[pjs]

Originally Posted by ihpj

Been discussed before, as long as it can be shown it was/has been sent, thats evidence enough for a Court. There is NO requirement to prove it was actually sent (and thereby received). Its like Court orders (Summons) and letters from your Mortgage Lender - all deemed to have been sent and received; its written into Law.

I'd love to know which instances the other poster has been successful in arguing they didn't receive a particular letter.

2007 - a three pointer type speeding offence in a 30. Ignored it. Nothing happened.

2004 - I'm not putting it on a public forum what and where happened, but there were three alleged offences in one, which would have been 24 points (failing to stop, failing to report and careless driving). Managed to ignore some letters for 6 months, before finally being done and accepting an £80 fine for failing to identify the driver.

And more recently, pulled doing 102 and the expected summons never arrived.

Not proud, have since calmed down and passed my advanced test.

[xenon]

Originally Posted by pjs

The post office lose millions of letters a week. Your call, all i'm saying is it worked for me and it is one of your options.

You must be the only person that has worked for because delivery does not have to be proved, only that the NIP was sent within 14 days of the alleged offence. If it was as simple to say "honest guv, I never got it" and they said "Ok, on yer way" the whole thing would collapse. I'm working on a LLB at the moment and I'd be interested to learn at which Magistrates' Court this defence was successful at.

EDIT - Just read your above post. So you never actually claimed you never received the NIP, you just ignored it? Slightly different....

[chris_s1]

Originally Posted by xenon

You must be the only person that has worked for because delivery does not have to be proved, only that the NIP was sent within 14 days of the alleged offence. If it was as simple to say "honest guv, I never got it" and they said "Ok, on yer way" the whole thing would collapse. I'm working on a LLB at the moment and I'd be interested to learn at which Magistrates' Court this defence was successful at.

EDIT - Just read your above post. So you never actually claimed you never received the NIP, you just ignored it? Slightly different....

This defense worked for me, although in my case it was actually true.
I genuinely never received the NIP, first I got was the summons.

Stood up in court, said I never got it, told to go on my way. Bicester magistrates court circa 2006.

The prosecution even claimed in the courtroom that a second NIP/reminder had been sent although they could provide no evidence that it ever existed.

So although it was true in my case, and I'm not just saying that, I would definitely consider using that as a defense in the future if they scammed me again.

[xenon]

Good for you, if you genuinely didn't receive it. It's rare the magistrate would believe that defence so you must have a trustworthy face.

[chris_s1]

Originally Posted by xenon

Good for you, if you genuinely didn't receive it. It's rare the magistrate would believe that defence so you must have a trustworthy face.

I guess I must have!
Thinking back, I presented some additional evidence, I was living on a new build estate that had only been built for a matter of months and there were frequent f*ck ups with the post office, so I told them that.

[xenon]

Originally Posted by chris_s1

I guess I must have!
Thinking back, I presented some additional evidence, I was living on a new build estate that had only been built for a matter of months and there were frequent f*ck ups with the post office, so I told them that.

In that case it makes it believable and added considerable strength to your argument and was probably the real reason anyway. I'm not sure it would work so well for a "long-standing" address and / or you hadn't just moved (i.e. DVLA not up-to-date). Be interested to hear if anyone has used that as a defence, successfully, who's live in the same place for a while.

[Hotcoupe]

Originally Posted by chris_s1

I guess I must have!
Thinking back, I presented some additional evidence, I was living on a new build estate that had only been built for a matter of months and there were frequent f*ck ups with the post office, so I told them that.

Do you play poker Chris?

[chris_s1]

Originally Posted by Hotcoupe

Do you play poker Chris?

I do actually! Quite seriously, both here and in Vegas

[ihpj]

Originally Posted by m@rk

There ARE other ways to gain the same information.

Would you please share some of these other ways that hold the same legal weighting standing and will elicit the necessary legally binding response?

In nearly 12 years of Policing I must profess I don't know of many other other avenues that are (1) cost effective (b) legally sound and (c) effective as the NIPD route.

[ihpj]

Originally Posted by xenon

You must be the only person that has worked for because delivery does not have to be proved, only that the NIP was sent within 14 days of the alleged offence. If it was as simple to say "honest guv, I never got it" and they said "Ok, on yer way" the whole thing would collapse. I'm working on a LLB at the moment...

