We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Speeding offence - notice of intended prosecution quoting wrong road. Is it invalid?
Comments
-
I would agree with you and I think so does @TooManyPoints
The idea of a "corrected NIP" comes from a post on ftla by (I think) andy foster and quoted above by @paul_c123
It's not entirely clear to me exactly what he meant by a corrected NIP, but I interpreted it to mean that where the original NIP was served detailing the wrong location, then if a corrected version could still be served within the original 14 days and if the driver had not been misled or prejudiced by the original error, then the corrected NIP could be relied on in a prosecution, notwithstanding the error in the original NIP.
Now that makes sense to me, although out of embarrassment the police might not want to issue a corrected NIP or might not want to prosecute on the basis of it.
However, it seems to me to be a completely different proposition that the police could issue a corrected NIP outside the original 14 days that the first NIP is meant to be served in - which is what I think paul_c123 is suggesting andy foster actually meant.
But I'm not a motor lawyer…
[Edit: the within 14 days or outside 14 days is relevant in this thread because, AIUI, by the time the OP replies to their s172 request informing the police of the location error, it'll be long over 14 days]
1 -
No (that's not my opinion). My opinion is that there doesn't need to be issued a corrected NIP in this instance, because despite the defect (the wrong location) the RK was able to identify who was driving the car.
0 -
OP here with an update:
I received an NIP in my name (as my husband had given my details online as being the driver, but had not mentioned the location being wrong). All the details were the same as the original NIP. My intention had been to wait 14 days from alleged offence (which is still 3 days from now), then respond.
However, today I’ve got a letter from the police saying “We acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence, the contents of which have been noted. Enquiries have been made regarding this matter, and it appears that a clerical error has been made. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.”
They haven’t had any correspondence from me yet, so I guess they’ve been made aware of the error in the camera’s location by someone else/realised it internally. But I read this as they’re not pursuing it, unless a corrected NIP drops through my letterbox in the next few days?
1 -
I read this as they've made an error and acknowledged it - but are continuing on. If they had dropped it, they would make that very clear to you.
0 -
See what @TooManyPoints advises, but I think I'd be inclined to contact them to ask them what their letter means. Are they dropping it or are they continuing? And do you still need to reply to the s172 request addressed to you or not? (Probably best to be on the safe side and to reply anyway as previously advised)
I don't see that there is an issue in asking them what the letter means. Might as well know sooner rather than later what they propose to do.
Either they messed up the original NIP but can still correct it and can carry on, or they messed it up and it's now too late to correct it. I don't see that you contacting them can change that, but as I say, wait and see what others advise.
And can you just clarify: "My intention had been to wait 14 days from alleged offence (which is still 3 days from now), then respond"
So you are saying today is still within 14 days of the original offence?
What is the date of the NIP/s172 request addressed to you?
[Edit: You say their letter refers to correspondence they claim to have received from you, but that you haven't sent them anything yet. Again I'd be inclined to ask them what correspondence they are referring to as their letter strictly speaking makes no sense. Does it clearly refer to the NIPs/s172s that you and your husband received? Or have they sent it to you in error?]
1 -
Yes, alleged offence was 17 January so I’m going to wait until Monday 2 Feb and call the number on the letter to ask what it means. Assuming I haven’t had an updated NIP by then. Date of NIP I’ve already received was 22 January
0 -
Ah. So the 14 days has not expired yet so perhaps they still have an opportunity to issue a correction before the end of this week.
Maybe there is one winging it's way to you as we type!
If one does arrive this week, make a note of date you receive it.
If the 14 day limit counts for anything then yes, you should safely be able to call them
on 02 Febafter it expires. (i'm not getting into the counting of days as I always get them wrong!)Incidentally, I added an edit to the end of my last post which you might want to look at
1 -
They wrote to you by name, NOT the Registered Keeper, acknowledging receipt of your recent correspondence- when none exists as you haven't corresponded with them?
How can this be??? Unless they are claiming that your husband nominating you as the driver is your correspondence?
They are now informing you that an unspecified clerical error has been made and apologising for the inconvenience. (Caused by their clerical error)
It is as clear as mud.
Assuming the error is asking you who was driving at a location 15 miles from where the car actually was then what inconvenience are they apologising for?
The whole affair?- your husband's inconvenience of filling out the original S172? (Can you forget about the whole thing?)
The wrong location? (Can they provide clarification as to where they want you to confirm that you were driving?)
I'd assume that they want to forget the whole thing, but as it is risking 6 points I'd want confirmation that the S172 doesn't need a reply.
(I suspect the camera crew entered the wrong location/forgot to update to a new location and dozens of S172s went out, and people have responded that their car was 15 miles away at the time, so they are cancelling all of them.)
BUT as Paul_c123 suggests, they haven't said anything about the S172! It would only take a few more words "The case is closed/you do not need to respond to the S172 notice/there will be no further action on this occasion".
I'd just send it off as advised with the car was not at this location it was at XXXX after a couple more days in case a letter is coming saying the case is dropped.
I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....
(except air quality and Medical Science
)2 -
Yes but the OP wrongly identified his wife as being the driver at the location on the NIP because his wife was never driving the car at the location on the NIP.
If instead the OP's husband hadn't responded to his NIP until more than 14 days after the alleged offence, and had then replied correctly that nobody had been driving the car at XXX at the relevant time because it had been 15 miles away at ZZZ, could the police still have amended the location error?
Or are you saying the location error wouldn't need to be corrected at all?
0 -
OK.
I've read all your posts again and I think I understand you to be saying that the location error on the original NIP is a red herring and doesn't need to be corrected because the OP has not been misled by it [1]. Is that right?
I had mistakenly assumed you agreed that some kind of "corrected NIP" was required because of the references to a "corrected NIP" in the extract you had quoted from FTLA.
Assuming I understand you correctly, how do you reconcile the view that the location error does not need to be corrected with the requirement of s1(1)( c) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 that a NIP needs to specify the "… time and place where [the offence] is alleged to have been committed…"
I know the legislation doesn't say so, but isn't it implied that for a NIP to be valid it must specify the correct location and not a wrong one?
[1] Or rather you believe it doesn't need to be corrected because the OP has not been misled by it and/or the RK was able to identify her, albeit wrongly. Although as per my previous I don't see the relevance of the RK naming her as being the driver at the location when she actually wasn't at that location
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards