Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: Caught on December 16, 2025, 09:04:32 pm
-
I don't think so.
But I think the general experience is that the police will not consider anything like this but instead will only see it tested in court.
A late NIP effectively provides a defence to the speeding allegation. If the police believe it was sent in time they will want the court to decide whether or not it was delivered in time.
-
Thanks to all for replies.
Was generic complaint/reply to the police about late NIP, ever posted on here?
-
Gidden *does* help insofar as it clarifies that if it is found as fact by the court that the NIP was delivered late, the speeding prosecution cannot succeed. What it does not do is tell the OP how to prove in this case that his NIP was delivered late.
-
Not sure I got it correctly. You stated that I am in different position to Peter. Not sure why?
Sorry, perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.
The problem you have is proving late delivery. Mr Gidden did not have that problem. It is unclear whether the prosecution agreed that the NIP was late during his trial in the Magistrates’ Court. But it seems clear from the High Court judgment that the concession had been made in the Crown Court appeal. Here’s a passage from the High Court judgement:
"On 27th February 2009, before His Honour Judge Tremberg and two justices, the Crown Court dismissed his appeal and held that service was properly effected, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant did not receive the notice until 16 days after the commission of the offence."
The issue for Mr Gidden’s “case stated” in High Court did not involve the late delivery. The Court was asked to rule on whether the “presumption of service” (in two days) could be relied upon if proof of posting could show that, in the normal course of the postal service, it would arrive in time. As an aside, a case stated for decision by the High Court would not involve revisiting a matter of fact (in this case, whether the NIP was delivered late). That avenue, in normal circumstances, is exhausted following an appeal to the Crown Court.
Gidden is often cited when a late NIP issue is mentioned. But it doesn’t help you in your position because it did not consider whether the NIP was late, but only, accepting that it was, whether that late service satisfied the requirement of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders’ Act to serve a NIP within 14 days.
The prosecution argued that the presumption of service was not rebuttable; Mr Gidden argued that it was. The High Court agreed and since it was accepted that the NIP was delivered late, the court found in his favour.
-
Thanks 66 and six I agree that is why I have asked about ways to prove it? I believe it is impossible unless the burden of providing the proof is on the claimant but he can hide behind poorly written legislation and date provided on NIP which is not date when was delivered.
-
Thank you.
I get that and agree. You speak common sense.
Peter apparently spent £15k on fees when compared to £100, makes sense to accept easier choice.
I would suggest to add more detailed explanation to the Read This First so others will not bother experts on here with similar questions. 14 days rule is basically a scam unless issue date on NIP is 12 days after alleged offence. I will not go to the scenarios how this silly system of delivery could be abused in malicious way. Will leave it to peoples imagination.
-
In Peter’s case the judge confirms that it is on the police and the prosecuting authorities to prove NIP was delivered on time and only way to do it is presumption of service which cannot be rebutted.
So basically it is impossible to prove NIP was not delivered. Thanks to Peter’s case we know it can get late, that is fact but in law terms was still delivered on presumption.
Do I get it correctly?
No, the presumption can indeed be rebutted.
The relevant section of the Interpretation Act says: "... the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
But, as you know, proving the contrary is not easy.
-
While we all expect the Authorities to abide by the rules and that a late NIP should fail to get a successful prosecution, you also need to be pragmatic. 80 in a 70 is easily within scope of an awareness course, so apart from the cost and time to attend, there are no points on the licence. The alternative is a severe uphill battle in getting a court to accept the late NIP and the cost in losing that battle.
Your choice.
Don't forget the NIP must still be replied to within 28 days, whichever path you choose to follow. And (according to the dates on the NIP), most of those 28 days have already elapsed. Don't miss that.
-
Thanks of your reply.
Not sure I got it correctly. You stated that I am in different position to Peter. Not sure why? The only difference between myself and Peter is that he got postman to confirm delivery date but as you stated later "presumption of service" (in two days) was not rebuttable. I believe they can easily prove that they prepared the NIP in required timescale as it is dated 28th of Nov. So prosecutors will assume that NIP was served on time even without evidence of delivery which would be in case of Rec/Reg delivery. I think, I agree with that but how can I prove NIP sat for two weeks in post office or in the police outbox tray?
