Speeding Fine - car noted as goods vehicle?

Car_54

Rover_Driver said:

TooManyPoints said:

If the enquiry is delayed until just after 14 days, is that not too late for a corrected NIP to be issued?

There is no need for a corrected NIP. The NIP plays no part in any proceedings which may follow. It is simply a notice which must be provided by law. It has to inform the recipient of the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have taken place. Nothing more. So "Exceeding the speed limit in the High Street, Anytown at 10am on 1st July 2020" will suffice. It does not have to mention the alleged speed or the prevailing limit and the detail being discussed here does not have to be provided on the NIP. Only the first NIP (usually to the Registered Keeper) is actually required under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act. Where the recipient of the first NIP is not the driver, any that are sent subsequently are provided out of courtesy (and usually because they are printed on the same piece of paper as the Section 172 notice requesting the driver's details).

According to the OP's first post, the NIP received is for exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle, not for a speed limit offence. Although it is a lease car, as long as 14 days has elapsed, it would be too late to serve a valid NIP, which would be required for  the conviction for a speeding offence, (s.1, (c) (ii), Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

The OP hasn't told us which legislation the NIP cites, but it is probably s89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, which would apply to either a car or GV.

The OP clearly knows that a speeding offence is alleged at a time and location which he recognises, and it could therefore be argued that the reference to a GV is a minor error, and is of no consequence at least so far as the validity of the NIP is concerned.

The only way for the OP to test this, if necessary, is to go to court, with no guarantee of success and a large bill if he fails.

AdrianC

Car_54 said:

The OP clearly knows that a speeding offence is alleged at a time and location which he recognises, and it could therefore be argued that the reference to a GV is a minor error, and is of no consequence at least so far as the validity of the NIP is concerned.

There's also no argument about the speed - which is not only an offence for both, but is within the FPN range for both.

The one and only difference is whether it's in scope for a course or not. The OP may not be eligible for a course, or may prefer to take the FPN.

Of course, it depends on the state of the OP's licence with points currently - another three may be deeply undesirable, so the course may be a definite preference. But the OP has said they regard it as a fair cop, are happy to take the fine and points, and are not looking for a court challenger or a loophole.

The only way for the OP to test this, if necessary, is to go to court, with no guarantee of success and a large bill if he fails.

Indeed.

Small benefit from a win, large downside for a lose.

Not a gamble I'd be in a rush to take on.

Biggus_Dickus

TooManyPoints said:

If the enquiry is delayed until just after 14 days, is that not too late for a corrected NIP to be issued?

There is no need for a corrected NIP. The NIP plays no part in any proceedings which may follow. It is simply a notice which must be provided by law. It has to inform the recipient of the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have taken place. Nothing more. So "Exceeding the speed limit in the High Street, Anytown at 10am on 1st July 2020" will suffice. It does not have to mention the alleged speed or the prevailing limit and the detail being discussed here does not have to be provided on the NIP. Only the first NIP (usually to the Registered Keeper) is actually required under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act. Where the recipient of the first NIP is not the driver, any that are sent subsequently are provided out of courtesy (and usually because they are printed on the same piece of paper as the Section 172 notice requesting the driver's details).

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the process but can you clarify how sending subsequent  NIP’s is a ‘courtesy’?

In the OP’s case I assume (perhaps wrongly) that the original NIP was sent to the registered keeper which is presumably the lease company,...at which point they had 28 days to ‘nominate’ the OP as the driver. Which they apparently have done.

The OP has received an NIP and has 28 days to respond.

I’ve only ever dealt with this situation once myself but to the best of my knowledge the  NIP serves just two functions;...with a 28-day time limit it allows the addressee to admit the offence,...or,...it allows the address to ‘nominate’ another person as the driver at the time of the offence.

The NIP procedure is clearly designed to ensure that the final NIP will eventually reach the actual ‘offending driver’ , at which point the ‘offending driver’ admits to being the driver at the time of the offence.

Said offender will then receive the fine, or whatever punishment the authorities deem appropriate.

Theoretically any number of NIP’s could be sent out, one after the other, before finally reaching the  ‘offending driver’.

I assume that when subsequent NIP’s are issued the 28-day clock is re-set each time.

I don’t profess to be an expert in this area so I’d really  welcome any corrections to the above. I’m keen to learn. 

williamgriffin

Biggus_Dickus said:

TooManyPoints said:

If the enquiry is delayed until just after 14 days, is that not too late for a corrected NIP to be issued?

