Speeding offence - notice of intended prosecution quoting wrong road. Is it invalid?

paul_c123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81859076#Comment_81859076

Agree, but it is not possible to "quash" a NIP. It is not an invitation for a chat. The place to challenge the validity of the NIP is if/when ot goes to court. The OP will (probably) have the option of a speed awareness course; a Fixed Penalty Notice (fine and points); or to go to court.

If this proceeds to an offer of the above (I believe it will), there is the risk that the court interprets the incorrect NIP as "good enough" to establish the driver and "good enough" to convict of speeding. I believe estimates of fighting a speeding offence in court are ~£1000 in legal fees. I do not know the costs of losing, then winning an appeal.

jimjames

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81858996#Comment_81858996

Although you could argue that the OP would have no idea of the location just who was driving at that time. Certainly if my wife was driving the car I might well know the day but I wouldn't often know the exact location.

Okell

@paul_c123 - I think the OP has already been advised by several posters that if the police continue to pursue this but she wants to challenge it, then she will have to turn down any offers of either a course or a COFP, and she will have to let it go to court.

Of course anything that goes to court - civil or criminal - involves an element of risk and additional cost

There is always the possibility that the magistrates either get the law wrong or are poorly guided by their legal advisor and wrongly convict someone.

Courts wrongly convict people all the time.

My own non-legal opinion is that s1(1)(c ) RTOA must mean something, and that if the NIP underlying a speeding prosecution does not specify the correct location, then a prosecution should fail.

But I could very well be mistaken.

Fortunately the OP doesn't need to make any decisions just now:

1 By the end of this week she should know if the police have attempted to correct the error on the NIP.

2 If she 'phones them next week to clarify what the letter she has received from them means, she ought to find out whether they are going to continue with this or whether they will drop it.

3 She still has about three weeks (I'm not specifying the date!) to reply to the s172 request addressed to her. (And if I were her I'd still reply to it just to be on the safe side.)

Personally I wouldn't be at all surprised if the police do drop it.

But I'm not a lawyer and I'm often wrong…

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81859145#Comment_81859145

Well… if you received a NIP for a date and time when you knew your wife had the car but didn't know where she was, wouldn't you… sort of … discuss it with her before replying? To sort of check if it was correct?

I'm surprised here that the OP's husband replied without - apparently - checking with the OP that all the details were at least likely to be correct.

My wife's the RK of our car and when I was nabbed speeding a couple of years ago she checked the details with me before replying. She didn't want to give wrong information. (But she was a lawyer)

TooManyPoints

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.

And thereby hangs the misunderstanding.

With that thinking, there is no need to issue a NIP at all. The s172 request will provide exactly the same information as the NIP so the recipient can identify the car from that.

In this case the recipient (the RK) was not disadvantaged by the NIP. He knew who had custody of the car but did not know where it had been driven (so had no reason to query it). As far as he is concerned the NIP has no further relevance.

But a compliant NIP is required for a prosecution for speeding to succeed. To be compliant it must state the location where the offence was alleged to have occurred. This one didn’t, so it becomes relevant to the driver.

When the nominated driver receives her s172 notice she is entitled to say that nobody was driving the car at the time and place specified. If she chooses to tell them where the car was at that time is for her to decide, So long as she does so after 14 days (but within 28 days) it will eliminate entirely any possibility of a prosecution under s172. The police will also kindly have provided her with a NIP (which they had no obligation to do at all) which presumably contained the same wrong location as the one sent to the RK. She can then deduce that the original NIP was deficient (and check if necessary).

The only way the police can bring a successful prosecution is to issue a new NIP showing the correct location within 14 days. The original cannot be corrected in court; that would not make the deficiency comply with s1 RTOA as it would be outside 14 days.

I'm surprised here that the OP's husband replied without - apparently - checking with the OP that all the details were at least likely to be correct.

Whether he did or didn't is neither here nor there. It is my guess, from what has occurred, that the police have realised their error and are simply discontinuing the matter.

paul_c123

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81859288#Comment_81859288

Let's see what the OP comes back with.

sarahlou6

OP here: I just spoke to them on the phone and they’ve confirmed they’re not taking it forward, so it appears I’ve been very lucky.

Thanks for all your response

TooManyPoints

OP here: I just spoke to them on the phone and they’ve confirmed they’re not taking it forward, so it appears I’ve been very lucky.

Thanks for letting us know.

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81866075#Comment_81866075

Thanks.

I think that was the only sensible response by the police and as I said before I'm not surprised they dropped it.

Did they confirm that you did not need to reply to the s 172?