Wrong name on NIP

lemondrops69

sevenhills said:

Okell said:

that the non-existent person the NIP appears to have been addressed to can only answer "No" to both questions, or (3) that you (sevenhills) are not the person the NIP is addressed to?

This is an example of who the NIP is addressed to, correct name = F Smithson, actual name on NIP = SM Ithson.

As stated on the link to Pepipoo, a major mistake would be rejected.

Would a cheque be cashed by your bank with such a mistake?

Reminds me of Blackadder, goes forth, when George asks Captain Blackadder if they have received the order to go over the top and Blackadder replies yes but its addressed to 'Cat Pain Black udder', and asks do we know a  'Cat Pain Black udder'? No, okay we'd better stay here in the trench. ha ha 

Car_54

sevenhills said:

TooManyPoints said:

It won't ask you that. It will ask you to provide the driver's details at the relevant time and place.

I have a feeling this will end in tears,

I find it unbelievable that it is worded in such a way, it seems like I have to help them prosecute me.

No, you just have to help them identify the driver, and Parliament has decided that failing to do so is an offence.

TooManyPoints

(OP isn’t the registered keeper on the V5, but was subsequently named as the keeper/driver at the time - therefore I don’t believe trying to engineer a time out is applicable)

A "timeout" (for the speeding offence) will occur six months from the date of the offence. There is no other deadline to be met.

It does ask that. 

Yes I didn't really make myself clear:

The usual format of a s172 request (they vary between police forces) is to ask if you were the driver on the relevant occasion and if you were to provide your details. If you were not, you are required to provide the details of the person who was. 

I find it unbelievable that it is worded in such a way, it seems like I have to help them prosecute me.

The principle of "self-incrimination" and its invasion on the "Right to Silence" that the s172 law seemingly demonstrates was tested all the way to the European Court of Human Rights by two drivers - Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran - in 2007. The court found against the two drivers. The full judgement is a bit heavy going so here's the BBC report on the case:

BBC NEWS | UK | Motorists lose speed camera case

I appreciate you have come here for advice rather than an argument so you need to know that the police can do one of a number of things in response to your reply (in no particular order):

• They can prosecute you or offer you a course or fixed penalty for speeding. (provided they receive an unequivocal response from you confirming that you were the driver).
• They can issue an amended s172 request to you.
• They can return their attention to your employer if they believe their nomination is incorrect.
• They can issue a s172 request to somebody else.
• They can take no further action.
• They can prosecute you under s172.

Your response will very much determine what they do. So what exactly do you intend to write in your covering letter?

 

LightFlare

TooManyPoints said:

(OP isn’t the registered keeper on the V5, but was subsequently named as the keeper/driver at the time - therefore I don’t believe trying to engineer a time out is applicable)

A "timeout" (for the speeding offence) will occur six months from the date of the offence. There is no other deadline to be met.

 

is there not a time limit within which corrections to it can/cannot be made in the case of a miss type ?

Maybe i have misunderstood something I read somewhere

sevenhills

TooManyPoints said:
our response will very much determine what they do. So what exactly do you intend to write in your covering letter?

 

I indent to tell them that I wasn't driving the vehicle at the time of the offence, it was parked near my home.

prettyandfluffy

Can you please post a photo of the NIP without showing any personal details?

sevenhills

prettyandfluffy said:

Can you please post a photo of the NIP without showing any personal details?

Here it is.

Car_54

LightFlare said:

TooManyPoints said:

(OP isn’t the registered keeper on the V5, but was subsequently named as the keeper/driver at the time - therefore I don’t believe trying to engineer a time out is applicable)

A "timeout" (for the speeding offence) will occur six months from the date of the offence. There is no other deadline to be met.

 

is there not a time limit within which corrections to it can/cannot be made in the case of a miss type ?

Maybe i have misunderstood something I read somewhere

That  only applies in the case of the first NIP, which is the only one required by law and must be served within 14 days. That doesn't help the OP, since that NIP went to his employers.

LightFlare

Car_54 said:

LightFlare said:

TooManyPoints said:

(OP isn’t the registered keeper on the V5, but was subsequently named as the keeper/driver at the time - therefore I don’t believe trying to engineer a time out is applicable)

A "timeout" (for the speeding offence) will occur six months from the date of the offence. There is no other deadline to be met.

 

is there not a time limit within which corrections to it can/cannot be made in the case of a miss type ?

Maybe i have misunderstood something I read somewhere

That  only applies in the case of the first NIP, which is the only one required by law and must be served within 14 days. That doesn't help the OP, since that NIP went to his employers.

I think that what I was alluding to when the OP mentioned about replying at 25 days and I stated that i didnt think there was any benefit in him doing that as he wasnt the original recipient.

Thanks

TooManyPoints

I indent to tell them that I wasn't driving the vehicle at the time of the offence, it was parked near my home.

How can you be certain of this? The only mention you have made of the time is this:

"I have just looked at the time of the offense, 5.39, I have just looked at my timesheet and I finished work at 5.25. The vehicle, I assume, was parked near my home at that time, ready for the next days work."

You have assumed that the vehicle was parked near your home. How reliable is that assumption? What is the relationship between you finishing work and your vehicle being parked at home? Do you know where the location mentioned is? Do you recall driving past that point any time on that day? Have you asked for photographs as I suggested earlier? Lastly, how long ago was this alleged offence said to have taken place?

I'm asking these questions because you have to use "reasonable diligence" to establish who was driving. All you have done so far (apart from disputing whether the notices are really for you or not) is to assume your car was at home at the time. I'm not trying to start any arguments; I'm simply trying to make sure you are doing the right thing. At the moment I'm not at all convinced that you are.