Free Traffic Legal Advice

It would be very unusual for the police to send a NIP to the person showing as insured on the MIB database when there is a registered keeper without first sending a NIP to the RK.

It would be far less unusual for posters to swear blind that somebody who does not have the V5C in their possession, showing their correct and current address, is the RK.

RK name and address is correct. RK hasn't received a NIP.

How have you confirmed that?

I'm the RK

The point that Andy & Southpaw are trying to make is that we often have people swear they are the registered keeper, right up to the point they are asked to confirm that they have the physical piece of paper that is the V5C form in their hand and that it has their name and address on it.

I'll outlay the facts.

I'm not a newcomer, and have previously sought advice on Pepipoo, and I'm aware of the futility of providing incomplete information or the foolishness of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

I'm the RK. I have the V5 in my name and address.
I was NOT the driver.

The NIP has been sent to the insured party, likely from MIB records.
They were NOT the driver.

The driver on the date of the alleged offence had permission to do so by the owner of the vehicle and were insured to do so. No issue there.
They have accepted they will need to take the punishment for it, whether fixed penalty & points or speed awareness course.

My question is WHY have they written to the insured party, rather than the RK?

If the offence date was months ago, of course we could suspect the RK (me) has received a NIP and ignored or it's got lost in the post.
But it was less than 28 days ago which isn't enough time for the RK to ignore a NIP, so why not just send to the RK in the first place.

In any case, the NIP, which I'm presuming (rightly or wrongly) to be the first one they've sent out is dated past the 14 day rule.

So having not been in this position before, I'm asking advice from more experienced people than myself what the procedure is here.

Do I contact the police as the RK asking why it wasn't sent to me?

Does the insured party contact them pointing out it's past 14 days?

Or should they just name the driver and be done with it.
Does the driver then have options to bring up that it was beyond 14 days sending out the original NIP?

There is no "procedure" as such.
The addressee of the NIP is required to name the driver, as NJ has mentioned.

If no NIP was served on the driver or RK within the 14 days, and if this can be proven, then that is a defence to the speeding charge, unless the police could not with reasonable diligence ascertain the RK (or driver's) details in time to serve a NIP within the 14 days, or if some other statutory exception applies (ss. 1&2 RTOA 1988).

Ultimately, it is for the driver to rely on the defence in court, but anyone can write to the police and raise the issue. Whether the police will respond to them or not is another matter.

For the police to use the MIB database would suggest that they had been unable to contact the RK through the (copied overnight) DVLA data on the PNC - e.g. wrong address, returned NKATA. Beyond that, as Mystic Meg and Doris Stokes have now both passed to the other side, we have no idea why this would have happened.

N.B. If, as you protest, this is not your first rodeo, you would presumably know that V5s have not been a thing for many, many years.

I'll outlay the facts.

I'm not a newcomer, and have previously sought advice on Pepipoo, and I'm aware of the futility of providing incomplete information or the foolishness of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

I'm the RK. I have the V5 in my name and address.
I was NOT the driver.

Were you the RK on the date of the alleged offence?

N.B. If, as you protest, this is not your first rodeo, you would presumably know that V5s have not been a thing for many, many years.

Well I'm holding 2 in my hand right now, well a V5c if you're being pedantic. As far as I know that's still what they're called.

I'm not protesting anything, as I've said, I'm familiar with how things work here, as far as being truthful etc go, we'd save both of us time by not continuing to assume I'm not being.