NIP wrong location

Arunmor

Car_54 said:

Arunmor said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Because if you take this to court, I *really* don't think you're going to win.

Why not? 

It is not just a typo the address is completely wrong, it is incumbent on the authorities to get these things right the first time.  

Really? Which law says that?

If the OP is the RK, then they've missed the 14-day deadline. If however he isn't, it doesn't apply, and they can try again. And again.

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 – Section 1(1)(c)

“A person shall not be convicted of an offence… unless the notice… specifies the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed.”

Young v Day [1959] 123 JP 317

Legal Basis for Challenge

Under Section 1(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, a Notice of Intended Prosecution must specify “the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed.” The requirement for accuracy is strict — an incorrect or misleading location can render the notice invalid.

In Young v Day [1959] 123 JP 317, the Divisional Court held that a NIP stating only “on the London Road” was defective because it failed to sufficiently identify the place of the alleged offence. The ambiguity prejudiced the recipient’s ability to recall or investigate the incident.

In my case, the location stated on the NIP is factually incorrect and does not accurately describe where the alleged offence took place. This creates ambiguity and prevents me from properly identifying the incident referred to. Accordingly, the NIP fails to meet the statutory requirements under Section 1(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and is therefore invalid.

Car_54

Arunmor said:

Car_54 said:

Arunmor said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

Because if you take this to court, I *really* don't think you're going to win.

Why not? 

It is not just a typo the address is completely wrong, it is incumbent on the authorities to get these things right the first time.  

Really? Which law says that?

If the OP is the RK, then they've missed the 14-day deadline. If however he isn't, it doesn't apply, and they can try again. And again.

Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 – Section 1(1)(c)

“A person shall not be convicted of an offence… unless the notice… specifies the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed.”

Young v Day [1959] 123 JP 317

Legal Basis for Challenge

Under Section 1(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, a Notice of Intended Prosecution must specify “the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed.” The requirement for accuracy is strict — an incorrect or misleading location can render the notice invalid.

In Young v Day [1959] 123 JP 317, the Divisional Court held that a NIP stating only “on the London Road” was defective because it failed to sufficiently identify the place of the alleged offence. The ambiguity prejudiced the recipient’s ability to recall or investigate the incident.

In my case, the location stated on the NIP is factually incorrect and does not accurately describe where the alleged offence took place. This creates ambiguity and prevents me from properly identifying the incident referred to. Accordingly, the NIP fails to meet the statutory requirements under Section 1(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and is therefore invalid.

None of this helps the OP (since it seems he is the Registered Keeper), but my point was that in the event that he was NOT the RK, then the 14-day limit would not apply to the NIP he received. There appears then to be nothing stopping the police from issuing a NIP (or S172 request) with the amended location. 

LightFlare

Alan6996 said:

Update 

I am the RK and only driver of this vehicle 

phoned police and they said there is a video but I can’t not see it.

i have sent evidence stating I was 4 miles away and have to wait till next Thursday ( 10 working days)

the first 14 days have elapsed already 

I will update , hopefully can help someone else 

Irrelevant where YOU were - do you have evidence that the vehicle in question wasn't at the location stated 

Alan6996

Lightflare 

Irrelevant where YOU were - do you have evidence that the vehicle in question wasn't at the location stated

I and the said vehicle were in a different location 

I was on a taxi app job

Alan6996

Too many points said

If you simply plead not guilty on the basis that the offence took place at location B, rather than location A, you are likely to be convicted. When you enter your NG plea you will be asked to provide the basis on which that plea is entered. If you say it is because the location is wrong, the prosecution will ask the court to amend the charge and they will almost certainly be given permission to do so.

if they can’t amend the NIP after 14 days 
how can they amend it in court ?

doesn’t make sense 

TooManyPoints

None of this helps the OP (since it seems he is the Registered Keeper), but my point was that in the event that he was NOT the RK, then the 14-day limit would not apply to the NIP he received. There appears then to be nothing stopping the police from issuing a NIP (or S172 request) with the amended location.

I think you have he wrong end of the stick.

If the NIP received was not the first one issued, however long after the alleged offence it was issued and whatever was written on it would be entirely irrelevant.

The first NIP is the only one required by law and so it is the only one subject to the requirements of s1 of the RTOA. In normal circumstances the police must either get this first NIP right or issue an amended version to the same recipient and serve it within 14 days. Any amendments made to subsequent NIPs sent to other people do not remedy their mistake.

Any subsequent NIPs are issued as a courtesy only (and usually because the system which produces the accompanying s172 notice – which is not subject to the RTOA – produces a NIP at the same time, often on the same sheet of paper.

Section 172 requests are different. There is no time limit for issue and no specified requirements for their content. They simply have to ask what the police want to know and they must be responded to, whatever deficiencies there may be with the first NIP. The police can issue as many as they like, though there is case law which suggests they cannot issue multiple s172 requests asking the same question of the same person. This is to prevent them circumventing the six month time limit for prosecution for failing to comply with s172.

When the OP responds to his s172 request he must point out that his vehicle was not at the location mentioned at the specified time and so he cannot answer their question. He does not have to help the police by saying where it actually was a that time. That problem is for the police to resolve.

I would be interested to know (as I have asked) whether his car was at the specified location at all on that day, particularly if it was there an hour earlier or later (perhaps because of a GMT/BST discrepancy).

Alan6996

Quote

I would be interested to know (as I have asked) whether his car was at the specified location at all on that day, particularly if it was there an hour earlier or later (perhaps because of a GMT/BST discrepancy).

I drive a cab in London

the vehicle was most definitely not in that area that day and most days 

I mainly work Chelsea and SW 

TooManyPoints

Thanks. That rules out that possibility. 

unforeseen

Is this actually a NIP or a S172 request to name the driver? 

TooManyPoints

"if they can’t amend the NIP after 14 days 

how can they amend it in court ?

doesn’t make sense "

It makes perfect sense.

There are two possible defences that the OP can run:

1. I wasn't at the location alleged so I cannot be guilty of the offence as I wasn't where you say it occurred.

Or...

2. The NIP you served was deficient in that it did not accurately describe the location where the alleged offence occurred.

In (1), when the prosecution learn of the nature of that defence they can apply to the court to have the details of the charge amended (i.e. changed from "exceeded the speed limit at location A" to "exceeded the speed limit at location B"). The court would almost certainly agree to that amendment and he would very likely be convicted. They are not asking the court to agree to an amendment to the NIP. The defendant has not challenged its validity.

In (2) his defence will be that no compliant NIP was served. Section 1 of the RTOA says:

a person shall not be convicted of an offence to which this section applies unless]—

(a)he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or

(b)within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons...for the offence was served on him, or

(c)within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was [served on either the driver or the Registered Keeper]

This is an absolute requirement and once the police have failed to meet it there is no opportunity for them to remedy it. The court has no power to agree to an amendment to the NIP.

If the court agrees that the requirement has not been met, the details of the offence itself are not relevant because a prosecution cannot succeed.

That's why it is important, if the OP does decide to defend the charge, he makes it clear on what basis that is..