Speeding, Notice of Intended prosecution 4 months late

IvanDP

I have just received a Notice of Intended Prosecution for speeding.
The date of the offence was 24/12/2020, and the notice dated 30/12/2020.
I received this notice in the post today 15/06/2021!

I haven't had any correspondence in the meantime, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (owned for 18 months) and have lived at the same address for many years (so there should have been no delays in getting the notice too me)
Surely this is way too late for them to take any action.

All advice gratefully appreciated.

JamoLew

Check very carefully that the details on your V5 match your current address

What is the date of issue on the V5 ?

The question then is - how can you PROVE you only received it today ?

TadleyBaggie

Doesn't make a lot of sense regarding the timing, if this notice was truly issued on the 30/12/20 it would be expected to delivered (via first class post) 2 days later.

The good news is that the offence times out on the 24th June, after which no prosecution for the speeding could be initiated. However there is one potential fly in the ointment, if this notice was truly issued on the 30/12/20, then roughly 30 days later since no response to the S172 request to name the driver, then may attempt to prosecute for the S172 offence.

I recommend you get yourself over to Pepipoo for further advice.

IvanDP

JamoLew said:

Check very carefully that the details on your V5 match your current address

What is the date of issue on the V5 ?

V5 details are correct, as I bought the car new in October 2019

TadleyBaggie said:

Doesn't make a lot of sense regarding the timing, if this notice was truly issued on the 30/12/20 it would be expected to delivered (via first class post) 2 days later.

The good news is that the offence times out on the 24th June, after which no prosecution for the speeding could be initiated. However there is one potential fly in the ointment, if this notice was truly issued on the 30/12/20, then roughly 30 days later since no response to the S172 request to name the driver, then may attempt to prosecute for the S172 offence.

I recommend you get yourself over to Pepipoo for further advice.

I thought the same when it came through the post this morning.
Offence 24/12/2020, letter dated 30/12/2020

I have printed off the template letter from Pepipoo to send off with a copy of the NIP disputing it.

TooManyPoints

Note that you must still provide the driver's details asap if you are to defend any s172 charge.. I'm going out now but will reply more fully later.

facade

Check with Peppipoo first, but you have to reply to the S172 within 28 days I believe and unequivocally name the driver and sign it, but if you wait and post it so that it can't arrive until after 24th June, they wont be able to prosecute the speeding, and you will have fulfilled the S172 requirements.

The question remains as to why you got the notice on 15 June, if it is a re-issue they have left it rather late, and if it has been "stuck in the Post" for six months you will likely end up having to prove it in Court.

Supersonos

So what's stopping someone simply throwing away their NIP and claiming it never arrived?  Great way to get off paying a speeding fine.

TooManyPoints

OK I’m back.

The police are unlikely to simply fold when you say the NIP was late.

As mentioned, the speeding matter is very close to “timing out” for prosecution (your NIP is in fact almost six months late). So before you go any further I would do two things:

1. Check your driving record online. This will tell you if you have been convicted in your absence of “Failing to Provide Driver’s Details” (s172). You cannot be convicted of speeding at this stage because they have no proof that you were driving.

2. Check with the Magistrates’ Court in the area where the offence was said to have taken place to see if there are any pending proceedings in your name.

If either of those shed any light let me know.

If not, there are two distinct issues here – the speeding offence and the s172 offence. 

Firstly the speeding. If you want to defend that charge on the basis that no NIP was served within 14 days as required by s1 of the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act the prosecution needs only to prove that it was posted in time to arrive by the deadline. They enjoy the presumption that it is deemed to have been served on you two working days after posting. The burden then shifts to you to prove to the court that it was not served in time. You must do this “on the balance of probabilities” (i.e. more likely to be true than not). If you succeed you cannot be found guilty of that offence. As mentioned this is not easy or else everybody would do it. Have you had any general problems with your post?

Now the s172 offence. You have presumably received a s172 request along with your NIP. There is no time limit on the service of this document so it must be dealt with. As well as that the prosecution enjoys the same presumption of service of 2 days. The law says you must respond within 28 days and failure to do so is an offence (which, incidentally carries six points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for up to five years). You obviously couldn’t do this as you didn’t have the request. However, s172 (7)(b) says this:

the person on whom the notice is served shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if he shows either that he gave the information as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period or that it has not been reasonably practicable for him to give it.

Whilst this looks good, the burden similarly shifts to you to prove that the request was not served in time for you to respond to it.

So, what to do? You must respond to the s172 request. Leaving your response as close to June 24th as possible increases the chances of the speeding matter timing out. In fact in normal circumstances I doubt if you replied today they would begin proceedings in time. But it decreases the chance of you successfully defending a s172 charge (as you have to respond, under 172(7)(b) "as soon as reasonably practical"). This offence is not committed until 28 days after the request was deemed to have been served (which is Monday 4th January). So you committed the offence on Monday 1st February and it times out on 1st July. I assume you know who was driving (if not this opens a separate can of worms) but you are entitled to take a day or two to establish who was (especially in view of the time delay). If you post the return next Monday (21st) I think you should be fairly safe from avoiding a speeding conviction. However, the bigger penalty will come if you are convicted under s172. You will still be left with the problem of convincing the court that you did not receive the request until recently.

Make the enquiries I suggested above first (these should not be too onerous) and let me know the outcome. It would also help if you could let me know whether or not you were the driver, as if you were not it closes an avenue to you (but opens another). But more of that later. 

facade

Supersonos said:

So what's stopping someone simply throwing away their NIP and claiming it never arrived?  Great way to get off paying a speeding fine.

Oh, if only it were that easy

as The Computer will have a record that the NIP was sent, and The Computer is infallible, as is the Royal Mail, you end up in Court, trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it never arrived. (Which is impossible because it did in this case)

If it genuinely didn't arrive, then it is still a very difficult hurdle to jump, as it is rather hard to prove you didn't get a letter.

born_again

Only way you might be able to prove it arrived late is if the franking mark from the PO stated a date in the last couple of days.

TooManyPoints

trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it never arrived.

Actually it's "on the balance of probabilities" which is considerably less burdensome than "beyond reasonable doubt". It's also that it arrived late, not that it didn't arrive at all. But I agree, it is still a difficult task. Proving that something didn't happen is notoriously tricky.