Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Speeding ticket
5 Answers
My partner has had a Notice of Intended Prosection (NIP) dated 17th Jan for an alleged offence date of 10th July last year.
The camera enforcement office said that they sent one a month before but it never reached us.
However, I have been told that any NIP must be sent within 6 months of the offence and this one is 6 months and 1 week, so is it valid?
The only thing that worries me is that they say that they sent one last month.
The camera enforcement office said that they sent one a month before but it never reached us.
However, I have been told that any NIP must be sent within 6 months of the offence and this one is 6 months and 1 week, so is it valid?
The only thing that worries me is that they say that they sent one last month.
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Compostella. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A NIP has to be sent so that in normal circumstances it will arrive within 14 days of the alleged offence.
Therefore even the one allegedly sent a month previously is well out of time.
The six month period to which you refer is the time limit for the proceedings to begin (this usually means the first hearing in court, if the matter is to go to court).
Unless you have moved house, or anything else has happened which may have jeopardised the delivery of the NIP, you need to ask the safety camera partnership if they have a valid reason for not getting it to you within 14 days of the alleged offence.
Therefore even the one allegedly sent a month previously is well out of time.
The six month period to which you refer is the time limit for the proceedings to begin (this usually means the first hearing in court, if the matter is to go to court).
Unless you have moved house, or anything else has happened which may have jeopardised the delivery of the NIP, you need to ask the safety camera partnership if they have a valid reason for not getting it to you within 14 days of the alleged offence.
There are certain exceptions to the rule concerning delivery of NIPs. An important one (as far as you are concerned) is:
�Failure to comply [with the 14 day limit] is no bar [to the prosecution or fixed penalty proceeding] where the police could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the name and address of the accused in time for service of the summons or notice within the 14 day period, or the accused contributed to such failure�.
This is particularly relevant where Company cars are concerned. The issue really is has the Camera Partnership acted �with reasonable diligence�? Has it really taken them since July, acting with reasonable expediency, to track the driver down? Or has the matter been sitting in somebody�s in-tray for a few months because it was less than straightforward?
However, this may be irrelevant. There is an absolute time limit on summary offences of six months from the date of the alleged offence. No further allowances are made for tracing defendants etc. Before the six months is up the �laying of information� � which has to include the identity of the accused - must be put before the magistrates� court for a summons to be issued (although the summons does not necessarily have to have been issued in that time).
It seems unlikely from what you say that this has been done. I imagine the NIP also includes a provisional offer of a fixed penalty and this has to be turned down before any court proceedings (including the �laying of information�) begin. If it has not been done your parrtner can simply decline the Fixed Penalty offer. A summons cannot then be issued.
�Failure to comply [with the 14 day limit] is no bar [to the prosecution or fixed penalty proceeding] where the police could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained the name and address of the accused in time for service of the summons or notice within the 14 day period, or the accused contributed to such failure�.
This is particularly relevant where Company cars are concerned. The issue really is has the Camera Partnership acted �with reasonable diligence�? Has it really taken them since July, acting with reasonable expediency, to track the driver down? Or has the matter been sitting in somebody�s in-tray for a few months because it was less than straightforward?
However, this may be irrelevant. There is an absolute time limit on summary offences of six months from the date of the alleged offence. No further allowances are made for tracing defendants etc. Before the six months is up the �laying of information� � which has to include the identity of the accused - must be put before the magistrates� court for a summons to be issued (although the summons does not necessarily have to have been issued in that time).
It seems unlikely from what you say that this has been done. I imagine the NIP also includes a provisional offer of a fixed penalty and this has to be turned down before any court proceedings (including the �laying of information�) begin. If it has not been done your parrtner can simply decline the Fixed Penalty offer. A summons cannot then be issued.
1 to 5 of 5
