Late NIP

Alibaba99 · 28 Apr 2006 at 19:55

mejinks said:
Ages ago, I got caught doing allegedly 96mph by that very van. Until I pointed out that there was no way my car at the time could possibly have slowed down for the tolls.

I sent a letter rather than fill in the nip and it timed out.

Nip comes first, then an offer of a FPN

The 50 limit starts about 3/4 of a mile before the bridge, and the bridge itself is a good distance from the toll booths themselves. What on earth were you driving that would take a mile to slow down from 96mph? :confused:

Its also worth noting with the van that it will also catch people exceeding the 70 limit on the Eastbound carriage way as well.

Dr Who · 28 Apr 2006 at 20:36

Requirement of warning etc. of prosecutions for certain offences.

1.—(1) Subject to section 2 of this Act, where a person is prosecuted for an offence to which this section applies, he is not to be convicted unless—
(a) he was warned at the time the offence was committed that the question of prosecuting him for some one or other of the offences to which this section applies would be taken into consideration, or
(b) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, or
(c) within fourteen days of the commission of the offence a notice of the intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed, was—
(i) in the case of an offence under section 28 or 29 of the [1988 c. 52.] Road Traffic Act 1988 (cycling offences), served on him,
(ii) in the case of any other offence, served on him or on the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence.
(2) A notice shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) above to have been served on a person if it was sent by registered post or recorded delivery service addressed to him at his last known address, notwithstanding that the notice was returned as undelivered or was for any other reason not received by him.

(3) The requirement of subsection (1) above shall in every case be deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.

(4) Schedule 1 to this Act shows the offences to which this section applies.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_2.htm

You are in the clear buddy

Third Opinion · 28 Apr 2006 at 21:20

To be honest these kind of threads are beginning to annoy me. Too many people are posting here trying to get out of a speeding conviction on a technicality.

Dr Who · 28 Apr 2006 at 22:31

hey ho...

not a technicality its the law, just like the speeding... both sides have to obey it..

Muncher · 28 Apr 2006 at 22:49

Third Opinion said:
To be honest these kind of threads are beginning to annoy me. Too many people are posting here trying to get out of a speeding conviction on a technicality.

If a court finds you not guilty, you are innocent, simple as.

It is also questionable if the period to serve the NIP is actually less than 14 days, in fact 13 days, but that's not relevant here.

Third Opinion · 29 Apr 2006 at 08:17

Muncher said:
If a court finds you not guilty, you are innocent, simple as.

Has he been to trial? He is not claiming he wasn't speeding just the delay in notification. If you choose to go to court and argue about this then the best of luck to him. Ofcourse you run the risk of ending up with court costs and maybe a heavier penalty if you lose.

rare · 29 Apr 2006 at 10:02

To be honest these kind of threads are beginning to annoy me. Too many people are posting here trying to get out of a speeding conviction on a technicality.

No ones forcing you to read them? They are obviously usefull to a lot of people in finding the correct information as to where they stand regarding the law.

<(Multi)> · 29 Apr 2006 at 10:42

rare said:
No ones forcing you to read them? They are obviously usefull to a lot of people in finding the correct information as to where they stand regarding the law.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111eleveneleven

pffffffff, got that out the way, carry on

Third Opinion · 29 Apr 2006 at 15:08

rare said:
No ones forcing you to read them? They are obviously usefull to a lot of people in finding the correct information as to where they stand regarding the law.

In other words please don't post in these threads unless you agree with the poster or your opinion?

Badgerpoo · 29 Apr 2006 at 16:15

One of the reasons I suspect for the 14 day rule is so you can accurately determine who was actually driving the car at the time. Since my car is shared between my girlfriend and I, I cannot say for certain who was driving the car on any particular day. In that case who should get convicted? This creates reasonable doubt and is therefore impractical to convict. Unless of course you would like a society where even if there is reasonable doubt people should get convicted anyway..?

Conanius · 29 Apr 2006 at 16:51

Third Opinion said:
To be honest these kind of threads are beginning to annoy me. Too many people are posting here trying to get out of a speeding conviction on a technicality.

Nothing that is being suggested is illegal, infact it follows the law to the letter... so whats wrong with it?