Speed Camera Vans

vax2002

They use the same device featured on top gear showing a wall moving at 14mph and a car that was doing 30 at 42.

sarahg1969

tumbletots wrote: »

When you say 14 days is that 14 days or 14 working days. Husband thinks he was caught on Easter Sunday from a bridge over a dual carriageway. Thanks for any info.

14 days. If and when he receives something, if there's a chance it is late, he needs to keep the envelope, and make sure he remembers what date he received it on.

Obukit

sarahg1969 wrote: »

14 days. If and when he receives something, if there's a chance it is late, he needs to keep the envelope, and make sure he remembers what date he received it on.

Or even better if you are there when the post arrives and get a late NIP, grab the postie and ask if they are happy to witness when the letter arrived.

The relevant law is the Interpretations Act 1976, basically saying that anything posted first class is "deemed served" (e.g. delivered) two working days after posting. This is a rebuttable presumption, e.g. if you take it to court and provide credible evidence of late delivery, then the NIP is invalid. Obviously the more convincing the evidence, the better.

tumbletots

thanks for the quick replies. Will keep my fingers crossed.

Yorkie1

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Anyone know which forces use the new speed cameras that can zap you from a mile away?

Pretty sure that North Yorks have them, from recent press coverage.

Wig

Lum wrote: »

It's case law. Though in trying to find it, it looks like there has since been another case (Gidden vs Chief Constable of Humberside) which means what I posted is outdated and wrong.

According to that case "If the motorist can show that the notice arrived after the 14 day period then the police are out of time and cannot prosecute the driver for speeding."

However, this is going to be very difficult to prove. Saying "always keep the envelope" is fine, but it's been a long time since I've seen a franked envelope that actually has a post mark on it.

But the legislation does not require it to be delivered within 14 days only posted by a date through which in the ordinary course of the post would be expected to be delivered within 14 days............ If there was a postal strike I would expect the law to take the view that the police could not rely on the "ordinary corse of post" clause and have to take adequate measures to ensure delivery within 14 days.

Are you sure the case you refer to was not about proving it had been sent after a date by which it could be expected to be delivered - which may have been 14+ days?


EDITED see quote below

Sgt_Pepper_2

Wig wrote: »

But the legislation does not require it to be delivered within 14 days only posted by a date through which in the ordinary course of the post would be expected to be delivered within 14 days............ If there was a postal strike I would expect the law to take the view that the police could not rely on the "ordinary corse of post" clause and have to take adequate measures to ensure delivery within 14 days.

Are you sure the case you refer to was not about proving it had been sent after a date by which it could be expected to be delivered - which may have been 14+ days?


Also Paradigm,
First class post is expected and aims to deliver by the next day so I would have thought 13th day posting would be acceptable. as long as 13th day was not a Saturday. What case law is there to say it should be expected to be delivered in 2 days?

Lum is correct. If you can show it didn't arrive within 14 days case dismissed.;)

Wig

Obukit wrote: »

Or even better if you are there when the post arrives and get a late NIP, grab the postie and ask if they are happy to witness when the letter arrived.

The relevant law is the Interpretations Act 1976, basically saying that anything posted first class is "deemed served" (e.g. delivered) two working days after posting. This is a rebuttable presumption, e.g. if you take it to court and provide credible evidence of late delivery, then the NIP is invalid. Obviously the more convincing the evidence, the better.

Where in the IA does it specifically mention 2 days?

EDIT
OK so in Gidden Vs .... it mentions a "practice direction" for 1st class being the "second working day after posting" which would mean 2 days but still not sure if that is in the IA or from somewhere else, but no matter, the point is proved. Paradigm ignore previous comment to you.

Wig

I will have to read the case, but I fail to see why a high court would ignore legislation. I must have missed something.

I'm reading it now
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2924.html

Ok I've read it now and the ruling is a good one.

"Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression 'serve' or the expression 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."

This would mean though that you could nail your letterbox shut and refuse to accept any mail and you would show/prove that you did not receive any mail for the period.

Wig

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Lum is correct. If you can show it didn't arrive within 14 days case dismissed.;)

It's not going to be as simple as that, you're going to have to prove that it arrived late. This guy Giddens was lucky in that there was a postal strike so everyone accepted the letter could not have arrived on time as the postmen did not go back to work untiil such and such date.

You try proving to court that a letter arriving on your doormat 15, 16 17 days.... actually did arrive on the day it did. I doubt you will get very far. One thing you should do is write on the envelope the date it arived, another would be to grab the postman and ask them to do the same.