There is no need for a corrected NIP. The NIP plays no part in any proceedings which may follow. It is simply a notice which must be provided by law. It has to inform the recipient of the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have taken place. Nothing more. So "Exceeding the speed limit in the High Street, Anytown at 10am on 1st July 2020" will suffice. It does not have to mention the alleged speed or the prevailing limit and the detail being discussed here does not have to be provided on the NIP. Only the first NIP (usually to the Registered Keeper) is actually required under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act. Where the recipient of the first NIP is not the driver, any that are sent subsequently are provided out of courtesy (and usually because they are printed on the same piece of paper as the Section 172 notice requesting the driver's details).

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the process but can you clarify how sending subsequent  NIP’s is a ‘courtesy’?

In the OP’s case I assume (perhaps wrongly) that the original NIP was sent to the registered keeper which is presumably the lease company,...at which point they had 28 days to ‘nominate’ the OP as the driver. Which they apparently have done.

The OP has received an NIP and has 28 days to respond.

I’ve only ever dealt with this situation once myself but to the best of my knowledge the  NIP serves just two functions;...with a 28-day time limit it allows the addressee to admit the offence,...or,...it allows the address to ‘nominate’ another person as the driver at the time of the offence.

The NIP procedure is clearly designed to ensure that the final NIP will eventually reach the actual ‘offending driver’ , at which point the ‘offending driver’ admits to being the driver at the time of the offence.

Said offender will then receive the fine, or whatever punishment the authorities deem appropriate.

Theoretically any number of NIP’s could be sent out, one after the other, before finally reaching the  ‘offending driver’.

I assume that when subsequent NIP’s are issued the 28-day clock is re-set each time.

I don’t profess to be an expert in this area so I’d really  welcome any corrections to the above. I’m keen to learn. 

The NIP only serves one purpose and that is to notify the offender prosecution may follow for the offence committed.

As the offender is yet to be established Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act requires that the driver of the vehicle is named for the offence.

They are two separate matters. 

Car_54

Biggus_Dickus said:

TooManyPoints said:

If the enquiry is delayed until just after 14 days, is that not too late for a corrected NIP to be issued?

There is no need for a corrected NIP. The NIP plays no part in any proceedings which may follow. It is simply a notice which must be provided by law. It has to inform the recipient of the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have taken place. Nothing more. So "Exceeding the speed limit in the High Street, Anytown at 10am on 1st July 2020" will suffice. It does not have to mention the alleged speed or the prevailing limit and the detail being discussed here does not have to be provided on the NIP. Only the first NIP (usually to the Registered Keeper) is actually required under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act. Where the recipient of the first NIP is not the driver, any that are sent subsequently are provided out of courtesy (and usually because they are printed on the same piece of paper as the Section 172 notice requesting the driver's details).

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the process but can you clarify how sending subsequent  NIP’s is a ‘courtesy’?

I’ve only ever dealt with this situation once myself but to the best of my knowledge the  NIP serves just two functions;...with a 28-day time limit it allows the addressee to admit the offence,...or,...it allows the address to ‘nominate’ another person as the driver at the time of the offence.

What is usually referred to as a NIP is actually two separate things, although usually on the same piece of paper: a notice (NIP) advising that an offence is alleged, and a request (s172) for details. Only the first NIP is required by law, after that the police could just send s172 requests, but it's sensible for them to give details of the offence and so a copy NIP is usually sent.

NB the s172 does NOT give the recipient the option to admit the offence, but merely to admit he was driving. That is a very important distinction.

Biggus_Dickus

williamgriffin said:

Biggus_Dickus said:

TooManyPoints said:

If the enquiry is delayed until just after 14 days, is that not too late for a corrected NIP to be issued?

There is no need for a corrected NIP. The NIP plays no part in any proceedings which may follow. It is simply a notice which must be provided by law. It has to inform the recipient of the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have taken place. Nothing more. So "Exceeding the speed limit in the High Street, Anytown at 10am on 1st July 2020" will suffice. It does not have to mention the alleged speed or the prevailing limit and the detail being discussed here does not have to be provided on the NIP. Only the first NIP (usually to the Registered Keeper) is actually required under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act. Where the recipient of the first NIP is not the driver, any that are sent subsequently are provided out of courtesy (and usually because they are printed on the same piece of paper as the Section 172 notice requesting the driver's details).

