Speeding fine advice request

born_again

Risteard said:

You never answered how it could be possible to prove that it wasn't received. Therefore this so-called "legislation" is null and void. It is unlawful.

Well when you fail to answer the same question🙋
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81326792/#Comment_81326792

& the other posters has provided the legality on this.
Which also works in reverse when you send post. 🤷‍♀️

Would you be prepared to pay any fine that OP incurred for following your advice?

TooManyPoints

You explain to me how it could be possible to prove that the letter wasn't received.

It is virtually impossible to prove a negative conclusively. But that isn't what the burden requires.

It requires the court to be convinced "on the balance of probabilities" that the claim is correct. This means the court does not have to be absolutely certain, but must believe the claim is more likely than not to be true. This can be done by testimony from the recipient together with, perhaps evidence of postal difficulties a the particular address. This does not make the Interpretation Act unenforceable or unlawful. It has existed in its current version since 1978 and I believe there was an earlier version saying much the same thing before that. If any of its provisions were unlawful somebody would have discovered that by now. 
“Bootlicking Peelers isn't cool.”
Possibly not. I wouldn’t know. But; like it or not, people in the UK are bound by Statutory Law. By all means hold any views you like about that (including those held by “Freemen on the Land” if that is your thing). But you should not use those views to form advice to people who come here expecting what they read to be reliable.

Car_54

So far as we have been told, the OP's husband has only been charged with speeding.

If he had been charged with failure to provide driver's details, then all of this speculation about missing post might be relevant.

But he hasn't, and it isn't.

TooManyPoints

I quite agree.

But there is some "advice" being bandied about on here which could seriously mislead somebody who is looking for general information to address their specific problem and which bring them to the wrong conclusion. Just this morning I've received a PM from somebody uninvolved with this, outlining their own problem when, if they acted on the misleading information posted here, would cost them dearly.

For that reason (coupled with the apparent lack of effective moderation, as occurs on ftla) I think it is important to make sure that any blatantly incorrect information is highlighted.  

Okell

Car_54 said:

The above exchange is interesting  (FWIW Okell is right), but misses the point.

A NIP was sent and received by the OP, which satisfied the requirement of the Road Traffic Offenders Act.

There is no need for any further NIP to be sent. It does not matter whether such  a NIP (and/or s172 request)  was sent or received, and that does not have to be proved by anyone..

What does matters is whether the OP's husband replied to this disputed communication, nominating himself as the driver, If he did, that can easily be proved, and the onus is on the prosecution to do so..

If he did not, he cannot be convicted.

Yes, I realise the point isn't relevant in this case, but I was concerned to point out that the view put forward by Risteard - that all somebody needed to do to avoid conviction in a case where it was relevant would be to deny that a NIP or whatever had been received - was wrong and would likely lead to anyone following it being convicted.  I think that putting that view forward is misleading and it needed to be challenged

Risteard

Aretnap said:

Risteard said:

Okell said:

Risteard said:

TooManyPoints said:

"The reality is that a prosecution cannot possibly succeed without evidence that the letter was received."

Would you like to explain why you believe that is correct (with something to support it beyond mentioning "natural justice").

I have demonstrated, quoting the appropriate legislation that it is not correct. What you are posting is not an "opposing view". It is simply incorrect and misleading information which will cost anyone believing it a shedload of aggravation and money. The law governing this issue is not subject to a view or an opinion. It is simple fact

You are derailing the thread with this nonsense and it is confusing the OP. I'm sure there are plenty of places where your twaddle will be welcome. But this is a serious site where people want reliable advice, so I suggest this is not one of them.

It's simple logic. You explain to me how it could be possible to prove that the letter wasn't received were the burden of proof on the non-recipient. Bootlicking Peelers isn't cool.

You might want to acquaint both yourself and your simple logic with s7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:

"7 References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."  [My bold for emphasis]

What that means is that so long as the police can provide evidence that the notice/s172 request was correctly sent out, then it is legally presumed to have been delivered, unless the addressee can prove otherwise.  That means that it is up to the addressee to prove that it was not delivered, not up to the police to prove that it was.

Do you understand?

You never answered how it could be possible to prove that it wasn't received. Therefore this so-called "legislation" is null and void. It is unlawful.

Not only is it impossible for primary legislation to be "null and void" or "unlawful", it's also irrelevant to the situation the OP's husband is apparently in. 

You are just yelling at clouds now.

It's certainly possible for so-called "legislation" to, in fact, be unlawful. And then to be struck down.

Okell

Risteard said:

Aretnap said:

Risteard said:

Okell said:

Risteard said:

TooManyPoints said:

"The reality is that a prosecution cannot possibly succeed without evidence that the letter was received."

Would you like to explain why you believe that is correct (with something to support it beyond mentioning "natural justice").

I have demonstrated, quoting the appropriate legislation that it is not correct. What you are posting is not an "opposing view". It is simply incorrect and misleading information which will cost anyone believing it a shedload of aggravation and money. The law governing this issue is not subject to a view or an opinion. It is simple fact

You are derailing the thread with this nonsense and it is confusing the OP. I'm sure there are plenty of places where your twaddle will be welcome. But this is a serious site where people want reliable advice, so I suggest this is not one of them.

