Notice of Intended Prosecution - Scotland

Warwick_Hunt

Car_54 wrote: »

It does if they sent the first NIP to the address on the V5C.

Why would they send a second NIP within 28 days?

Car_54

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

Why would they send a second NIP within 28 days?

Because the RK has responded to the 1st NIP, naming the OP, probably within 2-3 days.

GothicStirling

The only relevant question here is, where you driving the vehicle at said time? Anything else is a childish attempt to squirm out of not taking responsibility for your actions.

waamo

GothicStirling wrote: »

The only relevant question here is, where you driving the vehicle at said time? Anything else is a childish attempt to squirm out of not taking responsibility for your actions.

The law is the law and applies to the authorities too. If we head down a path of ignoring any minor inconveniences like due process then we start heading down a very slippery slope indeed.

Warwick_Hunt

Car_54 wrote: »

Because the RK has responded to the 1st NIP, naming the OP, probably within 2-3 days.

The OP said he’s the registered keeper and I was responding the the fact waamo told him to check the V5 for his correct address or postcode.

So it makes no difference if the OP is the RK.

George_Michael

GothicStirling wrote: »

The only relevant question here is, where you driving the vehicle at said time? Anything else is a childish attempt to squirm out of not taking responsibility for your actions.

Why?
The powers that be are quick enough to prosecute or issue FPN's if the general public don't comply with the letter of the law so I don't see anything wrong in also using the letter of the law to avoid prosecution.

TooManyPoints

Why?
The powers that be are quick enough to prosecute or issue FPN's if the general public don't comply with the letter of the law so I don't see anything wrong in also using the letter of the law to avoid prosecution.

Indeed. The law (Road Traffic Offenders Act, 1988) is quite clear about the requirement to serve NIPs for speeding offences.


1 Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences.

(1)...a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless]—

(a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or

(b )within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or

(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was [served on him]

So it is not just a question of whether he was driving at the time. The first NIP has to be served within 14 days. In the circumstances here (where the NIP was actually dated out of time) some explanation needs to be sought for its lateness and if that explanation is not satisfactory then no conviction can follow.

Car_54

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Indeed. The law (Road Traffic Offenders Act, 1988) is quite clear about the requirement to serve NIPs for speeding offences.


1 Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences.

(1)...a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless]—

(a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or

(b )within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or

(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was [served on him]

So it is not just a question of whether he was driving at the time. The first NIP has to be served within 14 days. In the circumstances here (where the NIP was actually dated out of time) some explanation needs to be sought for its lateness and if that explanation is not satisfactory then no conviction can follow.

That is a rather selective quote. Section 1(c) reads in full:

"within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—

(i)in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,

(ii)in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence."

I know the OP says he is the RK, but I'd be very surprised if that is really the case.

DoaM

Car_54 wrote: »

I know the OP says he is the RK, but I'd be very surprised if that is really the case.

Given OP says it's a 3 year contract hire with Landrover, I also have my doubts. If OP is actually in possession of the V5C document for the vehicle, and that document accurately states his/her name and address, then any NIP would need to go directly to OP ... otherwise the NIP would go first to the contract hire company.

TooManyPoints

That is a rather selective quote. Section 1(c) reads in full:...

I did preface my earlier answer with a proviso about the V5C:

...you firstly need to be absolutely sure about the NIP as late NIPs are extremely rare these days. You need to ensure that the V5C is in your name and is entirely correct.

We can only provide advice on the basis of what we are told. My later answer was reacting to the suggestion that the late NIP (if it was indeed a genuinely late NIP) does not matter. It does.