Speeding fine

TooManyPoints

Exactly my point about Motability, Manxman. In fact I would go further and say that with their current arrangements, strictly speaking Motability cannot comply with a S172 notice at all because it is not addressed to them. Furthermore, having received it they should not, as you point out, pass it to anybody else, so posting it to their lessee breaks that provision (as well as introducing an unnecessary link in the chain which might fail). The essence is that the lessee is driving a vehicle when, if it is involved in an incident which generates a S172, the noticed will be addressed to him at premises to which he has no access. A most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Car_54

TooManyPoints said:

Exactly my point about Motability, Manxman. In fact I would go further and say that with their current arrangements, strictly speaking Motability cannot comply with a S172 notice at all because it is not addressed to them. Furthermore, having received it they should not, as you point out, pass it to anybody else, so posting it to their lessee breaks that provision (as well as introducing an unnecessary link in the chain which might fail). The essence is that the lessee is driving a vehicle when, if it is involved in an incident which generates a S172, the noticed will be addressed to him at premises to which he has no access. A most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Agreed. It's hard to see why Motability don't just name themselves as the RK, like most other leasing companies.

On the other hand, they must deal with thousands of NIPs, with few problems.

Manxman_in_exile

TooManyPoints said:

Exactly my point about Motability, Manxman. In fact I would go further and say that with their current arrangements, strictly speaking Motability cannot comply with a S172 notice at all because it is not addressed to them. Furthermore, having received it they should not, as you point out, pass it to anybody else, so posting it to their lessee breaks that provision (as well as introducing an unnecessary link in the chain which might fail). The essence is that the lessee is driving a vehicle when, if it is involved in an incident which generates a S172, the noticed will be addressed to him at premises to which he has no access. A most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

What I think they should do is pass it on immediately to the person named on the NIP/172 for that person to reply to.  (Of course this could actually have happened here - the thread hasn't really developed down that route so we don't know.)

As I said in my earliest post, I'd be extremely wary about being a RK for a vehicle if the V5 address for that vehicle was different from my address.  I'm sure having a Motability vehicle confers advantages of one sort or another, but If I were the RK I'd want MY address on the V5 - no other!

facade

Manxman_in_exile said:

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!

The requirement for registration is that the address used must be one at which the keeper can be contacted by post- which it is, if Motability act as a forwarding service, and the driver is aware that the Motability address is their forwarding address (no saying "It isn't me, I don't live at Motability Towers")

So it appears that what should happen is Motability forward the NIP to the named person, at the address they have in their records. Motability are not entitled to fill it in, as they are not the person named.

They could actually have some sort of "arrangement" where they send it back unfilled with a covering letter giving the full details of the keeper, as this must happen hundreds or thousands of times a year, and then a correctly addressed second NIP is generated.  This cannot be out of time.

Maybe someone from Motability could say what they do?

Manxman_in_exile

facade said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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!

The requirement for registration is that the address used must be one at which the keeper can be contacted by post- which it is, if Motability act as a forwarding service, and the driver is aware that the Motability address is their forwarding address (no saying "It isn't me, I don't live at Motability Towers")

So it appears that what should happen is Motability forward the NIP to the named person, at the address they have in their records. Motability are not entitled to fill it in, as they are not the person named.

They could actually have some sort of "arrangement" where they send it back unfilled with a covering letter giving the full details of the keeper, as this must happen hundreds or thousands of times a year, and then a correctly addressed second NIP is generated.  This cannot be out of time.

Maybe someone from Motability could say what they do?

Well yes but - if for whatever reason I give my name and address AAAA to the DVLA, even though I live at BBBB, the people at AAAA must pass any documentation addressed to me at my AAAA address to me at BBBB rather than saying " his actual address is BBBB not AAAA".  The whole point of a forwarding address is to forward stuff to it, not to say this is the wronga ddress.

AdrianC

Maybe, maybe not. It's arguable either way - not least because simply forwarding does nothing to ensure any follow-up gets to the right destination.

But... perhaps the pertinent question... does it MATTER?

Mercdriver

AdrianC said:

But... perhaps the pertinent question... does it MATTER?

Not to this OP, but it might help someone else doing a search.  More people do searches on this forum than most I frequent.