Safe Speed Forums

After my wifes car had been written off in an accident (not my wifes fault). she was given a courteousy car. 5 weeks after it was returned she recieved a NIP for 42 mph in a 30 mph limit (speed camera). The NIP was to the correct address but had a mis-spelt surname. They want to know who was driving the car, but we can't remember.

Question?

1. Does the lateness of NIP have a bearing.
2. Is the NIP still served even though the name is wrong.
3. Neither of us wants to admit the offence. Will my wife have to accept the ticket.

If you are not the registered keeper it is not late. So long as they served it to keeper in 14 days. They then have a further 28 days to tell them who they thought had the car...and so on.

I think the miss-spelling is not an issue. They are alowed small errors.

If there are a number of potential drivers (that are permitted to drive the car) your wife has to remember on the balance of probability who was driving. If not There is a clause in Section 172 that you could use. 5 weeks is probably sufficient time give doubt.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

This should have been posted here

1) No, as already explained
2) Yes. You have opened the envelope and read it therefore it's served. (may even still cound as served if you were to return it to sender, but too late now)
3) If neither of you admit it then they will try to do your wife for failure to provided the drivers details as required under S172

www.pepipoo.com is probably where you want to look next.

It's OK that the NIP is late.

The lateness of the NIP contributes considerably to the 'can't tell who was driving' defence. The later it is the harder it is for any normal person to be CERTAIN about who was driving.

The 14 day rule for issueing the first NIP is intended to give registered keepers a fighting chance of rembering the event.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Thanks guys.

Agree with Gizmo, except for one (possibly crucial) point....

This is a criminal case, not a civil one. Therefore the evidential test is not "balance of probability", rather it is "beyond reasonable doubt".

In other words, to nominate a driver you must be certain it was them, not just "fairly sure".

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Or you can just flip a coin. They don't care so long as they get to nick somebody and get their 60 quid.

Disclaimer: Advice above may be illegal.