Well you need to take into account the variances (I prefer the word: idiocy) of the British Criminal (Lack of) Justice System at times ;o)

I've given up trying to figure out these variances, just take the good with the bad. Good on posters if they have managed to avoid liability!

[m@rk]

Originally Posted by ihpj

Would you please share some of these other ways that hold the same legal weighting standing and will elicit the necessary legally binding response?

Well if a police officer "asked" me to provide my details in order to help with their enquires then I would be more than happy to provide said information especially when I have done nothing wrong.

The same if they knocked on my door and "asked".

A NIP starts off on the premise of assumed guilty (at least that is the message being sent out) with is contrary to the way this countries legal system works.

You have just said the response is legally binding yet the OP said the NIP said he was involved in a collision. So by your own definition, the OP has to admit to being involved in a collision on something that is legally binding.

Of course if somebody had just said to the OP that there had been a collision and he was seen nearby rather than his first thought being "I wasn't in a collision" and therefore being on the defensive, his first thought would have been "did I see anything that may be of use to the police"

You appear to be approaching this from the wrong end.

Ask first. Compel last

PS

I have had it confirmed that yes you do need to inform your insurance company of this which may impact the persons insurance premiums (for no valid reason). When he is eventually ruled out, can he make a claim for the additional costs?

[xenon]

I have to agree with m@rk. The presumed guilt of the NIP is annoying when it's an offence such as speeding when you probably ARE guilty but in the case of the OP to phrase the communication as Notice of Intended Prosecution when he's done nothing is not on. I realise that the police have a job to do and the OP will soon be ruled out of their enquiries but it seems heavy-handed.

I also agree that if it were MY car that was hit by a motorist who scarpered I'd want the police to do everything they could to find the perpetrator but does that include notifying anybody who just might have been involved, purely by circumstance, to receive a notice saying they are to be prosecuted? Perhaps in China.

[ihpj]

Originally Posted by m@rk

Well if a police officer "asked" me to provide my details in order to help with their enquires then I would be more than happy to provide said information especially when I have done nothing wrong.

The same if they knocked on my door and "asked".

Well that's good of you, but the problem with chats is just that, anything gleaned can be argued it does not follow due process and therefore any evidence gained could be dismissed at Court. Leading to a colossal wate of time and wasted resources. That's why there is a strict procedure and the NIPD falls into that. Again, the wording is legally approved and deemed appropriate having been tested at Court by those who know so much better than you or I - which by virtue holds no value because you have to accept the NIPD for what it is.

The only thing the NIPD is asking is who the driver was at the time. If it wasn't you then you are in the clear; however if it was you then an early admission will bode well. However it is no different to a Police Officer asking you the same questions...but for the reasons mentioned above (unless done in a formal setting and interview) the evidence gleaned can be called into question. So I come back to my original point, the NIPD is the most cost effective method to get the information in an efficient and timely manner ;o)

[Business edition]

Mate I got the same sort of letter before.

Just send it back blank and with a letter. And you have done that so you should be fine

Nothing to worry about.

[xenon]

Originally Posted by ihpj

The only thing the NIPD is asking is who the driver was at the time. If it wasn't you then you are in the clear; however if it was you then an early admission will bode well. However it is no different to a Police Officer asking you the same questions...but for the reasons mentioned above (unless done in a formal setting and interview) the evidence gleaned can be called into question. So I come back to my original point, the NIPD is the most cost effective method to get the information in an efficient and timely manner ;o)

Well yes, but the NIP doesn't simply ask for the driver's details at the time, it clearly states prosecution may be brought to the driver at the time. Fair enough, in a case of a speeding photo it's undeniable that somebody driving the car is guilty and is to be prosecuted, but in the OP's scenario he, or anyone driving the car, is entirely innocent.

