it for him with some person apparently over the age of sixteen at his usual

 

or last known place of abode or business; or

 

(d)

 

 

 

in the case of a corporate body or of any association of persons (whether

 

incorporated or not), without prejudice to section 335 of the Companies Act 1931, by

 

delivering it to the secretary or clerk of the body or association at the registered or

principal office of the body or assoication or serving it by post in accordance with

subsection (I) on such secretary or clerk at that office; or

(e)

 

 

 

if it is not practicable after reasonable enquiry to ascertain the name or address of

 

an owner, lessee or occupier of premises on whom the document should be

served, by addressig the document to him by the description of 'owner', 'lessee' or

'occupier', as the case may be, of the premises (naming them) to which the

document relates, and by delivering it to some person on the premises or, if there is

no person on the premises to whom it can be delivered, by affixing it, or a copy of it,

to some conspicuous part of the premises.

 

 

 

The following is from the Criminal Procedure Rules were rules on service of documents refer to First Class Post (Exceeding the Speed Limit is a Criminal Offence)

 

 

Date of service(1) A document served under rule 4.3 or rule 4.8 is served on the day it is handed over.(2) Unless something different is shown, a document served on a person by any other method is served –(a) in the case of a document left at an address, on the next business day after the day on which it was left;(b) in the case of a document sent by first class post or by the equivalent of first class post, on the second business day after the day on which it was posted or despatched;© in the case of a document served by document exchange, on the second business day after the day on which it was left at the addressee's DX or at a correspondent DX;(d) in the case of a document transmitted by fax, e-mail or other electronic means, on the next business day after it was transmitted; and(e) in any case, on the day on which the addressee responds to it if that is earlier.(3) Unless something different is shown, a document produced by a court computer system is to be taken as having been sent by first class post or by the equivalent of first class post to the addressee on the business day after the day on which it was produced.(4) In this Part “business day” means any day except Saturday, Sunday, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday or a bank holiday.(5) Where a document is served on or by the court officer, “business day” does not include a day on which the court office is closed.

 

 

 

[patdavies]

T

Statutory Declarations are made in the Magistrates court to set asside convictions obtained in the absence of a defendant who did not know of the case when it was orriginally decided .

 

See post #16