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the process but can you clarify how sending subsequent  NIP’s is a ‘courtesy’?

In the OP’s case I assume (perhaps wrongly) that the original NIP was sent to the registered keeper which is presumably the lease company,...at which point they had 28 days to ‘nominate’ the OP as the driver. Which they apparently have done.

The OP has received an NIP and has 28 days to respond.

I’ve only ever dealt with this situation once myself but to the best of my knowledge the  NIP serves just two functions;...with a 28-day time limit it allows the addressee to admit the offence,...or,...it allows the address to ‘nominate’ another person as the driver at the time of the offence.

The NIP procedure is clearly designed to ensure that the final NIP will eventually reach the actual ‘offending driver’ , at which point the ‘offending driver’ admits to being the driver at the time of the offence.

Said offender will then receive the fine, or whatever punishment the authorities deem appropriate.

Theoretically any number of NIP’s could be sent out, one after the other, before finally reaching the  ‘offending driver’.

I assume that when subsequent NIP’s are issued the 28-day clock is re-set each time.

I don’t profess to be an expert in this area so I’d really  welcome any corrections to the above. I’m keen to learn. 

The NIP only serves one purpose and that is to notify the offender prosecution may follow for the offence committed.

As the offender is yet to be established Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act requires that the driver of the vehicle is named for the offence.

They are two separate matters. 

Fair do’s...I can see that it’s legally an intended prosecution notice, and is only that,

... but does the NIP allow the addressee to choose one of two different paths?....either admit the offence or nominate another driver?...or is that done on a different form altogether?

edit: just read Car_54 post,...thanks.

williamgriffin

Biggus_Dickus said:

williamgriffin said:

Biggus_Dickus said:

TooManyPoints said:

If the enquiry is delayed until just after 14 days, is that not too late for a corrected NIP to be issued?

There is no need for a corrected NIP. The NIP plays no part in any proceedings which may follow. It is simply a notice which must be provided by law. It has to inform the recipient of the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have taken place. Nothing more. So "Exceeding the speed limit in the High Street, Anytown at 10am on 1st July 2020" will suffice. It does not have to mention the alleged speed or the prevailing limit and the detail being discussed here does not have to be provided on the NIP. Only the first NIP (usually to the Registered Keeper) is actually required under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act. Where the recipient of the first NIP is not the driver, any that are sent subsequently are provided out of courtesy (and usually because they are printed on the same piece of paper as the Section 172 notice requesting the driver's details).

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the process but can you clarify how sending subsequent  NIP’s is a ‘courtesy’?

In the OP’s case I assume (perhaps wrongly) that the original NIP was sent to the registered keeper which is presumably the lease company,...at which point they had 28 days to ‘nominate’ the OP as the driver. Which they apparently have done.

The OP has received an NIP and has 28 days to respond.

I’ve only ever dealt with this situation once myself but to the best of my knowledge the  NIP serves just two functions;...with a 28-day time limit it allows the addressee to admit the offence,...or,...it allows the address to ‘nominate’ another person as the driver at the time of the offence.

The NIP procedure is clearly designed to ensure that the final NIP will eventually reach the actual ‘offending driver’ , at which point the ‘offending driver’ admits to being the driver at the time of the offence.

Said offender will then receive the fine, or whatever punishment the authorities deem appropriate.

Theoretically any number of NIP’s could be sent out, one after the other, before finally reaching the  ‘offending driver’.

I assume that when subsequent NIP’s are issued the 28-day clock is re-set each time.

I don’t profess to be an expert in this area so I’d really  welcome any corrections to the above. I’m keen to learn. 

The NIP only serves one purpose and that is to notify the offender prosecution may follow for the offence committed.

As the offender is yet to be established Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act requires that the driver of the vehicle is named for the offence.

They are two separate matters. 

Fair do’s...I can see that it’s legally an intended prosecution notice, and is only that,

... but does the NIP allow the addressee to choose one of two different paths?....either admit the offence or nominate another driver?...or is that done on different form altogether?

No it's simply a notice of intent.

Biggus_Dickus

williamgriffin said:

Biggus_Dickus said:

williamgriffin said:

Biggus_Dickus said:

TooManyPoints said:

If the enquiry is delayed until just after 14 days, is that not too late for a corrected NIP to be issued?

