Speeding NIP

Chris Gradwell
Member - 3 posts

It has to be sent to the registered keeper within 14 days. If the company have had the original dated within the 14 days and replied with the drivers details which has then been actioned they have complied with the 14 days. You need to establish whether this is the first and only NIP sent. If it is then they can be challenged.

The company is only required to name the driver which they appear to have done?

Kelly Mansfield - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 62 posts

John - to answer your query I spoke to John Maslen, who was formerly with Fleet News and is the Editor of our Driving at Work report. He provides the following guidance, which I hope will answer your query:

There are a lot of legal sites on the internet that cover the 14 days issue and I enclose one of the better summaries below.

I have also confirmed this through contacts with safety camera partnerships.

You position depends on a couple of very important points.

Firstly, is the letter actually dated more than 14 days after the offence or did it arrive more than 14 days after the offence? The Police only need to post it within the time limit, not ensure its arrival.

In addition, if your vehicle is leased, then the NIP date might become irrelevant, as the dates involved would refer to the notice being sent to the leasing company, who would then reply with the driver’s details so the NIP could be forwarded. In this case, the 14 day limit would be irrelevant.

It is possible to tie yourself in legal knots with this, so it may be worth turning to a specialist legal defence service that specialises in motoring offences.

BUT and it is a big but…..

The question seems to be focused on finding a loophole in the law to help the driver avoid a fair prosecution for speeding, but it doesn’t really consider the legal position of the company and how it is best served in this case.

As an employer, the focus of management should be on the cause of the speeding and avoiding it happening again, not normally on helping staff avoid speeding fines.

In this case (more than 50mph in a 60mph zone) the driver was significantly exceeding the speed limit.

In the event of an accident, this could cause problems with your insurance cover, as the driver was breaking the law. Some insurers may simply pull cover.

You must also question WHY the driver was speeding. A number of drivers involved in incidents have blamed their employers for putting them under pressure to speed to meet deadlines.

As a result, the police have visited employers as part of their investigations and it has caused significant upset and disruption.

Bear in mind that in the event of a crash on company business, they may also want to see mobile phone records for the driver, maintenance records and your fleet policy.

If there is evidence of repeated phone calls from the office while the driver is on the road, this could cause problems.

Clearly if you want to defend your employee from prosecution, that is an important aspect of keeping them loyal and motivated, but it is also vital for the business to get to the root cause of the problem.

If speeding is endemic in your business, then it may be worth reviewing your accident record and your insurance costs and considering whether to raise awareness of the company’s support for sticking to speed limits, rather than helping drivers avoid prosecution for breaking the law.

As a final point, if the driver is covering business mileage in a private vehicle, then please ensure that he actually has the correct insurance.

If the driver is only paying for private use, then the company could become directly liable in the event of an accident while on business.

BELOW IS A SUMMARY OF THE KEY ISSUES RELATED TO THE 14 DAY LIMIT ON NIPS.

I hope this helps.

Please let me know if there are any further questions based on this answer.


**

Notice of Intended Prosecution

Section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 requires that a Notice of Intended Prosecution MUST be given for certain offences. These include:-
Dangerous Driving
Careless & Inconsiderate driving
Leaving a vehicle in a dangerous place
Dangerous cycling
Careless & Inconsiderate cycling
Failing to conform with the indication of a police officer when directing traffic
Failing to comply with a traffic sign
Exceeding temporary speed restrictions by s14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
Exceeding speed restrictions on a special road
Exceeding temporary speed limit imposed by order
Speeding offences generally.
There is an exception to this and an NIP is not required if the offence arises out a Road Traffic Accident.

It is important you thoroughly read the next section .

A person shall not be convicted of an offence in which this section applies 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 14 days of the commission of the offence a summons (or, in Scotland, a complaint) for the offence was served on him, OR

(c) within 14 days of the commission of the offence a Notice of 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 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.
‘Within 14 days of the commission of the offence’ - Subsections (1)(b) and (c) above means that the Notice must be posted to reach the defendant by ordinary post within 14 days of the offence.
It was decided in Groome v Driscoll (1969) 113 SJ 905, that a Notice of Intended Prosecution posted the day after the offence which failed to arrive within 14 days was deemed to have been served.

Conversely in Nicholson v Tapp [1972] 1 WLR 1044, it was held that a Notice of Intended Prosecution sent by recorded delivery on the fourteenth day after the offence was deemed NOT to have been served.
Service of the Notice of Intended Prosecution
Sections 1(1a), (2), (3) and (4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provide various methods of obtaining valid service of a Notice of Intended Prosecution. They state:-

1(1a) A Notice required by this section to be served on any person may be served on that person by:-
(a) delivering it to him;
(b) addressing it to him and leaving it at his last known address; OR
(c) sending it by registered post, recorded delivery or first class post addressed to him at his last known address.

1(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 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. NB - This does NOT mean the NIP is ineffective if served by first class post-it refers to legal presumptions should the case go to court
1(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.
The Notices do not have to be signed personally by the Chief Constable. It will suffice if, for example, they are sent out by an Office Manager, so long as it is obvious that it is being sent on the Chief Constable's behalf. In a computerised age the name of the person generating the Notice may be a printed rather than having a hand written signature Arnold V DPP

James Fairchild
Member - 292 posts

John,

The company must cover its back by naming the driver to the SCP. You have 28 days in which to do this. If there is some confusion, you should be honest and state so, rather than risk making a mistake.

I would respectfully suggest that it is for the employee theirselves to find and use the loopholes if they can, not the company. However, you could do worse than to direct them to http://www.pepipoo.com

Trying to put Kelly's post about the 14 day rule into one sentance, its when the FIRST NIP in the chain is sent - that could well be the one to your company, or the one to a leasing company/hire company etc. However, it is when this first NIP is received, not when it is sent that is important - i.e. if it is posted by the police on day 12, but doesn't arrive until day 15 - this would be out of time.

Obviously the more time that is passed by documents being posted off, the more legitimate it is to say "i don't remember who was driving, my colleague/wife/mechanic/budgie sometimes drives the car" - but noone on here would advocate anyone lying.