Safe Speed Forums

I got caught on camara doing 35mph in a 30 mph zone back in October in Shropshire. The first I heard about it was a final reminder which arrived a month later. I genuinly didn't receive anything prior to this and if I had i would have paid up and accepted points. After advise from a friend I wrote back and requested proof of postage from their alledged original letter. A month later they replied and said they do not supply proof of postage and sent me another copy of the NIP. I then briefly looked into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and found it said a NIP is only deemed served if sent by registered post or recorded delivery, neither of which was done or i would have had to sign. I wrote back to them stating this. Again after a month i received a reply from them saying under section 172 of the road traffic offenders act 1988, section 1 states "a notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person
a) by delivering to him
b) by addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; or
c) by sending it by registered post, recorded delivery service or first class post, address to him at his last known address"

Also if I wasn't willing to accept the conditional offer fixed penalty as presented then I was to elect a court hearing.

My problem is what to do now? Do I give in and pay up or do I go to court. But how do I prove I received nothing from them til 29 days after the offence.

Can anyone give me some advise?

So why don't you now?

I think you are looking at out of date legislation. They only have to send the original nip so that it could under normal postage, arrive within 14 days.
You have a few options.
request photographs to identift the driver (this may also help with option 3c)

1.Pay up now, acccept £60 and 3 points
2 Wait upto 6 months and see if a summons actually arrives. (quite a few dont)
3a If a summons arrives send of licence and £60 and accept 3 points
3b Plead guilty in the magistraites and add a few costs and victims surcharge tax
3c Find a defect with the prosicution and fight nail and tooth. (www.pepipoo.com usefull here)

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Anton: I don't think its out of date, I think this post is a spoof! (hence my comment)

But if Tom123 could quote the name of the person who signed the letter giving the "legal position" then I am sure I can nip this in the bud.

The op posted a wrong assumption or a spoof of the current legal situation. I dont like to see them uncorrected as someone else might be mislead by thier post. I have met a fair few people in the courts who believe they have a case who are completley mistaken. Our local paper published a letter stating that I should know all urban duel carriageways are 50 limits, I wonder how many people will now get done for 50 in a 30 now!

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Well that is a fair point, someone could be misled, and to leave it unchallenged or corrected is as bad as deliberately or recklessly misleading someone.

Perhaps Fisherman will correct it?

This is an area fraught with problems, not least because of the mythology surrounding it. It is difficult to be precise, when commenting on an individual case, because there are so many variables. Some caused by unlikely interpretations of the legislation put forward as fact in some parts of the internet, and some caused by the range of laws and amendments to laws which cover this sort of thing.


As far as the law goes a good place to start is here.




The phrase "unless the contrary is proved", means that delivery is not an irrefutable consequence of posting, but rather a "rebuttable presumption". Thus giving rise to a defence of the NIP not arriving in time.


As a starting point in the absence of any other information IF the car was registered in the name of the OP and IF the address the DVLA have for him is the one he currently lives at then a delivery time of a month is probably too late for the delivery of the first NIP.

He then has the chance to go to trial and prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the NIP took a month to arrive. Courts see lots and lots of these. Often people who have never complained to the post office about late or missing delivery. Often people who can show no correspondence with any other body about missing or late correspondence. In such cases it is down to the credibility of the witness.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

There are official independent statistics on sorting offices and their delivery rate (ask PO for details). These stats don't usually help the defendant who is "blaming it on the post office". Such blaming has been heard many times before and I recall a Judge directly addressing a defendant on this and its liklihood of success.

Rightly or wrongly, blaming the Post Office won't cut any ice.

Thanks for everybodys advice. I think I might be better off just to pay up and take the 3 pts. It's not the money or the pts that bother me it's just the principle of the fact i received nothing from them til a month after the offense, but proving this is obviously going to be difficult and could end up costing me a lot more than the £60!

Should be a piece of cake, just tell us who signed the letter laying out the legal position or can we assume that this post is a spoof?

Whilst I admire your spirit Lucy, I would be pleased if your posts were a little less confrontational.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Should be a piece of cake, just tell us who signed the letter laying out the legal position or can we assume that this post is a spoof? [/quote]

Please tell me how it should be a piece of cake and I'll send whatever names you need. P.s this is no spoof!

In general thats right, but in specific situations can be of great help.

Some while ago there was a case where the council had named some roads after a local family. So you had XX Street, XX Close, XX Avenue. This led to huge confusion with all sorts of post being misdelivered. Evidence of that sort would be very helpful in backing up the defendants statement that the NIP had not been received.

If the OP in this case has any correspondence with banks or other companies about missing correspondence from them to him, or of complaints he has made to the post office or other delivery companies about non arrival of items, that would provide good circumstantial evidence to back up his claim of non delivery of the NIP.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Please tell me how it should be a piece of cake and I'll send whatever names you need. P.s this is no spoof![/quote]

Well what's the problem with the name of the signatory? And you expect me to believe that this is not a spoof? honestly *tut*

I will take on board your advice, its just thats what I do all day, challenge evidence in serious way. However I see tom123 as a light hearted bit of fun and equally admire is determination to succeed.

I always say, if you believe that your determination can overcome your shortcomings, then there is no limit to the mistakes you can make!

Just in case you're being serious: refrain from give out personal details on forums, especially if you have a case pending/ongoing.

I echo Anton's sentiments.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Steve; It isn't serious!!! Anyway, if the Chief Constable wrote me a letter, I'd have no problem in quoteing his name. There's nothing personal about such info. Would not be exempt under DPA or FOIA.

If Safe Speed can't see that Tom123 shares an ISP with someone else on here, then they need to think long and hard about which posts they criticise - or look like fools.

P.S. If I thought Tom123 was serious, I would have been serious - but I don't.

Lucy, Tom shares an ISP with a great many posters on here - that tells us precious little! (unless you have provable specifics, if so please inform a moderator offline)


Serious or not, you're not helping the community; you've said your bit, that's enough. Again, I echo Anton's sentiments.

Lucy, I can assure you I am serious and I wouldn't be on this site if I wasn't! I wanted some advise as I'm no legal expert. Why do you need to know who the signatory of the last letter, what are you intentions?

Steve: Sorry, not the ISP, the other one that can identify an individual PC/connection.

I'm not sure what you want me to tell a moderator off-line? Surely if you have a poster who is being a muppet and making a fool of the community you should block them if that's how you feel. However, I don't think anyone is fooled by Tom123 (albeit Fisherman seemed to take it serious - but he could be an accomplice or even tom123 - the plot thickens!?!)

Are you not concerned that Tom123 has posted a spoof that could mislead the community? What you need is a friendly lawyer who could catorgorically settle this post to maintain the community credibility or perhaps try and recover some.

So are you going to publicly address Tom123 for bring the community into disrepute?

Tom123: I'm getting bored now. I think I've proved that you are a spoof as the inference is that if you were serious you would not hesitate to name someone who wrote that letter albeit Steve doesn't seem to have deduced that just yet.