Nip

Fat_Walt

AdrianC wrote: »

If you're so certain, Walt, can I presume you'll put your money where your mouth is when it comes to the OP taking it court?

No, thought not.

Yeah, I'm certain you're wrong.

The first nip must be served within 14 days.

The 172 request has no time limit and therefore is valid.

They have evidence the op may have been speeding from the 172, however the original nip is not be valid if the original was not served on time.

I wouldn't put any money down until the op confirms the September nip is not a reminder.

AdrianC

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Yeah, I'm certain you're wrong.

The first nip must be served within 14 days.

The 172 request has no time limit and therefore is valid.

They have evidence the op may have been speeding from the 172, however the original nip is not be valid if the original was not served on time.

I wouldn't put any money down until the op confirms the September nip is not a reminder.

And, again, you ignore that the original NIP is now irrelevant. There's a shiny fresh one heading to the OP which WILL be valid.

Fat_Walt

AdrianC wrote: »

And, again, you ignore that the original NIP is now irrelevant. There's a shiny fresh one heading to the OP which WILL be valid.

The shiny fresh nip doesn't change the fact the original nip was not served in time.

The op cannot be prosecuted if he can cast reasonable doubt on the service of the first nip.

You're starting to may yourself look foolish now, but feel free to carry on. :rotfl:

AdrianC

Fat_Walt wrote: »

The shiny fresh nip doesn't change the fact the original nip was not served in time.

The op cannot be prosecuted if he can cast reasonable doubt on the service of the first nip.

You're starting to may yourself look foolish now, but feel free to carry on. :rotfl:

Not nearly as foolish as the OP's going to look when he stands up in court relying solely on that.

tastycracker

I'm pretty sure its the first letter and not a reminder

Fat_Walt

AdrianC wrote: »

Not nearly as foolish as the OP's going to look when he stands up in court relying solely on that.

Ok then show us the legislation where it says the nip must be served with 14 days to be valid unless the registered keeper replies to a 172 request.

OP get yourself onto pepipoo.com as you'll only get the waters muddied on here by people like AdrianC who don't know what they're talking about.

Fat_Walt

tastycracker wrote: »

I'm pretty sure its the first letter and not a reminder

Got to pepipoo.com and ask for advice there.

You'll need the original paperwork if you want to fight this so done let them dispose of it.

neilmcl

OP, it may be worth taking this over to http://www.pepipoo.com/ as you'll always get conflicting arguments from the "experts" here.

waamo

A NIP is 2 legal documents rolled into one. A Notice of Intended Prosecution and a Section 172 request for information.

The NIP portion is merely a notice and as such is always valid. They are informing you that you may be prosecuted. It has to arrive to the person named on the V5c within 14 days of the offence. Subsequent NIPs. An he later.

The request for information has to be answered within 28 days of receipt. The penalty for not doing so is 6 points and a fine of up to £1000.

We still don't know who is on the V5c or if the OP has actually received a NIP in his own name.

Fat_Walt

waamo wrote: »

A NIP is 2 legal documents rolled into one. A Notice of Intended Prosecution and a Section 172 request for information.

The NIP portion is merely a notice and as such is always valid. They are informing you that you may be prosecuted. It has to arrive to the person named on the V5c within 14 days of the offence. Subsequent NIPs. An he later.

The request for information has to be answered within 28 days of receipt. The penalty for not doing so is 6 points and a fine of up to £1000.

We still don't know who is on the V5c or if the OP has actually received a NIP in his own name.

It can be combined and that's maybe what's causing confusion. They must be treated as two separate documents.

The owner of the vehicle was correct to return the 172 and by doing so it cannot validate an incorrectly served nip.