The legislative purpose of the requirement to serve a NIP within the 14 days is to enable the accused to recall the incident that gave rise to the allegation, and potentially gather evidence while it is still relatively fresh in his mind.
There is case law where the police have gotten the time wrong, but the accused knew exactly what the incident/allegation was, and the error did not invalidate the NIP as the legislative purpose was achieved.
There is other case law where the correct road was identified, but was held to be unduly vague as the police could have provided more precise information, and the NIP was invalidated.
Where the police have [in their own minds] ticked a box by specifying which umbrella offence is alleged but not meaningfully describing the allegation such that the accused would be able to recall the incident in question, I would suggest that the NIP would be invalid. I would also suggest that it might be prudent to set out your stall early by responding asking them to clarify what exactly is alleged.
N.B. There appears to be a question mark over whether the 14 day rule applies if a member of the public reports an incident too late to serve a NIP within the 14 days. If that was the case, then where there is no requirement to serve a NIP, there can be no defence from a failure to comply with a non-existent requirement.
N.B. Whether you think that they should be obliged to disclose the video at this point is irrelevant beyond indicating how appropriate your chosen username is or is not. What matters is what the law says.
