I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics1 min ago
Notice Of Intended Prosecution.
I have received a note from the post office that a letter is being held for me that has not had postage paid and is available for collection on payment of £1.10
I haven't yet called at the post office or seen the letter but it is possible that this is a notice of intended prosecution for a recent speeding offence which I am aware of and was probably caught on camera.
If so, is the notice valid if I refuse to accept it and the post office returns it to the sender?
Answers
The 1978 Interpretati
11:14 Sun 24th Sep 2023
The 1978 Interpretation Act states,
'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.' (emphasis added)
If it is a NIP and it's returnt and not re-issued to be received within the period allowed, I would say it had not been served.
The authorities must notify you of the intended prosecution with 14 days of the offence.
Personally I would think that you would win the case if you can prove that you did not receive the notification within that time frame.
Therefore you must leave at least 14 days before paying for and collecting the letter – with a dated receipt for collection of the letter, you would have proof that you did not receive it within the required time frame.
I think David Beckham was able to void a speeding fine by claiming notification arrived outside the required time.
NJ might have something to say on this; of course the letter may not be notification of intended prosecution.
If I remember correctly, Beckham claimed that the notification was received too late based on the letter post mark (it being close to the 14 day limit) and him arguing it was not delivered in time.
If for some reason you did not receive it in time, that is their hard luck – they cannot claim it had the correct address/postage, if you have proof of non-delivery (in time).
hymie: "The authorities must notify you of the intended prosecution with 14 days of the offence." - yes but certain delays do not count. Eg from my own experience, I got an NIP well after 14 days when I bought a new bike and got done speeding on the way home. The NIP first went to the seller because he'd not changed the address of the V5 over when I was snapped. So the delay was whilst the seller told them the correct address etc and that delay is ok because it's inherent in the postal system and address changes etc. Similarly being left at the post office would also not invalidate the NIP but as I said above it is almost certainly not an NIP, they would have the correct franking.
TTT – in your example the authorities had a valid reason for you not receiving the notification; the fact that for some reason the Post Office failed to deliver the letter in time would not be a valid reason – and clearly there is some valid reason for the PO not to deliver the letter (a franking or some other mistake by the issuing authority).
Personally I'd figure I wasn't responsible for paying the sender's fee and leave it. If it is what you fear then the issue is between the courts and the PO. You have no indication of what someone failed to get to you.
But of course, not being a legal expert I expect that's incorrect and they'll haul you off to gaol for not going to the court, or wherever, to pick up your notice of intent personally and thus forcing them to sent it via the PO.
