Speeding fine

TooManyPoints

There is no out-of-time here. But, even if there was, Mrs B accepted it and confirmed she was driver, and it's all moved on past that stage.

I quite agree that there is no out-of-time angle here, Adrian, for the reasons you explained quite clearly. But it should be emphasised for clarity that if there was, providing the driver's details does not make the matter beyond challenge. There is an obligation to respond to the S172 even if there is seemingly a cast iron defence to the speeding allegation. The driver still has the opportunity to have the matter tried in court.

452

AdrianC said:

So the V5C says...
"Mrs B02
Motability House
Motability Road
Motabilityville
MO1 2TA"

The police have sent the s172 to that name and address. THAT is the 14 day time limit.
And then somebody at Motability sent it back to the police saying "Mrs B02, 14 Anywhere St".
The police re-sent it. That's what didn't arrive.
But the follow-up did.

There is no out-of-time here. But, even if there was, Mrs B accepted it and confirmed she was driver, and it's all moved on past that stage.

Mrs B02 should have sent it back not some random at motability.

Nearly_Old

452 said:

AdrianC said:

So the V5C says...
"Mrs B02
Motability House
Motability Road
Motabilityville
MO1 2TA"

The police have sent the s172 to that name and address. THAT is the 14 day time limit.
And then somebody at Motability sent it back to the police saying "Mrs B02, 14 Anywhere St".
The police re-sent it. That's what didn't arrive.
But the follow-up did.

There is no out-of-time here. But, even if there was, Mrs B accepted it and confirmed she was driver, and it's all moved on past that stage.

Mrs B02 should have sent it back not some random at motability.

Mrs B02 couldn't send it back as it wasn't sent to her address; think of it as a lease car:

1. The offence is comitted.

2. The Ticket Office send the NIP/S172 to the address provided by DVLA; i.e. the lease company. The 14 day rule applies.

3. The lease company send back the S172 with the name and address of the person leasing the car.

4. A 2nd NIP/S172 (14 day rule does not apply) is sent to the person leasing the car who returns the S172 naming the driver at the time of the offence. Now the ticket office have the name and address of the (alleged) driver at the time of the offence.

5. An offer letter can now be sent to the driver named on the 2nd S172.

TooManyPoints

452 said:

Mrs B02 should have sent it back not some random at motability.

How could she? She doesn't live at Motability House and did not know of the existence of the notice. In fact she knew nothing at all until she received her own S172 notice.

I must say I find the Motability arrangement somewhat disturbing. If I have it correctly, the V5C shows the lessee (or whatever they're called) as the RK but the address as Motability's office. Motability retain the V5C. This means that a S172 notice will be addressed to the lessee but at an address where they have no access to the mail. S172 notices say "do not pass this notice to anybody else" so they should not be passed to the lessee. So Motability completes S172s that are not addressed to them. It seems to me to be a recipe for confusion or even disaster. 

452

Nearly_Old said:

452 said:

AdrianC said:

So the V5C says...
"Mrs B02
Motability House
Motability Road
Motabilityville
MO1 2TA"

The police have sent the s172 to that name and address. THAT is the 14 day time limit.
And then somebody at Motability sent it back to the police saying "Mrs B02, 14 Anywhere St".
The police re-sent it. That's what didn't arrive.
But the follow-up did.

There is no out-of-time here. But, even if there was, Mrs B accepted it and confirmed she was driver, and it's all moved on past that stage.

Mrs B02 should have sent it back not some random at motability.

Mrs B02 couldn't send it back as it wasn't sent to her address; think of it as a lease car:

1. The offence is comitted.

2. The Ticket Office send the NIP/S172 to the address provided by DVLA; i.e. the lease company. The 14 day rule applies.

3. The lease company send back the S172 with the name and address of the person leasing the car.

4. A 2nd NIP/S172 (14 day rule does not apply) is sent to the person leasing the car who returns the S172 naming the driver at the time of the offence. Now the ticket office have the name and address of the (alleged) driver at the time of the offence.

5. An offer letter can now be sent to the driver named on the 2nd S172.

If a 172 is sent to a named person then that person should respond. A lease car will not have an individual named as the registered keeper. 

TooManyPoints

If a 172 is sent to a named person then that person should respond. A lease car will not have an individual named as the registered keeper. 

But we're not talking about a "conventionally" leased vehicle. It seems from what is said here that for Motability vehicles the lessee is named as the RK whilst his or her address is given as that of Motability. 

AdrianC

452 said:

If a 172 is sent to a named person then that person should respond. 

And how do they know they need to respond?

born_again

DoaM said:

[Deleted User] said:

So, I repeat, how could the original have been sent to your wife, if no-one knows her address?

That's (one reason) why I've suggested OP's wife gets (a copy of?) the V5C from Motability ... it'll settle the discussion once and for all.

Except for this from the OP...

>>> The lease for this car actually ended on 31/1/2020 so she does now have another vehicle.  The alleged offence was 29/1/2020.<<<

So V5 details will have been changed.

TooManyPoints

Indeed they may have changed. But it makes no difference. For whatever reason the first NIP/s172 went to Motability and unless that NIP was late that's the end of the matter as far as a "late NIP" defence goes.

Manxman_in_exile

AdrianC said:

452 said:

If a 172 is sent to a named person then that person should respond. 

And how do they know they need to respond?

Well, isn't that the point 452 is trying to make?

I'm fortunate enough never to have seen a NIP/172 request, but my understanding is that there is a very clear instruction on the face of the document to the effect that:  "Only the person to whom this notice is addressed should respond.  This notice should not be passed onto anybody else" - or similar wording.

I think that what 452 is suggesting is that if Motability replied to the NIP/172 saying that the RK's actual address is XXX and not YYY, then they should not have done so, because the NIP/172 was not addressed (in name) to Motability, so they should not have responded.  What they should have done is forward the NIP/172 onto the RK pronto! for the RK to respond.

This is what i was trying to explore (badly!) in my post about 3:34pm yesterday.  (Why aren't posts numbered???!!!)

EDIT:  I agree it makes no difference to whether it was out of time or not.  Presumably it was sent to the RK as at the address the DVLA  had recorded.  What seems perversely daft is the Motability scheme where the "user" is the RK, but the RK's address is Motability's address.  That is BONKERS!