Second place where I am confused is your statements about law and fact. In my case RK got the NIP late not the driver. The driver was not named yet. There is no strike and letter was late that is the fact however how can I prove it was late in terms of the law, is what I am asking?
Is in not the case that the claimant must provide the evidence the NIP was delivered? Otherwise we could be living in the world when anybody can issue an invoice and claim it was delivered, but ignored?
In Peter’s case the judge confirms that it is on the police and the prosecuting authorities to prove NIP was delivered on time and only way to do it is presumption of service which cannot be rebutted.
So basically it is impossible to prove NIP was not delivered. Thanks to Peter’s case we know it can get late, that is fact but in law terms was still delivered on presumption.
Do I get it correctly?
-
Peter failed to convince magistrate so that 14 days rule is basically a scam as we can not prove it otherwise even with postman statements.
You are in a different position to Peter Gidden (at least when his conviction was finally overturned by the High Court).
The prosecution eventually conceded that the NIP had indeed been served late (though at what stage that concession was made is unclear). But they went on to argue that the "presumption of service" (in two days) was not rebuttable. This argument, if successful, would have meant that regardless of when - or even if - the NIP was actually served, if it could be proved that it had been sent in time then that would be good enough.
The High Court found that although this was the case had the NIP been sent by Registered or Recorded delivery it was not so for a NIP sent by first class post. Since Mr Gidden's NIP was sent by first class post and since the prosecution had conceded that the NIP was served late, the court found in his favour. The issue - at least for the High Court - was not whether the NIP had been served on time. The prosecution conceded that it hadn't. The issue for them was whether the presumption of service could be rebutted.
Secondly his NIP was delayed due to RM strike which is also wired as vat and other submissions were allowed to be filled late.
That is not correct when service of a NIP is involved.
If you convince the court that the NIP was served late you should be acquitted. If you are not then Gidden should help. The Gidden case is really most useful in response to the often heard remark when drivers query a late NIP which is "It was posted in time - that's all that matters" because it isn't. It is not so much use in helping establish whether the NIP was served in time as the judgement dealt with the matter of law, not the matter of fact. The High Court judgement concluded with this:
"I appreciate that this construction of the legislation may create problems for the police and prosecuting authorities, particularly when the postal service is on strike with the inevitable delays in delivery. The authorities must then adopt other means of warning, provided by section 1, if they are to avoid the risk of late delivery. Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending section 1(2) of the 1988 Act. It is not, however, for the courts to overcome the resulting inconvenience by distorting the clear language which Parliament has adopted."
Here's the High Court judgement:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2924.html
-
Thank you for prompt reply. Yes I have read it all. We also did expect the letter, however I doubt I could pin the post man with the delivery as we need to go to work, not possible to man the letter box all day and as you mentioned Peter failed to convince magistrate so that 14 days rule is basically a scam as we can not prove it otherwise even with postman statements. Secondly his NIP was delayed due to RM strike which is also wired as vat and other submissions were allowed to be filled late.
-
That 2008 case was Peter Gidden who used to be a member of the previous incarnation of this site, called Pepipoo. In that case Peter suspected that a NIP was coming his way and so when it was finally delivered, he had the postman witness him open the envelope and view the NIP and its late service. Even with an independent witness, Peter failed to convince the magistrate of his case, as well as the following appeal. It took a second appeal before his conviction was overturned.
-
Hi All, Wife is the RK and received NIP for the alleged offence on the 22nd on November, 80mph at 70mph motorway. The NIP landed sometime over the weekend between 13-15th of Dec.
We live at same address for at last 5 years and car is with us for at least 5 years. The V5C is correct, so only reason why it was late must be due to post sitting on it. I am saving now all CCTV recordings, to see when it exactly arrived.
I have read a lot about the issue and to be honest I am not sure how I can prove that it was not delivered on time apart from having cctv showing post man dropping it over the weekend and wife collecting it from our box which is outside on Monday. I am not sure I will be able to prove that the letter dropped by post man was the letter with NIP. I read good thread on Pistonheads where someone won the HJ but that was in 2009 https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=533717&i=240. Also many threads on here which refer to errors on the NIP or were late clearly because RK changed either car or address, but in my situation that is not the case.
So the question is how I can prove the late delivery?
Thanks you