It's simple logic. You explain to me how it could be possible to prove that the letter wasn't received were the burden of proof on the non-recipient. Bootlicking Peelers isn't cool.

You might want to acquaint both yourself and your simple logic with s7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:

"7 References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."  [My bold for emphasis]

What that means is that so long as the police can provide evidence that the notice/s172 request was correctly sent out, then it is legally presumed to have been delivered, unless the addressee can prove otherwise.  That means that it is up to the addressee to prove that it was not delivered, not up to the police to prove that it was.

Do you understand?

You never answered how it could be possible to prove that it wasn't received. Therefore this so-called "legislation" is null and void. It is unlawful.

Not only is it impossible for primary legislation to be "null and void" or "unlawful", it's also irrelevant to the situation the OP's husband is apparently in. 

You are just yelling at clouds now.

It's certainly possible for so-called "legislation" to, in fact, be unlawful. And then to be struck down.

Can you give any examples?

Risteard

Okell said:

Risteard said:

Aretnap said:

Risteard said:

Okell said:

Risteard said:

TooManyPoints said:

"The reality is that a prosecution cannot possibly succeed without evidence that the letter was received."

Would you like to explain why you believe that is correct (with something to support it beyond mentioning "natural justice").

I have demonstrated, quoting the appropriate legislation that it is not correct. What you are posting is not an "opposing view". It is simply incorrect and misleading information which will cost anyone believing it a shedload of aggravation and money. The law governing this issue is not subject to a view or an opinion. It is simple fact

You are derailing the thread with this nonsense and it is confusing the OP. I'm sure there are plenty of places where your twaddle will be welcome. But this is a serious site where people want reliable advice, so I suggest this is not one of them.

It's simple logic. You explain to me how it could be possible to prove that the letter wasn't received were the burden of proof on the non-recipient. Bootlicking Peelers isn't cool.

You might want to acquaint both yourself and your simple logic with s7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:

"7 References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."  [My bold for emphasis]

What that means is that so long as the police can provide evidence that the notice/s172 request was correctly sent out, then it is legally presumed to have been delivered, unless the addressee can prove otherwise.  That means that it is up to the addressee to prove that it was not delivered, not up to the police to prove that it was.

Do you understand?

You never answered how it could be possible to prove that it wasn't received. Therefore this so-called "legislation" is null and void. It is unlawful.

Not only is it impossible for primary legislation to be "null and void" or "unlawful", it's also irrelevant to the situation the OP's husband is apparently in. 

You are just yelling at clouds now.

It's certainly possible for so-called "legislation" to, in fact, be unlawful. And then to be struck down.

Can you give any examples?

An obvious example is constitutional courts. Governments are not infallible. Starmer is not a good person. (Neither are many of them.)

All "COVID" restrictions on people's lives were clearly unlawful.

TooManyPoints

Can you give any examples?

Especially of any legislation which has existed in its current version for almost fifty years, which existed in an earlier (similar) version for a long time before that and which has been cited on countless occasions in that time to secure successful criminal prosecutions.

You have stated as fact on here highly misleading and blatantly incorrect information which has the potential to cost people reading it (and foolish enough to believe it) a lot of money. Instead of digging yourself a deeper hole, please do the decent thing and stop doing it..

Car_54

Risteard said:

Okell said:

Risteard said:

Aretnap said:

Risteard said:

Okell said:

Risteard said:

TooManyPoints said:

"The reality is that a prosecution cannot possibly succeed without evidence that the letter was received."

Would you like to explain why you believe that is correct (with something to support it beyond mentioning "natural justice").

I have demonstrated, quoting the appropriate legislation that it is not correct. What you are posting is not an "opposing view". It is simply incorrect and misleading information which will cost anyone believing it a shedload of aggravation and money. The law governing this issue is not subject to a view or an opinion. It is simple fact

You are derailing the thread with this nonsense and it is confusing the OP. I'm sure there are plenty of places where your twaddle will be welcome. But this is a serious site where people want reliable advice, so I suggest this is not one of them.

It's simple logic. You explain to me how it could be possible to prove that the letter wasn't received were the burden of proof on the non-recipient. Bootlicking Peelers isn't cool.

You might want to acquaint both yourself and your simple logic with s7 of the Interpretation Act 1978:

"7 References to service by post.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."  [My bold for emphasis]

What that means is that so long as the police can provide evidence that the notice/s172 request was correctly sent out, then it is legally presumed to have been delivered, unless the addressee can prove otherwise.  That means that it is up to the addressee to prove that it was not delivered, not up to the police to prove that it was.

Do you understand?

You never answered how it could be possible to prove that it wasn't received. Therefore this so-called "legislation" is null and void. It is unlawful.

Not only is it impossible for primary legislation to be "null and void" or "unlawful", it's also irrelevant to the situation the OP's husband is apparently in. 

You are just yelling at clouds now.

It's certainly possible for so-called "legislation" to, in fact, be unlawful. And then to be struck down.

Can you give any examples?

An obvious example is constitutional courts.

It may be an obvious example, but we don't have one in the UK. We're still waiting for a British example.