Nip

EssexExile

In post 4 the OP says the NIP is addressed to the hire company. Surely they should return that to the authorities naming him as the driver & a new NIP should be addressed to him?
Not that that helps the OP, it just prolongs the agony.

neilmcl

EssexExile wrote: »

In post 4 the OP says the NIP is addressed to the hire company. Surely they should return that to the authorities naming him as the driver & a new NIP should be addressed to him?
Not that that helps the OP, it just prolongs the agony.

Have you not read the thread. The fact that the Hire company has named the OP in the accompanying s172 and a new NIP will be reissued doesn't negate the fact that the original NIP was out of date (potentially).

AdrianC

<sigh> Let's look at the practicalities here.

The OP receives his own paperwork. That paperwork does not say when the hire firm's paperwork was issued - it merely has the dates of the offence and the date of the issue of the OP's paperwork.
The OP then needs to say it was them driving, assuming they are not disputing that. At that point, they receive their choices. They may include an SAC. They may include an FPN. They will certainly include a court date.

If the OP is going to try to do anything about this alleged procedural error, then they need to take it to court, and argue that since the NIP was allegedly delayed in being posted to the hire company, then the whole procedure is invalid.

OP - are you likely to be banned off the back of this?

Fat_Walt

AdrianC wrote: »

<sigh> Let's look at the practicalities here.

The OP receives his own paperwork. That paperwork does not say when the hire firm's paperwork was issued - it merely has the dates of the offence and the date of the issue of the OP's paperwork.
The OP then needs to say it was them driving, assuming they are not disputing that. At that point, they receive their choices. They may include an SAC. They may include an FPN. They will certainly include a court date.

If the OP is going to try to do anything about this alleged procedural error, then they need to take it to court, and argue that since the NIP was allegedly delayed in being posted to the hire company, then the whole procedure is invalid.

OP - are you likely to be banned off the back of this?

Why the sudden U turn?

Earlier you were arguing the procedural error wasn't relevant.

Manxman_in_exile

I suspect (but do not know) that what has happened is, in reverse order:

• OP has received (or will receive) the 3rd NIP/172,
• the hire company received the 2nd NIP/172, and
• a separate finance company received the 1st NIP/172 (assuming this finance company is the registered keeper on the vehicle's V5).

If the first NIP was not served according to the 14 days limit then I think the OP can't be convicted of the speeding offence. But they still need to respond to the s. 172 request to avoid possibly being convicted of that offence.


Can the OP establish that the first NIP wasn't served on the RK within the time limit? At the moment they don't appear to know who the RK is or when the first NIP was served.


Still need to respond to the 172.

Mercdriver

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I suspect (but do not know) that what has happened is, in reverse order:

• OP has received (or will receive) the 3rd NIP/172,
• the hire company received the 2nd NIP/172, and
• a separate finance company received the 1st NIP/172 (assuming this finance company is the registered keeper on the vehicle's V5).

If the first NIP was not served according to the 14 days limit then I think the OP can't be convicted of the speeding offence. But they still need to respond to the s. 172 request to avoid possibly being convicted of that offence.


Can the OP establish that the first NIP wasn't served on the RK within the time limit? At the moment they don't appear to know who the RK is or when the first NIP was served.


Still need to respond to the 172.

From lots of lurking on pepipoo, this is the potential to a tee. Many hire companies lease the cars from a lease/finance company - this is why they often have stickers on the dash telling you that the mileage must not go over a certain threshold.

You could get a NIP served on the hire company outside of the 14 days and it may still not be the first one issued, and you have to then check when the actual registered keeper on the V5c received it. Even then it won't be straight forward.

OP what speed were you driving and how long has it been since you last did a speed awareness course? If you qualify for a SAC, I would cut your losses and do one of these. Even if 3 pts/£100 fine, it would be much cheaper than a day out in court.

Whatever you do, however get the form back quickly or court will be the only thing waiting for you. The S172 still needs to be complied with, regardless, and long delays can cost you a SAC place.

AdrianC

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Why the sudden U turn?

Earlier you were arguing the procedural error wasn't relevant.

If you bother to read what I wrote, you might realise there is no U-turn.

Fat_Walt

AdrianC wrote: »

If you bother to read what I wrote, you might realise there is no U-turn.

So are you still adamant that as the hire company responded to the 172 it doesn't matter if their nip was served after 14 days?

AdrianC

Fat_Walt wrote: »

So are you still adamant that as the hire company responded to the 172 it doesn't matter if their nip was served after 14 days?

Come back to me when you've read EVERY SINGLE WORD in that sentence you emboldened.