Motoring offences

[becks]

Is is true that you can't be charged/prosecuted for any motoring offences six months after the incident?

[sft42]

Emm yes and no...if it's a gasto camera then you'll usuually find out within a fortnight. Well, a fortnight and a few days, to allow for delays in the post.

When you commit one of a number of listed moving traffic offences, including speeding, a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) must be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle within 14 days of the date of the offence. If it is not, then you cannot be prosecuted.

Note the various provisos here.

First, NIPs only have to be *sent* within 14 days, and proof of posting within this time is sufficient evidence that notice has been served.
Second, they don't have to notify the *driver* of the vehicle within this time limit, only the registered keeper (who must then supply the driver's details for later notification).

Third, the NIP has to be sent to the last recorded address on file at DVLA, so if you haven't notified them of a change of address or vehicle purchase, tough (and they can, if they want to get nasty about it, prosecute you for this as well).

Once notice has been served, they have up to six months from the date of offence to place the matter before the courts. Note that this means the *court* must be informed by the six-month deadline: the court will then inform you of a hearing date, and will typically take several weeks to do so, so don't breathe a sigh of relief after six months. Best to wait a further month before tentatively cracking open the champers, but there is actually NO fixed deadline for the courts to get around to writing to you.

[becks]

Thanks sft, but surely if you haven't actually been formally charged by a policeman then the courts won't write to you? Basically my ex's car was allegedly involved in an accident, he says it wasn't him or his car, he had to go for an interview about three months ago and told the police it wasn't him and he's heard nothing since. he's worried becuase if the police decide it was him (although he was miles away from the accident) the car wasn't insured or taxed and he reckons they'll take his licence away anyway. No-one was hurt or anything it was really an insurance claim (apart from the failing to stop) so is he in the clear?

[apricot]

becks - didn't the police ask him to produce his documents anyway? Mr apricots car (parked outside the house) was hit by a wagon and the police tried to make ME produce my documents even though I wasn't driving, the car wasn't mine and I just reported the accident.

[sft42]

I would tentatively say that you're ok......the obvious escape route if any questions are asked at this stage is to say that the car was taxed and insured at the time but those have no lapsed and you forget who you insured it with.

It sounds like they have either got the real driver and vehicle or they have abandoned this line of enquiry.

[becks]

Hello, yes apricot they did ask him to produce the documents but his car wasn't even on the road at the time, that's why it wasn't taxed and insured, he was still driving his old car. It's all a bit complicated but he's been really worried, i think they've dropped it becuase they can't prove anything... oh well thanks for the help guys x