Speed ticket ID of driver can't be ascertained

AdrianC

Rover_Driver wrote: »

A NIP is required to be served within 14 days, not just sent.

It's deemed to be served if sent in time for there to be a reasonable expectation that it's received within 14 days, going by standard postage times.

In practice, they're all automated, and are sent to the registered keeper WELL within those timescales.

SuperAllyB

GingerBob wrote: »

:rotfl:I'll put a logbook in the car and instruct my wife to sign it each time she drives: Time Entered Vehicle, Mileage out, Mileage in, Time left Vehicle, Signature, Print name. That should do it. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

But if you don't already keep these records , how do you work out her share of fuel, maintenance, insurance etc?

Rover_Driver

AdrianC wrote: »

It's deemed to be served if sent in time for there to be a reasonable expectation that it's received within 14 days, going by standard postage times.

Only deemed to be served, it is required to be served within 14 days of the commission of the offence.


If it is served outside of the 14 days due to postal delays etc., it is not valid.

bowlhead99

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It also sounds like she did so on the advice of either the ticket office or the court. That was entirely inappropriate advice fot either to give.

I'm not so sure that it was inappropriate advice (or even any sort of 'advice') - of course none of us on this thread including the OP have actually heard what was said by the person with whom the OP's daughter spoke on the phone.

I expect the gist of the so-called 'advice' was:

"You've been summoned to court and we adjourned it for you once. You have the option to plead guilty by post, and if you do so you will be able to appeal the nature or length of the punishment. Or, you can come to court and plead guilty in person. Or, if you believe you are not guilty of the offence of failing to disclose the driver, then you can come to court and say so and present your evidence / defence."

None of that would be un-factual. We're hearing from the OP that his daughter was 'told to plead guilty and appeal' as if it were the best solution for her circumstances. The court are not the daughter's legal advisers, although they may well have told her that if she was not going to come to court to say that she was guilty or not guilty she would have to enter her guilty plea by post (or waste everyone's time and do none of the above so they would conclude in her absence).

Q:"What can I do about my court hearing if I don't want to come to court after you already postponed it for me?" ; A:"You can plead guilty by post and appeal if you don't like the punishment. Or you can come to court and plead not guilty" ;
Daughter: "Hey Dad the court told me I could plead guilty by post and appeal later, so I've done that".
Dad: "Well, it sounds pretty stupid to tell a court that you were guilty of an offence if you don't think you were guilty of it. Still, as you couldn't be bothered to ask a lawyer at the time, and still can't be bothered to ask a lawyer, or do some research on the internet into what your options are now, I'll ask some people on the internet what they think".

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

It's deemed to be served if sent in time for there to be a reasonable expectation that it's received within 14 days, going by standard postage times.

Not deemed to be served. Just presumed to be served in the absence of evidence to the contrary. If it's delayed in the post then it is not correctly served - though the onus is on the defendant to prove the late delivery.

caprikid1

In summary


She got a booked which should have been c£100 and 3 points.


She decided to play the don't know who was driving game.


Now has a bigger fine and six points. There is no debate she is guilty of failure to disclose and the "Its time barred" probably just got their back up.


Regarding keeping records of who drove. No one ever does that in the real world it is a crazy idea. So if genuinely they do not know they just pick someone and take the pain.


Really time to move on and be a responsible adult and set some good examples to her pupils.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

In these cases, I always go back to first principles of the parent/child relationship one of which is "A parent can never believe anything a child says when it comes to getting into trouble with the police."

The original post is so mixed up as to what really can have happened that we can guess that the original "caught by a speed camera" included the original S172 request. It is possible that these go strange routes if the car is not owned by the driver. I would guess daughter ignored it, and rather pleased that nothing happened forgot all about it. I would also guess that daughter or boyfriend knew exactly who was caught because if you are done by a fixed camera you are normally shocked by the flash, so one or the other or both will have known. So frankly, having been flashed by a camera, I would not believe that they did not know that they had been flashed. Once you've been flashed, you don't forget who was driving at the time. I can remember being flashed by a dummy camera and I've never received an NIP for it and that was about 15 years ago.

The six months passes and what is then received is a court summons for failure to furnish, not an NIP. Reminders might have been thrown away. It will not have been an NIP for speeding as they have to be placed before court within 6 months of the offence so could become time barred. The FTF has a bit longer from the speeding as the offence only occurs after the form has been received.

Then deciding that you can't go to court because you are working is essentially contempt of court, if that was a valid excuse, only the unemployed would be subject to the law.

So, now she will have a very large insurance hike together with the fine to pay, which even unpaid leave would have been cheaper. The lesson is, when you are in trouble with the law, seek advice promptly, don't believe the advice you prefer over the advice that is more likely to be accurate, and don't ignore the clear wording on forms that tell you exactly what you need to do to avoid getting into further trouble.

IOW, no sympathy from me!

George_Michael

Aretnap wrote: »

Not deemed to be served. Just presumed to be served in the absence of evidence to the contrary. If it's delayed in the post then it is not correctly served - though the onus is on the defendant to prove the late delivery.

The post that you were replying to was correct in its wording.
When a document is required to be mailed, it is deemed to have been served (and not presumed to have been served) on the estimated date that the mail service used would have delivered it. (Unless proven otherwise)

Rover_Driver

George_Michael wrote: »

The post that you were replying to was correct in its wording.
When a document is required to be mailed, it is deemed to have been served (and not presumed to have been served) on the estimated date that the mail service used would have delivered it. (Unless proven otherwise)

For the service of a NIP, it is required to be served within 14 days of the commission of the offence. It may be deemed to be served within th 14 days, but if it is not, and is served outside the 14 days, it is not valid.
It is presumed to be served within 14 days if it would be by the normal duration of post, unless the contrary is proved.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Rover_Driver wrote: »

For the service of a NIP, it is required to be served within 14 days of the commission of the offence. It may be deemed to be served within th 14 days, but if it is not, and is served outside the 14 days, it is not valid.
It is presumed to be served within 14 days if it would be by the normal duration of post, unless the contrary is proved.

And also, it is served to the last known address of the keeper, so there are a myriad of reasons why NIPs arrive "late" - wrong address on V5, address updated before the incident but DVLA not yet got round to it, address is of the lease company and so on. Also, add on if you are stopped, you don't get a postal NIP, you will normally have been told you will be prosecuted - nothing actually needs to be written, it can be verbal.

It is very unusual for the police automated process for issuing NIPs to be wrong, all they have to do is spit out a standard letter from an address for the car from DVLA and they normally do that within a few days of the incident, not the day before the deadline.