Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, back in Feb/23 I received a NIP for speeding 38m in a 30m road.
I was allowed and attended my awareness course.
Today, 02/09, I received the same NIP with date and time from Feb.
I can’t find any of my emails that shows I have attended the course or the original NIP to check on ref.

My husband suggested me to write back and explain. But I want to check if this is quite normal to get, duplicate NIP within months, and whatever I should do.

Thanks

When I attended my one, and only (hopefully), SAC in 2015, the two Smashy And Nicey characters took turns, like a tag-team of tedium, to say "don't drive so fast" in as many different ways as possible.  With PowerPoint slides.  For four hours.

And the worst thing was that they really were trying to make it interesting.  Bless them.

But at the end they did implore us to keep our documentation from the day to prove we'd attended, apparently it was quite common to get follow-ups because of administrative ****-ups.

If this "duplicate NIP" includes a S172 request for driver details, would this still need to be provided, even though a duplicate?

Quote from: tonys on September 08, 2023, 07:10:32 am

If this "duplicate NIP" includes a S172 request for driver details, would this still need to be provided, even though a duplicate?

There is no time limit on s172 requests, so yes.

Except that this would effectively extend the time for prosecution (for the s172 offence if no reply is received). As far as I know there is no case law in E&W addressing this point. However, there was a case reaching the Scottish Appeal Court back in 2010:

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=77be8aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

In precis, a s172 notice was served and received no reply. Some months later the police visited the recipient to ask who was driving at the relevant time and were told by him that he could not remember who was driving. He was subsequently prosecuted under s172. The charge was "time barred" using the date of the original s172 notice but not barred if the date of the police visit was used. The lower court dismissed the case but the PF appealed by way of a case stated (or whatever is the Scottish equivalent), arguing that the request for information creates an ongoing offence and can be considered to begin again when a later request is made..

Although the circumstances are not the same (and in any case not binding on courts in E&W) the principle is similar to  that here. The Scottish Court ruled that there can be no ongoing responsibility and that repeated requests cannot, generally, be lawful.