Speeding Fine - car noted as goods vehicle?

Rover_Driver

The matter that needs to be clarified is the offence on the original NIP. If it is only for exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle it would not be valid for the offence of exceeding a speed limit on a road, as that is a different offence. A replacement NIP with the correct offence details would be need to be served on the OP. If the OP contacts the authority and queries the difference, they may decide to take no further action.

TooManyPoints

If it is only for exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle it would not be valid for the offence of exceeding a speed limit on a road, as that is a different offence. A replacement NIP with the correct offence details would be need to be served on the OP.

 I don’t think you quite get this. There are two issues with your contention:

Somebody charged with a speeding offence is charged under the Road traffic Regulation Act, Section 89(1). It says this: 

“A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence.” 

The specifics come when the offence is charged. The NIP required by law is only required to notify the recipient of the nature of the offence. Exceeding the speed limit is the nature of the offence (as confirmed by the Statute, above). What the prevailing limit was and what the speed alleged was are the details. If the matter was challenged on the basis that the NIP was deficient, that challenge would almost certainly fail. The OP knows he wasn't driving a goods vehicle but he seems to know full well that he was exceeding the speed limit (even for a car) at the time and place alleged. He is in no way disadvantaged by the information on the NIP. But in any case, see below:

A replacement NIP with the correct offence details would be need to be served on the OP.

This is somewhat more pertinent (and more straightforward). If the OP is not the Registered Keeper (which it seems he is not) there is no requirement to serve a NIP on him at all. He can hardly be claimed to be disadvantaged by an error on a NIP when there is no requirement to provide him with one at all. 

If the OP contacts the authority and queries the difference, they may decide to take no further action. 

It’s worth a try but I would say the chances of that happening are vanishingly unlikely. 

This matter will be dealt with by an out-of-court disposal, either a course or a Fixed Penalty. Any challenge to it on the basis of a deficient NIP will have to go to court where the cost of failure is high. An unsuccessful defence to a speeding allegation usually sees no change out of £1,000. I don't think the OP is contemplating taking that risk.

Car_54

Rover_Driver said:

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.

Are you sure? Under what legislation?

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 section 89 covers both.

"(1) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence." and

"(3) The enactments to which this section applies are—
(a)any enactment contained in this Act except section 17(2)**;
(b)section 2 of the M1Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926; and
(c)any enactment not contained in this Act, but passed after 1st September 1960, whether before or after the passing of this Act."

**= section 17(2) applies to motorways.

Rover_Driver

s.89, The Road Traffic Regulation Act does cover both. The offence of exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle is s. 86, of that act, exceeding a speed limit on a restricted road is
s.81 of that act (two different sections), for other roads, the relevant legislation for that particular road

TooManyPoints

s.89, The Road Traffic Regulation Act does cover both. The offence of exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle is s. 86, of that act, exceeding a speed limit on a restricted road is
s.81 of that act (two different sections), for other roads, the relevant legislation for that particular road

Sorry to harp on, but what point are you trying to make here?

First of all, the OP is not entitled to a NIP anyway because only the first one (to the RK) is mandated by law. 

But let's ignore that and say that he was. The NIP has to inform the recipient of "the nature of the offence". The nature of the offence is exceeding the speed limit. Are you suggesting that he could argue that the NIP was defective because it did not correctly inform him of "the nature of the offence"?

Were_Doomed

Did the OP ever clarify this statement?

The notice says ‘alleged offence of exceeding the spied limit for goods vehicle manned equipment’

I believe he subsequently mentioned a recorded speed of 81 mph, so the question may be moot, but for the offence stated there is ambiguity as to the offence ... the OP's vehicle is not a goods vehicle.

Car_54

Were_Doomed said:

Did the OP ever clarify this statement?

The notice says ‘alleged offence of exceeding the spied limit for goods vehicle manned equipment’

I believe he subsequently mentioned a recorded speed of 81 mph, so the question may be moot, but for the offence stated there is ambiguity as to the offence ... the OP's vehicle is not a goods vehicle.

There appears to be no ambiguity about the offence alleged. There does, however, seem to be an error.

Biggus_Dickus

This is turning into a very interesting and intriguing thread;...I hope the  OP returns soon;

...meanwhile, The Reds have just kicked off.

Rover_Driver

TooManyPoints said:

Sorry to harp on, but what point are you trying to make here?

s.89, Road Vehicles Regulation Act 1984 covers speeding from that, and any other act since 1960 and creates the relevant offence. That is a reason why it is necessary to check with the OP what is actually on the NIP, if it is only for exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle (s.86), and no mention of exceeding the speed limit on a road (s.81 or s.84), they are different speeding matters and a query to the relevant authority may result in no further action being taken.

TooManyPoints

Why?

No NIP is necessary. There is no obligation to serve one on him so why should he worry what's on it and why should the police? All he needs to worry about is whether he is offered a course (if he is eligible) which he will be if the allegation is that he exceeded the speed limit applicable to a car. Even then, he has no right to a course and the offer of one is entirely at the discretion of the police (though he would be entitled to ask why the NPCC's guidance has not been followed in his case). Other than that only if the matter goes to court should he be concerned whether he is accused of breaking the car or goods vehicle limit and only then because it will effect sentencing.

I really don't understand why you believe the content of the NIP is critical. At present he has been asked to provide the driver's details and they've told him why that request has been made. He must respond regardless of any issues he may have with the signature offence. Of course he can ask why there is seemingly an error on the NIP he has been provided with (out of courtesy) but your idea that they may drop the matter (presumably out of "embarrassment") is a little optimistic. If they accept a mistake has been made all they have to do is to correct it. They are not constrained by the "14 day" rule for NIPs as they have (presumably) already complied with that when sending the first NIP to the RK and no further NIP is required. Try to imagine that he received no NIP but simply a S172 notice informing him that the driver's details were required because his vehicle was detected exceeding the speed limit for a goods vehicle. Are you suggesting he need not respond because he was not driving a goods vehicle? Whilst the information on his NIP gives an avenue for a query that's all it does because otherwise it is irrelevant.