There are far too many things that are wrong with this proposal.
zulu wrote:
Hi there. I anticipated that some posters would say that mere posting of the letter by the police counts as service, and they only have to post it within the 14 day period. That's actually not true. There was a court case, I think it was in Hull a year or two ago. The police sent an NIP within the 14 days but it was held up in a postal strike, and so was delivered late. The police claimed that they sent it in good faith and it wasn't their fault there was a postal delay. The judge threw this argument out, and stated it has to arrive within the 14 day period.
Judges have been known to misunderstand the way the world works. Not all judges are like that, so I would recommend that people do not rely upon this tactic.
There is also the clause of
service within the course of normal delivery. A postal strike confounds matters. That particular result can be deemed to be a special case that doesn’t normally apply.
zulu wrote:
And remember the ACPO Code recommends that NIP's are sent by recorded delivery to prove service. The mere fact of putting it in the post does not constitute service.
A recommendation isn't a stipulation. I think you are muddying the waters there!
Your stance might by morally right, but in law it is not – the law is what gets one sent to prison!
Besides, most NIPs go out swiftly such that they usually arrive well within the 14 day limit. In many cases, there will still be time for the 'return to sender' and for them to have another attempt, perhaps by more '
certain' methods; your words: "
...police, who can then make a personal visit if there is time.".
I have to say this is a rather extreme way of dealing with what might be a non-event.
That’s a whole two weeks of: cutting yourself off from the world, ignoring all mail, deliveries and visitors, and probably not going out at all too - well you don’t want to be caught passing through an open doorway do you?
Even then, you have to know that you potentially tripped a camera. I think most people first realise they have been caught when the NIP actually arrives (assuming they weren't immediately pulled by trafpol). So are you suggesting that folks
permanently cut all social contact? That can’t work as people have to go out in order to be caught speeding......
What about anyone else who shares your dwelling? They would have to be subjected to the same social cutoff for something that only affects you. It’s a virtual imprisonment for all concerned!
There is also the argument that the authorities have about another 6 months to deliver a summons subsequent to the initial service. It’s a slam-dunk if you’re not the RK (registered keeper) or haven’t registered your vehicle properly!
zulu wrote:
Also there could be an alternative reason why someone has blocked their letterbox.
I would be concerned that if you blocked your letterbox such that no delivery can be made, then as far as the authorities are concerned, your registered address is not valid. If that were deemed to be the case, not only can the 6 month rule be applied (the 14 day rule becomes invalid as the RK wouldn't exist - that in itself attracts penalties), you can also be pulled by any ANPR check and the police can give you a verbal NIP or simply have you arrested there and then!
I don’t know if all that is true, but is it something you expect folks to chance?
And for what? For the slim chance that you might receive a NIP?
Remember that
not all cameras are active and that
speedos generally over-read. Either of those factors could reasonably explain why your two contacts managed to
seemingly get away with it.
zulu wrote:
I know of two people who have successfully tried this tactic when they realised they had sped past a camera, and no more was heard of it.
… so how could they know if NIPs were sent out if they couldn’t know what was delivered to them? You cannot claim any success from these particular events.
zulu wrote:
if you receive an NIP you must not destroy it and then pretend you never received it, because the police have heard this before and they won't believe you. You could then end up being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice!!!!
The only thing you have said that we can all agree on!
This campaign is about the effects of speed and methods of speed enforcement; it is not about evading the law.
In reality, your proposal is requires what most people would consider insurmountable trade-offs, possibly illegal, and
far from infallible.