[IanS100]

Originally Posted by ihpj

The only thing the NIPD is asking is who the driver was at the time

As pointed out by xenon “it is intended to institute proceedings against you for the following” is a statement of intent not a request for information, it assumes guilt and advises me I WILL be prosecuted

Nowhere, on either of the forms that I received, does it ask whether I have knowledge of or was involved in an accident. It asks “Were you the driver of the Above Vehicle at the time of the collision? (Please Indicate) Yes No”
If I answer No then I am obliged to furnish details of the driver at the time of the accident, again guilt is assumed/implied. Shoot first ask questions later with no regard for the stress and anxiety caused

Originally Posted by ihpj

the NIPD is the most cost effective method to get the information in an efficient and timely manner ;o)

It may well be cost effective for the police but what about all the innocent people who receive these forms, I certainly didn’t find it cost effective as it wasted hours of my valuable time. Add that the time wasted by all the other people sent these “fishing” NIPs and this doesn’t look quite so “cost effective”

Whilst I agree that a postal enquiry form is the most cost effective for the police, if there's no other option but to send a full blown NIP then some sort of explanation should be enclosed. Unwarranted NIPs must cause huge amounts of stress & anxiety to dozens of innocent people and I doubt they do much to further police/public relations. The British judicial system is supposed to be based on the premise “innocent until proven guilty” whereas the forms I received simply assume guilt.

[MERLIN335i]

Originally Posted by IanS100

As pointed out by xenon “it is intended to institute proceedings against you for the following” is a statement of intent not a request for information, it assumes guilt and advises me I WILL be prosecuted

Nowhere, on either of the forms that I received, does it ask whether I have knowledge of or was involved in an accident. It asks “Were you the driver of the Above Vehicle at the time of the collision? (Please Indicate) Yes No”
If I answer No then I am obliged to furnish details of the driver at the time of the accident, again guilt is assumed/implied. Shoot first ask questions later with no regard for the stress and anxiety caused



It may well be cost effective for the police but what about all the innocent people who receive these forms, I certainly didn’t find it cost effective as it wasted hours of my valuable time. Add that the time wasted by all the other people sent these “fishing” NIPs and this doesn’t look quite so “cost effective”

Whilst I agree that a postal enquiry form is the most cost effective for the police, if there's no other option but to send a full blown NIP then some sort of explanation should be enclosed. Unwarranted NIPs must cause huge amounts of stress & anxiety to dozens of innocent people and I doubt they do much to further police/public relations. The British judicial system is supposed to be based on the premise “innocent until proven guilty” whereas the forms I received simply assume guilt.

I agree 110% If not already, they will worry someone to death !

[chris_s1]

The whole procedure stinks and everyone knows it. It is the paper version of beating a confession out of someone. Only because the ECHR were too chicken to make a decision on it that it still exists.

Originally Posted by IanS100

It asks “Were you the driver of the Above Vehicle at the time of the collision? (Please Indicate) Yes No”

Surely since there is no collision known about, you can truthfully answer NO to that question?

[xenon]

To re-iterate, I sympathise with the police and if I had a car damaged by somebody who did a runner I'd want the police to do everything possible but sending a Notice of Prosecution to all and sundry who happened to be in the area is surely not the way to do it. If I were the OP I'd return the form, uncompleted, saying that you have no knowledge of any collision or other incident and were not involved with anything alledged to have taken place.

[IanS100]

Originally Posted by chris_s1

Surely since there is no collision known about, you can truthfully answer NO to that question?

I’m afraid not, that’s the Catch 22 – “No” is simply saying No to being the driver, this answer then directs you to Section 2, which asks who was the driver of the vehicle at the time? The letter and form give no credence to the possibility that the car was not involved

Originally Posted by xenon

If I were the OP I'd return the form, uncompleted, saying that you have no knowledge of any collision or other incident and were not involved with anything alledged to have taken place.

I returned the completed form as requested, but with a note next to the YES box directing the reader to an accompanying letter in which I said exactly that

[m@rk]

So looking over to this post

http://www.e90post.com/forums/newrep...e=1&p=12004978

It would appear that the wording could have indeed been a lot better.

In that case, the recipient is not left in a no win position. The recipient understands that the sender is obliged to send this letter and that he is obliged to respond but also that nobody is claiming (at this stage) that he is guilty of anything

[Mart1000]

I agree to what some are saying. It is a badly worded document and needs updating. The bare bones need to stay but this letter should really come with an a booklet explaining things better.

However there are some top laughable posts that gave me a chuckle this morning, thanks