There is no need for a corrected NIP. The NIP plays no part in any proceedings which may follow. It is simply a notice which must be provided by law. It has to inform the recipient of the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have taken place. Nothing more. So "Exceeding the speed limit in the High Street, Anytown at 10am on 1st July 2020" will suffice. It does not have to mention the alleged speed or the prevailing limit and the detail being discussed here does not have to be provided on the NIP. Only the first NIP (usually to the Registered Keeper) is actually required under the Road Traffic Offenders' Act. Where the recipient of the first NIP is not the driver, any that are sent subsequently are provided out of courtesy (and usually because they are printed on the same piece of paper as the Section 172 notice requesting the driver's details).

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the process but can you clarify how sending subsequent  NIP’s is a ‘courtesy’?

In the OP’s case I assume (perhaps wrongly) that the original NIP was sent to the registered keeper which is presumably the lease company,...at which point they had 28 days to ‘nominate’ the OP as the driver. Which they apparently have done.

The OP has received an NIP and has 28 days to respond.

I’ve only ever dealt with this situation once myself but to the best of my knowledge the  NIP serves just two functions;...with a 28-day time limit it allows the addressee to admit the offence,...or,...it allows the address to ‘nominate’ another person as the driver at the time of the offence.

The NIP procedure is clearly designed to ensure that the final NIP will eventually reach the actual ‘offending driver’ , at which point the ‘offending driver’ admits to being the driver at the time of the offence.

Said offender will then receive the fine, or whatever punishment the authorities deem appropriate.

Theoretically any number of NIP’s could be sent out, one after the other, before finally reaching the  ‘offending driver’.

I assume that when subsequent NIP’s are issued the 28-day clock is re-set each time.

I don’t profess to be an expert in this area so I’d really  welcome any corrections to the above. I’m keen to learn. 

The NIP only serves one purpose and that is to notify the offender prosecution may follow for the offence committed.

As the offender is yet to be established Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act requires that the driver of the vehicle is named for the offence.

They are two separate matters. 

Fair do’s...I can see that it’s legally an intended prosecution notice, and is only that,

... but does the NIP allow the addressee to choose one of two different paths?....either admit the offence or nominate another driver?...or is that done on different form altogether?

No it's simply a notice of intent.

Fair do’s;...I have no legal expertise whatsoever so I’ll probably just call it ‘NIP and accompanying paperwork’ henceforth;...it’ll be easier for me. 

 

Rover_Driver

Car_54 said:

The OP hasn't told us which legislation the NIP cites, but it is probably s89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, which would apply to either a car or GV.

The OP clearly knows that a speeding offence is alleged at a time and location which he recognises, and it could therefore be argued that the reference to a GV is a minor error, and is of no consequence at least so far as the validity of the NIP is concerned.

The only way for the OP to test this, if necessary, is to go to court, with no guarantee of success and a large bill if he fails.

It may depend on the alleged offence on the NIP, if it is just the offence of exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle, that is a different offence to exceeding a speed limit on a road. If the OP contacts the authority and queries the difference, they may decide to take no further action.

TooManyPoints

Yes the confusion suffered by most people is that they are not aware that the NIP and the S172 notice are two entirely different things. They are subject to different regimes. Among other things::

1. The NIP must be served on the RK within 14 days of the offence; the S172 notice has no time limit. 
2. The NIP does not need to be responded to; the S172 notice must be responded to within 28 days.
3. Only one NIP is required ((usually to the RK); there is no limit to how many S172 notices may be served (though in most circumstances only one can be served to any one person or organisation per offence).
4. The two have different rules relating to "presumed service." The NIP is subject to specific provisions provided by the Road Traffic Offenders' Act. The S172 notice is not and is only subject to the provisions of the Interpretation Act. There can (and have been) instances where the S172 notice was deemed served whilst the NIP was not, even though the two were printed on the same sheet!

There is no mileage in the OP pursuing a get-out-of-jail-free card relating to the NIP (and to be fair he is not seeking to do so). As explained, if he is not the RK there is no legal requirement to serve him with a NIP at all. Even if there was, arguing that the RTOA had not been complied with by virtue of the "goods vehicle" reference would receive very short shrift. The only benefit the NIP has provided is to indicate there is a possibility that an error has been made in the classification of his vehicle and hence the prevailing limit applicable. He will soon find out when he receives his offer.