Speeding fine -Late NIP

Minrich

Its like other restrictions on prosecutions within a certain time , generally 6 months ...... It is intended to do it quickly for speeding due to people forgetting about where they were and what they were up to ..... NIP's used to issued verbally before speed cameras but is just how the law was formed i suppose .....

dannyrst

Minrich wrote: »

Its like other restrictions on prosecutions within a certain time , generally 6 months ...... It is intended to do it quickly for speeding due to people forgetting about where they were and what they were up to ..... NIP's used to issued verbally before speed cameras but is just how the law was formed i suppose .....

Seems a little daft to me.

If I run someone over and 15 days later get arrested, I might claim I can't remember who was driving at the time, quoting their own timeframes as my defence.*



*I would never actually leave the scene of an accident without contacted the relevant authorities.

Car_54

dannyrst wrote: »

Why is it deemed unenforceable if a NIP isn't served within 14 days? I've heard this alot but never understood why it exists. Surely if you were speeding and evidence exists, it isn't relevant how long it takes the police to contact you?

But the evidence that you were speeding doesn't exist - only evidence that some unknown driver was speeding. The point of the 14 day limit is to ensure that the keeper is asked to name the driver within a reasonable time, while memories are (possibly!) still fresh.

facade

dannyrst wrote: »

Seems a little daft to me.

If I run someone over and 15 days later get arrested, I might claim I can't remember who was driving at the time, quoting their own timeframes as my defence.*



*I would never actually leave the scene of an accident without contacted the relevant authorities.

In the event of an accident, the 14 day rule does not apply.


Presumably, the 14 day rule was some sort of common sense concession to the fact that with camera enforcement, you might not realise you had committed an offence, and would have to rely on memory of who was driving at the time.

Whereas offences that you would definitely remember like dangerous driving, failing to stop in an accident are not subject to the 14 day rule.

Rover_Driver

Car_54 wrote: »

The point of the 14 day limit is to ensure that the keeper is asked to name the driver within a reasonable time, while memories are (possibly!) still fresh.

The 14 day limit only applies to the service of the notice of intended prosecution - s.1, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.


There is no time limit for the requirement to name the driver - s.172, Road Traffic Act 1988.

dannyrst

facade wrote: »

In the event of an accident, the 14 day rule does not apply.


Presumably, the 14 day rule was some sort of common sense concession to the fact that with camera enforcement, you might not realise you had committed an offence, and would have to rely on memory of who was driving at the time.

Whereas offences that you would definitely remember like dangerous driving, failing to stop in an accident are not subject to the 14 day rule.

What if I was drunk, I'd find it hard to remember if I was driving whilst drunk.* :beer:



*I would never drink and drive.

Car_54

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The 14 day limit only applies to the service of the notice of intended prosecution - s.1, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.


There is no time limit for the requirement to name the driver - s.172, Road Traffic Act 1988.

Absolutely correct, and it's very important that anyone arguing about the NIP remembers that. Failure to name the driver is a more serious offence than most speeding cases - six points, and an endorsement code which insurers don't like.

facade

dannyrst wrote: »

What if I was drunk, I'd find it hard to remember if I was driving whilst drunk.* :beer:



*I would never drink and drive.

Then you simply fail to name the driver, and when prosecuted, your defence is that you were drunk at the wheel, and can't possibly remember where you were driving.

Cast iron alibi if you ask me :rotfl:

dannyrst

facade wrote: »

Then you simply fail to name the driver, and when prosecuted, your defence is that you were drunk at the wheel, and can't possibly remember where you were driving.

Cast iron alibi if you ask me :rotfl:

The judge would laugh at the prosecution whilst throwing the case out surely? :rotfl:

Minrich

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The 14 day limit only applies to the service of the notice of intended prosecution - s.1, Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.


There is no time limit for the requirement to name the driver - s.172, Road Traffic Act 1988.

Not totally true, if they asked you to name a driver more than six months after the incident then you would not have to as the time limit of six months would have passed and no prosecution would be possible because of such.