Notice of Intended Prosecution

Ich_2

The son of a neighbour (now deceased so house is empty) has just handed me a notice addressed to me but at the wrong address.
He apologised as he had inadvertently opened it.

It's for 40 in a 30 limit caught by a "safety" camera van

A couple of questions

1/ do I have a case to oppose this owing to it being addressed wrongly?

2/ do I have any comeback against them owing to the breech of privacy by the incorrect address?

I know I can take it to peppito but thought I'd get a general view on here first

hcb42

I wouldnt think so. You could ignore it of course, but ir might not go away, and then cost you more in the long run.

Is your address correct on your vehicle documentation?

Ich_2

Is your address correct on your vehicle documentation?

Ah don't know as it's a company car

rdwarr

I'd be concerned about it going to the wrong address. Are you sure that you haven't provided an incorrect address at any time? I wouldn't suggest complaining about the wrong address if there's a chance it could be your fault.
Did you commit the offence? Generally those that believe themselves innocent will get more sympathy on the forums.

Kite2010

If the company car is registered to the company (or a lease company) then it might have been an admin error by whoever answered the original speeding ticket by putting the wrong house number in the address box.

Then it won't be the police's fault it will be the fault of the admin person whom gave them the information.

vax2002

Keep the envelope !
If it is the police who have addressed it incorrectly then it is not served.
seek further legal advice

Tobster86

Instinct says ignore it for now if it's addressed incorrectly; it could be effectively not served, and 'timing out' seems to be the current course of action in fighting these offences.

Get legal advice though because I can't say for definite as I never [STRIKE]speed[/STRIKE] get caught.

As for the merits of the situation and how sympathetic people will be, I can't apply any more discretion than the yellow box by the side of the road or civil servant in the back of a van. Maybe time to invest in a good detector?

muckybutt

In your case I would certainly seek advice on pepipoo

go here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=3 first then do the NIP wizard http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=nipwizard then start a new thread, pepipoo is free and is manned by many ex traffic wardens / police ossifers and many solicitors etc.

They will give you free impartial advice on your next course of action, but please dont ignore the NIP, it wont go away and could make a whole heap of trouble for you in the future.

As long as the prosecution can prove that the NIP was sent out within 14 days it will be deemed to be served even though the notice was undelivered or for any other reason not received by the accused. This is known as an “irrebuttable presumption of service”. i.e. as long as the prosecution can show that they sent a notice within 14 days, they will have complied with their duty - http://www.driving-prosecutions.co.uk/prosecution-types/notice-of-intended-prosecution.aspx

Ich_2

As long as the prosecution can prove that the NIP was sent out within 14 days

Now that is interesting as the offence occurred on 26th May, the NIP is dated 12th June.
Though I suppose if it had initially been sent to the vehicle owner it would haver been deemed to have been served

HO87

The law requires that a Notice of Intended Prosecution is served on the registered keeper or the driver within 14 days of the alleged offence. There is a presumption that it is served unless evidence is adduced to rebut that presumption.

It would seem, however, that the OP is not the registered keeper and what they have received is not the first NIP to have been issued. Provided the first NIP was served within 14 days on the registered keeper (the OP's employers or, perhaps, a leasing company) there the law has been complied with. There is no requirement that any subsequent NIP is served within a time limit other than that that may apply in terms of the statute of limitations.

The thing not to miss is that built into the NIP is a requirement under the provisions of s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988 that the recipient identifies the driver at the time of the alleged offence. The information must be made within 28 days of the service of the requirement (i.e. the NIP). There would seem to be the basis of an argument that this requirement has not been properly served but I would suggest to the OP that they reply promptly identifying themselves (if they were the driver) and return the reply portion of the form as soon as possible. If the 28 day limit has been exceeded (can't quite see how that may have occurred but hey) the OP could avail themselves of the defence built into s.172 that they supplied the information required as soon as practicable.

In brief, reply giving the information required as soon as possible.